[Weis]

Our laudamotion (subsidiary of Ryanair) flight was delayed a total of 7 hours. The first delay of 2 hours they said was due to a technical issue. The flight was delayed several more times with no more information given. We were “boarding” twice, getting on buses and one of those times we’re taken out to a plane on the tarmac only to be taken back to the gate. During the 2nd and 3rd delays there was a period of bad weather, rain and some lightning. But not for long. All the other flights from that gate took off during our subsequent delays.

Our flight was eventually cancelled but after we reclaimed our bags they said there was a plane after all and we could leave. When on the plane the pilot made a point to come out and apologize, also noting the bad weather. My question is, they are going to deny any claim because of weather but I think that is false. Why did they begin boarding if weather was cause? Why did all other flights take off? What can we do if they falsely claim weather was the issue?

[openfly]

Go for the jugular with your claim. Claim on the basis of “technical” reasons. As you say other flights departed on time and were not affected by the weather. This delay was totally the airlines fault as admitted by the staff and they are obliged to pay the EU261 compensation appropriate to the lengthy delay. Good luck with your battle!

[capetonianm]

It’s very difficult when there are cumulative delays caused by a variety of different reasons. Where for a example a technical incident causes an initial delay of 2 hours, as was the case here, and then the aircraft is subjected to another delay due to weather or ATC restrictions, is the total delay deemed to be within the control, and thus the responsibility, of the carrier?

I am not sure if there is a ruling or a precedent on this.

[MarkCymru]

The bad weather is only a basis to deny a claim if it was exceptional (zero-visibility fog or an ash cloud, for example). A good test is whether other planes were taking off and landing during the period in question. If they were, as you suggest, this is unlikely to be a reason to avoid compensation

[capetonianm]

The bad weather is only a basis to deny a claim if it was exceptional (zero-visibility fog or an ash cloud, for example).

That in itself is not correct. For example, ground operations are restricted when there is an electric storm, due to the potential danger from a lightning strike. Heavy rain causing runway flooding is another one. Neither is as ‘exceptional’ as the examples you suggest, but it is accepted as beyond the control of the airline, thus grounds for rejecting an EU261 compensation claim.

[NorskSaint]

I’m having cumulative battle with BA at the moment. Outbound flight was delayed 30mins into Miami, we were then held onboard for another hour due to thunder storms in the area (ATC restrictions). Finally as we taxied towards the runway, 1hr 30 late, we had to return to the stand because of a technical issue, finally we pushed back and took off 2:50hrs late, losing another 10mins en-route to LHR, meaning we landed 3:02 mins late.

As you can imagine BA is claiming ATC restrictions due to weather, but I’m fighting them on exactly that point, that had we taken off following the storms we wouldn’t have been late, but the technical issue delayed us further meaning it qualifies for EU261.

I’m on my third response to BA, if they decline then I will take it into the official process.

Norsk

[mkcol74]

@NorskSharp If I’ve understood correctly you’re expecting EU261 compensation for a long haul flight from Miami to Heathrow which was 3hours 2 minutes late? If that is, then the delay was not long enough.

[Swissdiver]

[quote quote=953638]@NorskSharp If I’ve understood correctly you’re expecting EU261 compensation for a long haul flight from Miami to Heathrow which was 3hours 2 minutes late? If that is, then the delay was not long enough.[/quote]

Indeed. For long haul flights (>3500km), the threshold is 4 hours.

[capetonianm]

As a matter of interest, although not relevant here, the delay is counted up to the time of the opening of the first passenger door for disembarcation. Landing time is not relevant.

3 users thanked author for this post.

NorskSaint, Montysaurus, mkcol74

[mkcol74]

[quote quote=953741]As a matter of interest, although not relevant here, the delay is counted up to the time of the opening of the first passenger door for disembarcation. Landing time is not relevant.[/quote]

@capetonianm The number of times I have to tell people this & they disbelieve me. Annoyingly I can’t remember the case in which this was decided.

2 users thanked author for this post.

NorskSaint, capetonianm

[capetonianm]

I was once asked to help someone with a claim when they took off late but arrived (just) within the 3 hour limit. This may seem unfair but compensation is based on the law as it is, not as we would like it to be.

1 user thanked author for this post.

mkcol74

[SimonS1]

[quote quote=953738]

mkcol74 wrote:

@NorskSharp If I’ve understood correctly you’re expecting EU261 compensation for a long haul flight from Miami to Heathrow which was 3hours 2 minutes late? If that is, then the delay was not long enough.

Indeed. For long haul flights (>3500km), the threshold is 4 hours.[/quote]

This is incorrect.

For long haul the threshold is now 3 hours. Between 3-4 hours you get half compensation (€300) and over 4 hours you get full compensation (€600).

https://www.caa.co.uk/Passengers/Resolving-travel-problems/Delays-cancellations/Delays/Long-haul-delays–compensation/

Ignoring the matter of extraordinary circumstances, a delay of 3h 02m on a Miami flight entitles the traveller to compensation.

2 users thanked author for this post.

mkcol74, capetonianm

[capetonianm]

Thanks Simon, I had been wondering why some sources say 3 hours and some say 4. It’s clear on the CAA website to which you kindly provided a link, but I can’t find this information on any other official website.

[Swissdiver]

[quote quote=953762]

Swissdiver wrote:

mkcol74 wrote:

@NorskSharp If I’ve understood correctly you’re expecting EU261 compensation for a long haul flight from Miami to Heathrow which was 3hours 2 minutes late? If that is, then the delay was not long enough.

Indeed. For long haul flights (>3500km), the threshold is 4 hours.

This is incorrect.

For long haul the threshold is now 3 hours. Between 3-4 hours you get half compensation (€300) and over 4 hours you get full compensation (€600).

https://www.caa.co.uk/Passengers/Resolving-travel-problems/Delays-cancellations/Delays/Long-haul-delays–compensation/

Ignoring the matter of extraordinary circumstances, a delay of 3h 02m on a Miami flight entitles the traveller to compensation.[/quote]

This seems to be a British interpretation. This is the rule: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32004R0261:en:HTML

Article 7 is very clear. Unless a rerouting has been proposed, it is 4 hours for a long haul.

[SimonS1]

[quote quote=953949]

SimonS1 wrote:

Swissdiver wrote:

mkcol74 wrote:

@NorskSharp If I’ve understood correctly you’re expecting EU261 compensation for a long haul flight from Miami to Heathrow which was 3hours 2 minutes late? If that is, then the delay was not long enough.

Indeed. For long haul flights (>3500km), the threshold is 4 hours.

This is incorrect.

For long haul the threshold is now 3 hours. Between 3-4 hours you get half compensation (€300) and over 4 hours you get full compensation (€600).

https://www.caa.co.uk/Passengers/Resolving-travel-problems/Delays-cancellations/Delays/Long-haul-delays–compensation/

Ignoring the matter of extraordinary circumstances, a delay of 3h 02m on a Miami flight entitles the traveller to compensation.

This seems to be a British interpretation. This is the rule: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32004R0261:en:HTML

Article 7 is very clear. Unless a rerouting has been proposed, it is 4 hours for a long haul.[/quote]

This is incorrect.

In fact the ruling about entitlement to €300 compensation for delays over 3 hours was by the Germany courts in Air France v Folkerts and subsequently confirmed by the European Court of Justice.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=134201&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=8331695

3 users thanked author for this post.

NorskSaint, Jacob, mkcol74

[Author]

Posts