Tech Delay - No Excuse!

[MaxReheat]

Just listened to piece on BBC's 'You and Yours' reporting that the UK High Court has just ruled in favour of someone who brought a claim against a UK airline for delay compensation. The court decided that the airline's excuse for the delay, an aircraft technical problem, was not an 'extraordinary event' and that compensation under EU regs was payable.

Floodgates open? More airport standby? Or shock, horror, some spare aircraft capacity in the fleet?

[tezzer]

I did this last year, after a KLM UK flight into Humberside came in, and the flaps were stuck in landing config. Ensuing 3 hour delay while another aircraft came in from Scotland meant that I missed me connection to Madrid, and therefore my meeting.

I put a claim in wihth KLM, who bounced it, so quoting the relevant case law, sent it off to EUClaim.com, and the airline paid out the 250 euro compensation.

[Megaton]

Higher fares for all most likely.

[Brian Abraham]

I missed me connection to MadridPoor sod. Who would you claim against if you got a flat tyre driving to your meeting, and missed the meeting. Stuff happens.

[westie]

I'm amazed at the current British public who seem hell bent on litigation and compensation. The only way this will go is higher fairs to cater for it.
The first duty of the pilots is safety. Would you have preferred they tried to take off with full flap? No delay but you might have ended up in a heap somewhere.

[Orestes]

This is more like you having paid someone to drive you to your meeting, and he didn't get you to your meeting because he had a flat tire.

[west lakes]

EU law going back a few years, folk can now claim in England for delays up to 6 years ago.

[Best foot forward]

As if it wasn't hard enough already to make money out of flying planes. Its strange that when it comes to FDP's the airline lobby, can get basically what it wants, regardless, but they can't this piece of legislation turned over.

[tezzer]

Poor sod. Who would you claim against if you got a flat tyre driving to your meeting, and missed the meeting. Stuff happens.

Stuff does happen, but ultimately someone is responsible, in this case KLM. I have no qualms about claiming the compensation to which I'm entitled.

The one time I couldn't claim was when some selfish person jumped under my train as we hammered through Stevenage. The ensuing delay cost the company I work for around £1.8 million pounds for a lost contract. The train driver was so traumatized he had to be removed and replaced, while the body parts were rinsed away.

[westie]

The one time I couldn't claim was when some selfish person jumped under my train as we hammered through Stevenage. The ensuing delay cost the company I work for around £1.8 million pounds for a lost contract. The train driver was so traumatized he had to be removed and replaced, while the body parts were rinsed away.

Oh come come. Surely it's guys like you who would have found someone you could have claimed off? The deceased's estate or the train company for having to find a replacement driver?

[mr Q]

Selfish Person ??
Why don't you do some research on suicide and the complex causes of suicide?

[surely not]

Entitled? To what?

Entitled to a safe flight yes but to say you are entitled to no delays is plain stupidity. That you should expect no delay is realistic, but if the aircraft is tech then you are entitled to have someone make it safe for you to fly on, and to expect the delay to be as minimal as possible.

If you and your company always leave things so tight on trips then you can expect it to go wrong every now and then.

You and your ilk can pat themselves on the back when air fares rise up and the marginal routes close due lack of business.

[Phileas Fogg]

I'm in some agreement with Tezzer,

He paid his fare, KLM took his money, but KLM failed to provide the product that he had purchased.

Technical problems happen, I have a resort where we might lose electricity which in turn shuts down the water supply, I need to compensate my guests in such an event so why shouldn't KLM compensate their guests?

[poorjohn]

Ham Pfisted: Higher fares for all most likely.Not to worry, the Big Sh@t in charge will make up the difference by using contract 'operators' sourced via Singapore. iPhone/Siri (knockoff) to translate ATC. Don't worry about him.

His painful alternative is to 'think' - he might accidentally realize that he's still in business because he's *not* Ryan, despite the drum-beat that NO slf would pay a penny for old-fashioned customer service ("#2, remind me what that expression means?"), and who knows where that would lead? Well-paid employees, doing their happy best? A process to mimize the effect of delays, including tech, on said slf?

Stop! Too painful...!

[ExXB]

Somewhat ironic but when the European Parliament was debating this Regulation they insisted that nothing in it would ever compromise safety. Funny, I thought they were the regulators, not the courts.

Compensation for a technical delay of a full A319 short haul could be €40,000, a 314 seat B777 could be €188,000. (a 451 seat B777 would be €271,000)

And when the average profit per passenger is less than $6 ...

I'm not so certain that some airlines won't put pressure on their staff to operate in a 'less than safe manner' (notice, I didn't say unsafe).

Yes, I realise, that air crew can refuse to do so, but …

[IB4138]

Here is the Manchester Evening News Article

Ron Huzar Jet2.com legal compensation: Dad's legal victory over airline brings payout hope for thousands of delayed passengers - Manchester Evening News (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/ron-huzar-jet2com-legal-compensation-7251944)

[Johnny F@rt Pants]

but ultimately someone is responsible

WHY???

Why does there always have to be somebody responsible?

Why can't things just happen? It's unfortunate when they do, but ultimately in life things do just happen.

Why can't we accept this and move on, we all get delays occasionally, but whilst they are frustrating they are just a fact of life, whether that be a plane journey, train, bus taxi etc etc.

This WILL undoubtedly result in higher fares, the costs have to be covered somehow, and as ExXB states these costs are very high, and are commonly double what he quotes as there is often another load of passengers affected by that initial delay.

Here's hoping the rule is scrapped!

[paully]

This is a nonsense ruling by a not overly bright judge (there are sadly many of them as well) but it IS going to the Supreme Court where the arguments might be properly tested. The reported comments of this judge seemed to indicate he didnt know the facts before him. It will take more time but hopefully a common sense decision will be arrived at.

Now one turns to the salivating plebs, who are now conditioned to expect something for nothing...It used to be an annual claim on the Travel Insurance, and I suppose for some it still is. But in their greed they totally fail to understand where these silly claims will be paid for and the first to whinge when air fares wack up :ugh:

Mate of mine once brought a T shirt back from OZ...it simply said `**** Happens`..just a pity we cant force all these greedy buggers to wear one:}

[IB4138]

What planet are some of you on?

The hearing was in front of THREE, not one judge, at the Royal Court of Justice. Leave to appeal has been refused.

The Lawyer comments:
Bird & Bird has lost an appeal for airline Jet2.com against a delayed passenger in a ruling which could pave the way for millions of airline compensation claims.

Bott & Co today won compensation for Ronald Huzar, who was delayed for 27 hours on his way from Malaga to Manchester. Today the Court of Appeal (CoA) ruled that the technical issue causing his delayed flight could not be classed as an extraordinary issue and was the fault of the airline, meaning that Jet2.com is liable to pay compensation.

Current regulations allow passengers to claim compensation if a flight is delayed by more than three hours unless it is caused by an ‘extraordinary circumstance’.

Giving the leading judgment, Lord Justice Elias said: “In my view HH Justice Platts was right to say that the extraordinary circumstances defence did not apply, albeit that I respectfully disagree with his reasoning, I would dismiss the appeal.”

Huzar launched a claim for compensation last year at Stockport County Court after his plane broke down and a specialist engineer had to travel from the UK to Malaga to fix it.

His claim was thrown out by the district judge but he was granted leave to appeal.

Bott & Co then triumphed in the Manchester Country Court in October last year when His Honour Judge Platts found technical problems were part of the everyday running of planes.

At the CoA stage, Fountain Court Chambers’ Akhil Shah QC was drafted in for the hearing in front of Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Elias and Lady Justice Gloster. The judges quashed the airline’s appeal, refused leave to appeal and granted Huzar €400 (£323) in compensation which the airline had refused to pay.

The airline turned to Bird & Bird partner Robin Springthorpe, who instructed Quadrant Chambers’ Robert Lawson QC for the CoA. At County Court level, Quadrant’s Tom Bird appeared for Jet2.com and was retained as Lawson’s junior in the appeal court.

Bott & Co partner David Bott acted for Huzar. Bott had previously turned to St Johns Building’s Darren Crilley for the Stockport County Court hearing.

Jet2.com argued that the wiring issue causing the flight delay was an unforeseeable issue which it should not have to pay compensation for under EU regulations. However the court ruled today that in Huzar’s case the cause of the technical problems was wear and tear, a routine part of running an airline for which they should pay compensation.

Elias LJ said: “The delay caused by the resolution of an unexpected, unforeseen and unforeseeable technical problem cannot be said to be an extraordinary circumstance.

“Air carriers have to encounter and deal with such circumstances as part of running an airline just as the owner of a car has to encounter and deal with unexpected and unforeseen breakdowns of his car.”

[chrissw]

I find this judgement at least slightly extraordinary.

One judge said that technical problems are part and parcel of the running of an airline.

That is very, very true, and something with which no one can disagree. Tech will happen at times and there is no way to avoid that. I suppose that it's a more or less random thing.

Moreover, no airline or passenger wants tech failures. They are no good for anyone.

However, even though tech is inevitable, when it does happen, it seems to me it is an extraordinary circumstance, if only because everyone (in their right mind!) does everything they can to avoid it. You're unlucky if it happens to you.

[paully]

I read a different version that leave to appeal has been granted, nevertheless I have little doubt that it will end up at the Supreme Court, as said court can be petitioned and there is a huge point of law re what constitutes `reasonable`..still to be fully decided..

IB..just because there were 3 judges doesnt mean anything. I spent decades in the law and have seen some right :mad:turkeys..

[poorjohn]

Hyperbolic extremes are irrelevant to the discussion. It'll cost a gazillion pounds to compensate an A380 full of pax for a delay just as it'll cost a thousand gazillion pounds for killing them all. The latter seldom runs the offending carrier out of business as long as they don't do it very often, and neither will paying the modest cost of an unacceptable tech delay. It's called insurance.

Regulations exist to modify citizens' and corporations' behavior toward some social good, not to punish either. Faced with paying for some level of tech delay airlines may elect to insure themselves (while making adjustments to make sure that will cost their pax a tiny amount per ticket). The result will be slightly better, safer service.

(A poster mentioned compromised safety due to employer-dictated dispatch of an unsafe aircraft. Please assure us that doesn't happen in the EU, and should it be demanded, you have a channel by which to bring it to the attention of authorities without compromising your job.)

[Johnny F@rt Pants]

The result will be slightly better, safer service.

No it won't, tech delays will still occur because that's the nature of anything mechanical, they break down occasionally.

It will result in higher fares, could put some airlines out of business, let's not forget that I doubt any airline has insurance at the mo, if they can ever get it due to the undoubtedly astronomic cost that an insurer would likely charge. These claims can be back dated for the last 5 years, if all passengers claimed for their delays from the past 5 years I am certain that there are some airlines that couldn't afford the bill and would have to shut up shop. What will that achieve? No compo for a start, and higher fares due to less competition!

It might also result result in longer delays once the 3 hours is breached, companies might say that the aircraft that has passed the 3 hour mark can now go to the back of the queue and that others that have some issue can take preference to attempt to get them away within the 3 hours, I know I would if it was my train set.

[ExXB]

Poorjohn

Liability insurance for aircraft accidents is mandatory. You cannot fly without insurance. It is mandated by Warsaw/MC99 and is a requirement of air services agreements.

Insurance against Regulation 261 compensation claims is not available on the market. Even if it was the premiums would be so expensive that no company could afford them.

I certainly hope no pilot would ever take the cost of compensation claims into account when determining if it is safe to depart. But as the courts have decided that just about any delay, baring weather, invokes compensation I fear that this will become a factor.

And how long will it be until the courts decide that the weather is also 'not extraordinary'?

[IB4138]

It might also result result in longer delays once the 3 hours is breached, companies might say that the aircraft that has passed the 3 hour mark can now go to the back of the queue and that others that have some issue can take preference to attempt to get them away within the 3 hours, I know I would if it was my train set.

I think you will find this is already the case, but will be denied.

Additionally, some airlines appear to be attempting to hide behind "extraordinary circumstances" and instead of expediting engineers to apply a fix or provide a replacement aircraft within the three hours, are not in too much of a hurry to do so. Probably on instructions from the company bean counters and/or senior management, thinking of "the bottom line".

They are now about to find out just how misguided this thinking is/was.

[KBPsen]

how long will it be until the courts decide that the weather is also 'not extraordinary'? When a judge can say the following nonsense without blushing it wont be long.

The delay caused by the resolution of an unexpected, unforeseen and unforeseeable technical problem cannot be said to be an extraordinary circumstance.

some airlines appear to be...The usual disclaimer when someone is just making it up as they go along.

[IB4138]

The usual disclaimer when someone is just making it up as they go along.

No, there is proof, but it is subjudacy at the moment.

[KBPsen]

"subjudacy"? Is that a religious thing?

[Phileas Fogg]

I've recently voiced a gripe of a past experience in the BA thread.

Having a nice day out in Luxembourg, and due to return on BA City flyer Express to LGW (I lived and worked at LGW so I didn't want to travel to any other LON airport) the next day, BA telephoned me to tell me that my next day's flight LUX/LGW was cancelled due to aircraft technical.

Having then been an Operation Officer, Operations Controller, Crew Scheduling Manager etc. for some 20 years I laughed at the guy to the effect "So you're telling me that in BA's entire fleet they don't have a spare aircraft of any description to operate LUX/LGW tomorrow?" and he told me that was the case.

I then asked him if they had tried sub-chartering in an aircraft to operate the service, I knew he was BS'ing me so I told him to "give me 30 minutes, I'll find an aircraft for you, I've been doing it for the past 20 years" ... I can't recall his words but I realised that I wasn't going to achieve anything by arguing.

BA involuntary rerouted me on a LuxAir B737 via LHR and the aircraft was so empty it was embarrassing, "cancelled due technical" my @ss!

So they should be sued.

[WHBM]

One of the key issues which the EC legislation was trying to address was where airlines encountered issues, which we all know happen, but then, for their own operational convenience, made a real mess out of the service recovery which was entirely in their hands.

I still object to BA, at times of LVPs at Heathrow, cancelling much of their short-haul programme, leaving long-haul untouched to meet the reduced landing slots, BUT THEN pretending the whole dislocation to the affected pax is wholly because of the weather, when the weather conditions are quite adequate for any BA aircraft to operate, but BA have taken a COMMERCIAL decision on which flights they will scrub or not. They need to make such a decision, but the rationale of sending off a string of half-empty 747s to New York, while once-a-day flights to Eastern Europe are cancelled, is a commercial/operational decision decided at the board meeting many months before, and not wholly attributable to "the weather".

[paully]

``Having then been an Operation Officer, Operations Controller, Crew Scheduling Manager etc. for some 20 years...

And you never pulled any sort of a stunt, porky or lie in all that time?.....yer right :ugh:

[ExXB]

Well, I don't use BA any more. I know how they handle losing slots on a bad weather day at Heathrow. They cancel some or all of the short-haul connecting flights that I want to travel on (no, they are not picking on me personally, Sh*t happens). Then they make me 'stand-by' (used to be with a full J/C fare) and hope that they will be able to accommodate me. (As if I was doing them a favour).

But the BA situation is unique. Weather delays at GVA are often because there is a lot of white stuff on the runway that the airport can't clear quick enough. I don't think LX or U2 should pay me compensation in such situations. In fact I don't want LX or U2 to think twice about operating with technical faults.

[Heathrow Harry]

too many airlines abused the "extraordinary" excuse for too long TBH

they'll do ANYTHING to avoid paying up when treating passengers properly in the rare case of a cancellation wouldn't cost very much

of course it may not be "rare" for some outfits

[davidjohnson6]

There are probably 4 likely outcomes from this ruling:
1 - Airlines will devote more resources to aircraft maintenance and flight reliability, both reactive and preventative
2 - Fares will go up
3 - Reliability of flights will increase, both in terms of %'age flights completed and %'age of flights with no more than a small degree
4 - Airlines will be less inclined to experiment with smaller airports where there are fewer engineering resources in case things go wrong

Aircraft reliability costs money. Nobody wants to pay for it, but when aircraft go tech, airlines just point to the contract saying "we will get you there at some time of our choosing or refund you your money" and passengers end up screwed. Happened to me earlier this month.

Ultimately, it's all a big policy decision. How much of a safety net does Europe want to ensure flights are reliable and on time ? How much do people value their time to avoid lengthy flight delays ? Are we as a society prepared to pay for the safety net of reliability and back-up, or do we prefer to have a wider variety of flights for lower fares but suffer lower reliability ?

[poorjohn]

Despite the 'news', all this case law seems to be ancient history, dating from 2005-2008 per Wikipedia, so the prophecies of doom and disaster can be tested by reading the archives.

Anyone thinking of starting a new airline in the EU but frightened by the thought of paying tech-related compensation to their pax will be heartened by the realization, extracted from threads like this one, that a significant majority of moms across the continent have dutifully instilled high morals in their collective brood. These life-rules include a feeling of deep empathy toward the Corporation, long-suffering at the hands of less-well-raised customers ("passengers", "SLF" or "cretins" in this case). Thus the majority will find it abhorrent to file a claim, and the financial success of the Corporation will be secure.

[The SSK]

Another UK case - Dawson v Thomson Airways - has established a 6-year limitation period for claims, so if bith judgements are upheld by the Court of Appeal (assuming Jet2 and Thomson appeal), you will be able to claim for any 3-hour tech delay suffered in the last six years.

[ExXB]

Well, you can claim ... The Jet2 judgement didn't say that all tech delays were subject to R261, just the one that occurred on that flight. While the criteria has obviously tightened each will have to be considered on its own merits. I can't think of any airline that will just roll over and pay all claims, including claims previously denied, that occurred up to six years ago.

Bird strikes are technical in nature, for example, but still considered extraordinary circumstances.

[Mr @ Spotty M]

It means the flood gates get opened for Thomson, most airlines have already been paying out on claims using the 6 year rule.