PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight) (https://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight-61/)
-   -   Tech Delay - No Excuse! (https://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/541478-tech-delay-no-excuse.html)

MaxReheat 11th Jun 2014 11:17

Tech Delay - No Excuse!
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 11th Jun 2014 11:28

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 11th Jun 2014 11:33

Higher fares for all most likely.

Brian Abraham 11th Jun 2014 12:15

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

westie 11th Jun 2014 12:22

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 11th Jun 2014 12:22

Tech Delay
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 11th Jun 2014 12:24

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

Best foot forward 11th Jun 2014 12:30

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 11th Jun 2014 12:58

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 11th Jun 2014 13:03

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 11th Jun 2014 13:42

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

surely not 11th Jun 2014 13:48

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 11th Jun 2014 14:04

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 11th Jun 2014 14:10

Ham Pfisted:

Higher fares for all most likely.
Not to worry, the Big [email protected] 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 11th Jun 2014 14:33

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 11th Jun 2014 14:57

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

Johnny [email protected] Pants 11th Jun 2014 15:45

but ultimately someone is responsible

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 11th Jun 2014 17:44

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 `Shit Happens`..just a pity we cant force all these greedy buggers to wear one:}

IB4138 11th Jun 2014 17:54

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 11th Jun 2014 18:40

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.

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:58.

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.