EU261 compensation discussion

paddy19 wrote: »

[HTML]
Travel itinerary EU carrier Non-EU carrier

From: EU to EU Covered Covered
From: EU to non-EU Covered Covered
From: out of EU to EU Covered Not covered
From: out of EU to non-EU Not covered Not covered
[/HTML]

Thank you Paddy. You confirmed my suspicions.

That is the way I read it first. But that means that the EU regulations penalise EU airlines on long-haul routes. Strange.

Hey folks,

Looking for help (and it might be pointless at this stage) awaiting a refund under 261 from Wow which they agreed to and confirmed that they would be paying nearly 6 months ago.

For my own sanity I can’t phone them again to get the same robotic response.

Nothing paid yet. What is my next option? If any, especially if they are going to the wall soon.

Thanks!

Browney7 wrote: »

Was flying back to Ireland from Europe the night of storm Ali (the storm had passed several hours previously but the backlog caused widespread delays). Flight arrived 3.5 hours late into Dublin. Ryanair declined EU261 citing exceptional circumstances.

Read on the UK CAA site that weather effecting earlier flights isn't exceptional. Is it worth an appeal and to whom do I appeal if so?

So Ryanair refused the claim so I referred the claim to the AESA in Spain who determined Ryanair should have paid the €250. I've followed up with Ryanair again and they still aren't playing ball. Is small claims court the only open avenue left?

Another option you have is a company called Air Help
Airhelp.com who will do the chasing for you (if you can't be bothered or haven't the time) for a commission.
I haven't used them myself but a colleague of mine has used them twice in the past and was successful both times.
It's very simple, there's even an app for your phone where you answer a few small questions and they do all the chasing for you...

billy few mates wrote: »

Another option you have is a company called Air Help
Airhelp.com who will do the chasing for you (if you can't be bothered or haven't the time) for a commission..

Very hefty commission, 25% for an airline claim and 50% for a court claim.

billy few mates wrote: »

Still better than letting the airline trouser it.
If you've got the time and inclination to put the work into then it's obviously preferable to do it yourself travels a lot for business, he doesn't have the time to go chasing up airlines every time he's delayed,
It might not be for everyone but if it works for someone it's better than nothing.

I'm always amused at the "owe so busy" and wealthy folk who don't have the time or inclination to get this loot.

All it normally takes is a bit of organised chasing up which is what most busy people need to do for work anyway. I doubt that many of them earn the rate per hour that this following up generates.

That's the reason the airlines make it a bit more difficult for the rest of us.

Popeleo wrote: »

True.

Anyone know which applies if you book with an EU airline but the flight is operated by a non-EU airline?

Who do you have contract with? Which airline flight do you have?

See #92 for details on Non_EU Airline liability.

When KLM are highlighting ""operated by Non-EU Airline Ltd." they are clearly signalling that they are trying to limit liability.

The preamble to EU261 states that the obligations created by the regulation “should rest with the operating air carrier who performs or intends to perform a flight, whether with owned aircraft, under dry or wet lease, or on any other basis.”

The regulation defines an “operating air carrier” as “… an air carrier that performs or intends to perform a flight under a contract with a passenger or on behalf of another person, legal or natural, having a contract with that passenger.”

In your case KLM would the legal person under which the operating airline would provide the flight.

So I think you could be sure that KLM would "hide behind the operating airline, who won't have to pay under EU261".

paddy19 wrote: »

See #92 for details on Non_EU Airline liability.

When KLM are highlighting ""operated by Non-EU Airline Ltd." they are clearly signalling that they are trying to limit liability.

The preamble to EU261 states that the obligations created by the regulation “should rest with the operating air carrier who performs or intends to perform a flight, whether with owned aircraft, under dry or wet lease, or on any other basis.”

The regulation defines an “operating air carrier” as “… an air carrier that performs or intends to perform a flight under a contract with a passenger or on behalf of another person, legal or natural, having a contract with that passenger.”

In your case KLM would the legal person under which the operating airline would provide the flight.

So I think you could be sure that KLM would "hide behind the operating airline, who won't have to pay under EU261".

KLM tries to hide. But they still are the ones that have the contract with the passenger. The passenger is not concerned who KLM contracted to actually perform the flight operation. If one has a KL flight number - it is a KLM flight and EU261 applies.

Yes, as with all things legal, it get more complex.

So it depends on who bears operational responsibility for the flight.
An operating air carrier is therefore the carrier which decides to perform a particular flight, fixes its itinerary and concludes contracts of air carriage with passengers, either himself or on behalf of another company.

On 4 July 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the "CJEU") delivered a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU in the case of Wolfgang Wirth and others v Thomson Airways Ltd 1.

This case was unusual, it was a charter company controlled everything and all the wet lease airline did was provide the crew and fly the plane.

But it does provide clarity on who the operating air carrier is.

26 In the light of all of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred is that the concept of an ‘operating air carrier’ within the meaning of Regulation No 261/2004 and, in particular, of Article 2(b) thereof must be interpreted as not covering the case of an air carrier, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which leases to another air carrier an aircraft, including crew, under a wet lease, but does not bear the operational responsibility for the flights, even where the booking confirmation of a seat on a flight issued to passengers states that that flight is operated by the former air carrier.

I'm pretty sure KLM are not wet leasing aircraft and taking operational responsibility for code share flights.

KLM are not liable unless they are controlling all aspects of the flight.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=8837A44BA9B2E44E36621CC588B1285A?text=&docid=203541&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=11889255

L1011 wrote: »

Affects to earlier flights do not count. They can sub in or hire in aircraft to avoid the delay if they really want to

Do you have a reference for any case decided at EU level that specifies knock on effects from a flight earlier in the day are not grounds for exceptional circumstances?

I got rebooked on a flight 11am next day.

First thing, BA are refusing to deal with me, telling me I have to claim compensation from AA. Is that correct?

Second, I think all the schedule issues and swapping crews and planes followed a much earlier hail storm, so would I even be entitled to anything if they say it was weather?

Thanks for reading, I hope it's coherent...[/quote]

The prospects for compensation under 261 are not good.

As you can see from the earlier thread the critical factor is who is in control of the flight, who decides the flight schedule etc. It looks like BA are correct and your claim would be with AA.

Given it's a non EU operator and the flight is outside the EU261 does not seem to apply.

You entered into a contract with BA to get you to your ultimate destination.

Whoever they chose to outsource part of that contract to, is their problem.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You entered into a contract with BA to get you to your ultimate destination.

Whoever they chose to outsource part of that contract to, is their problem.

Did you bother to look at the BA contract before holding forth with such certainty? Best you get is a refund if they don't deliver you to your destination.

https://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/information/legal/british-airways/general-conditions-of-carriage

Section 9..

This whole thread is about your rights under EU 261.
This has nothing to do with contract law.

site_owner wrote: »

I was put on another flight so I can't get a fare refund per the T&C's

Or is there another section I should look at?

You could try one of those companies that will chase it up for you?