airline sued for cancelled travel

just heard on bbc somebody sued airline for cancelled trip

they mentioned its a european ruling for long distance travel

programme working lunch bbc 2 thu 2 feb 06

sorry can't find any more details at moment !!

Can't find anything on either the BBC website or Sky!!!!!

Would be very interested to know more!!

So would I and good luck to them.

i couldnt find any info myself so sent an email to working lunch dept at bbc

have just received this today so thanks for replying bbc :)


<span style="color:teal">An airline passenger has won £840 in compensation for a cancelled Thomas Cook Airlines flight. David Harbord, a former Oxford don, and his son, had their flight from Stansted to Vancouver cancelled. He's the first person to win a case against an airline under a new european regulation which has it that airlines have to pay £420 compensation and a full refund to each passenger when a long-haul flight is cancelled.</span id="teal">

now been able to find this

http://www.euromove.org.uk/goodnews/aircompensation

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...020733,00.html

Up go the airfares to allow a safety margin for this I'd imagine [msnsad]

My thoughts too John[msnsad]

Does anyone know when a delayed flight becomes a cancelled flight?

By that I mean if a charter firm says it will take you 12 hours later, 24 hours later, 48 hours?

There was a case in the local US paper of a cruise passengers' delayed flight meant they missed the boat(literally) from Cape Canaveral and were trying to claim from the airline.

Robert I think that this should be quite clear cut. If a flight retains the the same flight number then it is a delay. If you end up on a new flight number, then the original flight must have been cancelled. With flight slots being so precious from the likes of Manchester Heathrow Gatwick etc, then I'd have thought that the chance of a flight being delayed until the next day would be remote, they'd just shoehorn you onto other flights.

Perhaps Mach 2 will know?

Julie?

Of course the upside might be that they make sure they get you off on time as the penalty is an incentive.

(Yes I know naive huh?)

just received another one

###################

New hope for air passengers as the grounded fly high in court

From The Guardian - 04/02/2006

Two legal victories by Guardian Money readers against easyJet and Thomas Cook have paved the way for air travellers to claim compensation after cancelled flights. Airlines have been fighting EU compensation rules since they were introduced in February 2005, but the cases indicate small claims courts are coming down firmly on the side of passengers.

This week, economist David Harbord took on and defeated a barrister appointed by travel giant Thomas Cook at Oxford county court. Two weeks earlier, Philip Adams and Sylvia Duffy won pounds 854 from easyJet after it failed to contest their claim in Carmarthen.

The cases are thought to be the first successful actions in the UK brought under the terms of the EU air passengers right legislation that came into force in last year (see below) and should encourage more consumers to take similar action.

Mr Harbord, who lives near Oxford, filed his claim after Thomas Cook refused to compensate him for cancelling a flight to Vancouver on August 5 last year. "My son and I checked in on time at Stansted, only to be told that the plane was actually in Manchester undertaking repairs. The company offered to bus us all up to Manchester where our onward journey would commence after a night in a hotel.

"It didn't sound good idea so I booked us on to another flight. When I got back I claimed compensation on the basis they had effectively cancelled the flight - after a struggle, the company refunded the fares I'd paid but refused the euros 600 compensation that was due on each ticket," he says.

Despite facing all the legal big guns that Thomas Cook's legal department could throw at him, the economist rebutted their arguments, believing the EU regulations were clearly on his side. He was awarded pounds 840 plus pounds 80 costs.

While the judge found in his favour, he also gave Thomas Cook leave to appeal, and the company has 14 days to decide whether it will.

A Thomas Cook spokesman said the company is "currently considering its options".

"We argued that the flight was not cancelled but was delayed for technical reasons beyond our control. We didn't abandon our customers - we bussed them to the plane and put them up in a hotel while it was being repaired."

While Mr Harbord is still waiting to receive his money, Philip Adams and Sylvia Duffy of Ferryside, Carmarthen already have theirs. The pair, who regularly travel to Italy, were due to fly from Rome to Bristol when their easyJet flight was cancelled - coincidentally, this was also on August 5 last year.

Instead they were offered a flight to Newcastle, but told by easyJet they would have to pay for the connecting flight back to Bristol. "The airport was in chaos, not least because this was the second day that easyJet had cancelled the flight. One young woman had been waiting 30 hours, and there was a family with eight children, not knowing what to do," says Philip.

When they eventually arrived home and complained, they were offered the cost of their original tickets (pounds 62.48 each) minus pounds 5, but denied the compensation set out in the regulations. Philip filed a claim with his local small claims court. "Prior to the case easyJet rang me with a view to settling it out of court. I rang back and left a message but didn't hear anything. Last week I heard that it had been uncontested - and we had effectively won." The pair claimed a total of pounds 854 - including the cost of the initial tickets, the extra flights, a taxi ride and compensation of euros 400 per ticket.

"easyJet refused to own up to their responsibilities, which was why I wanted to take it to court. We were quite lucky in that we got back home - some of the other people due to fly back that day will have endured a nightmare. Looking back, we should have all swapped phone numbers and fought together: I suspect that most will have let the matter drop, unaware they are entitled to compensatio

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Robert I think that this should be quite clear cut. If a flight retains the the same flight number then it is a delay. If you end up on a new flight number, then the original flight must have been cancelled. [/quote]

Macka,
I really don't think it is that simple.

Take these 2 cases:

Most airlines have the same Flight Number each day, say, VS60* from Orlando to Manchester. If VS60 is 'delayed' 24 hours and you are put on VS60 the next day is that a cancellation or a delay? put on it 2 days later? 3 days?

*A made up number - I don't fly Virgin.

If Virgin cancelled, say, their Orlando to Manchester flight but flew you the same day from Orlando to London and booked you on a BA Flight to Manchester - what happens? They have cancelled the flight so different flight number. Is that a cancellation under the EEC act?

The re-routing due to flight cancellation is a pretty frequent occurance. 2 cases recently with BA from USA to UK (for a bird strike and smoke in cabin) All passengers were put on other flights back to UK. A cancellation certainly - passengers entitled to compensation?

From Tezz's latest post it would appear that both Thomas Cook and EasyJet are arguing that if they get you to, or near, your destination it does not count as a cancellation under the EEC ruling.

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Robert5988
Does anyone know when a delayed flight becomes a cancelled flight?

By that I mean if a charter firm says it will take you 12 hours later, 24 hours later, 48 hours?

There was a case in the local US paper of a cruise passengers' delayed flight meant they missed the boat(literally) from Cape Canaveral and were trying to claim from the airline.


[/quote]
With a charter, the airline is contracted to the [u]tour operator(s)</u> who have chartered the aircraft to fly their passengers from A to B. The only way the flight can cancel is if the tour operator(s) cancel it with the airline, hence a delay of any length would not be considered a cancellation if the charter airline was fulfilling its obligation to its customer ie the tour operator(s), to transport their passengers to their final destination.
All of which makes the Thomas Cook case very intersting.

[/quote]
With a charter, the airline is contracted to the [u]tour operator(s)</u> who have chartered the aircraft to fly their passengers from A to B. The only way the flight can cancel is if the tour operator(s) cancel it with the airline, hence a delay of any length would not be considered a cancellation if the charter airline was fulfilling its obligation to its customer ie the tour operator(s), to transport their passengers to their final destination.
All of which makes the Thomas Cook case very intersting.
[/quote]

Not sure I follow that - why isn't it a 'cancellation' if the airline fails to operate the flight? The obligation upon the carrier must surely be more rigourous than just to carry the passengers to their destination at some future time and date.

I think it comes down to Robert's initial point - when does a delay become a cancellation? I suspect it might simply depend on the particular circumstances of the individual case.

The legal jargon............

Article 5
Cancellation

1. In case of cancellation of a flight, the passengers concerned shall:
(a) be offered assistance by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 8; and
(b) be offered assistance by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 9(1)(a) and 9(2), as well as, in event of re-routing when the reasonably expected time of departure of the new flight is at least the day after the departure as it was planned for the cancelled flight, the assistance specified in Article 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(c); and
(c) have the right to compensation by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 7, unless:
(i) they are informed of the cancellation at least two weeks before the scheduled time of departure; or
(ii) they are informed of the cancellation between two weeks and seven days before the scheduled time of departure and are offered re-routing, allowing them to depart no more than two hours before the scheduled time of departure and to reach their final destination less than four hours after the scheduled time of arrival; or
(iii) they are informed of the cancellation less than seven days before the scheduled time of departure and are offered re-routing, allowing them to depart no more than one hour before the scheduled time of departure and to reach their final destination less than two hours after the scheduled time of arrival.
2. When passengers are informed of the cancellation, an explanation shall be given concerning possible alternative transport.
3. An operating air carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.
4. The burden of proof concerning the questions as to whether and when the passenger has been informed of the cancellation of the flight shall rest with the operating air carrier.

For the full article go here............

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...030483-02.hcsp

thanks Julie - the article defines 'cancellation' as:

"...the non-operation of a flight which was previously planned and on which at least one place was reserved".

I would say that means that if the flight THAT DAY doesn't operate, irrespective of whether it has the same flight number as those on following dates, it is a CANCELLATION.

Clearly, if the airline cancels a future service before it has sold seats on it, it can't be a cancellation.

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Katys Grandad
[/quote]
Not sure I follow that - why isn't it a 'cancellation' if the airline fails to operate the flight? The obligation upon the carrier must surely be more rigourous than just to carry the passengers to their destination at some future time and date.

I think it comes down to Robert's initial point - when does a delay become a cancellation? I suspect it might simply depend on the particular circumstances of the individual case.
[/quote]
Sorry, I probably didn't explain what I was trying to say too well. A charter airline has to operate the original flight (even with a delay in place), - it has signed a contract with a tour operator to do so, it cannot cancel it outright, but must operate as soon as possible. There are new EU regulations now in place to protect passengers, which can only be a good thing.

Dawn I think the confusion arises when comparing a charter flight with a scheduled flight, in my view if a flight number does not operate on the day/date you were booked then it is cancelled, if say the VS75 which you were booked on departing on the 1/3/2006 is delayed passed midnight it will still be the VS75 from the 1/3/2006, even though there is another VS75 the next day, but if they 'combine' those two flights and you travel on the 2/3/2006 and not the 1/3/2006, and the VS75 from the 1/3/2006 does not operate as per your booking then your flight is cancelled[msnwink]

Yes Julie, I agree. that is the difference between charter and scheduled[msnwink]

Hmmmm, interesting.

I see your point Robert.

So are we saying that a passenger on a scheduled flight has more cancellation protection in law than a Charter flight? Possibly.

I'm sure this won't be the last through the small claims court and I guess the definitions will be redefined and the picture becaome clearer with a precedent.

Ultimately, if you feel as though you have been unfairly treated you probably have and should look into your case on it's own merits as has been said.

It's a double edged sword though, it could push the prices up as John said, however I'm always in favour of legislation designed to protect the consumer.

We got a phone call last week informing us that the plane we were travelling on doesnt go that day anymore so have to have the day before or day after,we booked up as soon as they came up for sale so we were able to go the day we wanted to,which we found very inconvenient.I wonder what would have happened if there were no seats available on the other planes though

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:I'm sure this won't be the last through the small claims court and I guess the definitions will be redefined and the picture becaome clearer with a precedent.
[/quote]

Macka,
I see no difference in the regulations for charter and scheduled flights.

As you say I think there will be many cases in court until a precedent is established for various circumstances. It is pertinent to point out that is EEC legislation so case law cannot be established in British courts.

Personally I think many cases will hinge on the following clause:
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote: An operating air carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.
[/quote]

You can bet the airlines will try to broaden the definition of 'extraordinary circumstances'.

Weather? Mechanical failure? Bird Strike? Fuel shortage? Crew ill? etc.

From what I have read Weather seems to be commonly accepted as a valid reason; but just how open ended are the grounds for applying that 'excuse'? The 'knock-on' effect of, say, snow in NE USA can ground planes and cause disruption for a Miami - UK flight a day or 2 later.

Yes Robert it's a minefield isn't it?

My experience in the small claims court (been twice now), is that the Judges tend to side with the "small guy". If you, as the plaintiff seem to have a reasonable grievance and on the face of it (P/F) have lost out in some way, then even if the airline also has a reasonable case, they tend to come down on the side of the plaintiff, (for reasons best left for another thread I'd suggest).