Flight delayed - compensation?

[audi321]

tuffer said:

How much do you think you are entitled to? How much did it inconvenience you and you family and how much are you out of pocket? What are those four hours worth to you and your family?
Personally I fly most weeks and if a flight was delayed 4 hours I could not care less, I would not expect compensation unless there was a direct cost involved such as car parking or if I missed a connecting flight and had to pay extra.

The difference between landing at 11.30pm and 4am. Having 2 young kids and me and the misses being at work the next morning. So yeah quite an inconvenience in my eyes.

[blueg33]

tuffer said:

How much do you think you are entitled to? How much did it inconvenience you and you family and how much are you out of pocket? What are those four hours worth to you and your family?
Personally I fly most weeks and if a flight was delayed 4 hours I could not care less, I would not expect compensation unless there was a direct cost involved such as car parking or if I missed a connecting flight and had to pay extra.

Legislation sets the amount.

Can't see why people say you shouldn't claim for something that you can claim for where legislation sets out the fact you can claim.

No claiming is akin to not returning a new TV that doesn't work. In both cases there is legislation to protect the consumer.

[tuffer]

audi321 said:

tuffer said:

How much do you think you are entitled to? How much did it inconvenience you and you family and how much are you out of pocket? What are those four hours worth to you and your family?
Personally I fly most weeks and if a flight was delayed 4 hours I could not care less, I would not expect compensation unless there was a direct cost involved such as car parking or if I missed a connecting flight and had to pay extra.

The difference between landing at 11.30pm and 4am. Having 2 young kids and me and the misses being at work the next morning. So yeah quite an inconvenience in my eyes.

Exactly, so that is what you ask for.

[tuffer]

blueg33 said:

tuffer said:

How much do you think you are entitled to? How much did it inconvenience you and you family and how much are you out of pocket? What are those four hours worth to you and your family?
Personally I fly most weeks and if a flight was delayed 4 hours I could not care less, I would not expect compensation unless there was a direct cost involved such as car parking or if I missed a connecting flight and had to pay extra.

Legislation sets the amount.

Can't see why people say you shouldn't claim for something that you can claim for where legislation sets out the fact you can claim.

No claiming is akin to not returning a new TV that doesn't work. In both cases there is legislation to protect the consumer.

I am not saying he shouldn't claim, I was stating that he knows what it has cost him and whether he thinks he is entitled to an amount and what that amount should be. Legislation may set the amount but he can justify if it is worth submitting the claim, after all it will just end up costing you more time and effort.

[audi321]

Well I used the resolver website to put in the complaint. Took literally 3 minutes. We'll see what happens and I'll report back.

They have 14 days to respond before I can escalate to their customer service manager.

Edited by audi321 on Sunday 26th February 10:37

[anonymous-user]

blueg33 said:

Legislation sets the amount.

Can't see why people say you shouldn't claim for something that you can claim for where legislation sets out the fact you can claim.

No claiming is akin to not returning a new TV that doesn't work. In both cases there is legislation to protect the consumer.

There's all kinds of things you might be able to get money for but people don't. Daytime TV is full of advert for injury claim lawyers. It's up to individuals to decide what's reasonable.

As for flight delays, generally speaking if an airline has a delay when eu law dictates passengers are eligible to make a claim, around 40% of passengers will do so. If more people claim, fares simply increase to cover these claims. Airlines simply can't have enough aircraft and crews ready to stop delays of 4 hours occurring somewhere on their route network. It's just the nature of running an airline. After Brexit, this is one over punitive EU law that I expect will disappear.

[djc206]

blueg33 said:

See the Monarch case. But basically, yes they are expected to have aircraft and crews available. That is the courts decision. My opinion is irrelevant, the law is what counts.

Next time someone starts a thread moaning about how much holidays cost I'll be sure to remind that a large part of it is exercising their legal right to be unreasonable.

[anonymous-user]

djc206 said:

blueg33 said:

See the Monarch case. But basically, yes they are expected to have aircraft and crews available. That is the courts decision. My opinion is irrelevant, the law is what counts.

Next time someone starts a thread moaning about how much holidays cost I'll be sure to remind that a large part of it is exercising their legal right to be unreasonable.

It's their right. It's the law!

Not doing it is like not returning a broken telly,. Aparently.

[blueg33]

El stovey said:

blueg33 said:

El stovey said:

blueg33 said:

Not correct.

If the icky person was on another flight then the airline should have flexibility to deal with it.

Monarch lost a similar case recently because they didn't have an alternative aircraft when the planned one became unavailable.

I think op may have a case, the extraordinary circumstance was not on his flight.

Op. Use Resolver and raise a claim

People calling you an idiot are twonks, just ignore them

So if a flight stops off somewhere enroute between Stansted and Sofia to drop off a sick passenger, the airline should have immediately got together a crew and aircraft and sent it to Sofia? Even though the original aircraft was still going to Sofia with the rest of the passengers.

Do you think airlines just have aircraft and crews sitting ready at the end of the runway just in case this happens. Even if they did have one, it would still have to get to Sofia when the first aircraft diverted. Or do you think they should have one ready in Sofia also?

See the Monarch case. But basically, yes they are expected to have aircraft and crews available. That is the courts decision. My opinion is irrelevant, the law is what counts.

What exactly was the monarch case?

I will save you the effort of Google.

Incoming flight struck by lightning, plane grounded for checks as required by aviation rules, no alternate plane available. Monarch lost the case.

2 conclusions drawn, lightning strike is not exceptional circumstance, other aircraft should have been available. There are lots of similar cases for technical faults and lots of cases that demonstrate that many thing you think would be exceptional, like weather, are not exceptional.

Big question, is medical emergency on another flight exceptional, possibly not, medical emergencies are surprisingly common. (I have a mate who is a Lufthansa pilot. He reckons medical emergencies are frequent).

[djc206]

blueg33 said:

I will save you the effort of Google.

Incoming flight struck by lightning, plane grounded for checks as required by aviation rules, no alternate plane available. Monarch lost the case.

2 conclusions drawn, lightning strike is not exceptional circumstance, other aircraft should have been available. There are lots of similar cases for technical faults and lots of cases that demonstrate that many thing you think would be exceptional, like weather, are not exceptional.

Big question, is medical emergency on another flight exceptional, possibly not, medical emergencies are surprisingly common. (I have a mate who is a Lufthansa pilot. He reckons medical emergencies are frequent).

Medical emergencies are incredibly common, diversions for medical reasons less so but you could argue not exceptional. Regardless of the law and your legal right to compensation would you want to deter airlines from instigating diversions by claiming extraordinary sums of money for relatively minor inconvenience? I really do think the law needs revisiting, the idea that you can claim more than you paid for your fare is ridiculous. The law is an ass.

I've personally worked aircraft where people have had heart attacks and the pilots have dropped their planes like a stone into the nearest airport to try and save the life of the sick passengers. I've worked an aircraft on which a young woman had miscarried and the pilots diverted immediately without hesitation. I hope should I or any my kin ever fall sick to such an extent that we divert but I fear that people being what I consider to be unreasonable and inflexible in light of such an event will shift the culture towards ploughing on.

[anonymous-user]

blueg33 said:

El stovey said:

blueg33 said:

El stovey said:

blueg33 said:

Not correct.

If the icky person was on another flight then the airline should have flexibility to deal with it.

Monarch lost a similar case recently because they didn't have an alternative aircraft when the planned one became unavailable.

I think op may have a case, the extraordinary circumstance was not on his flight.

Op. Use Resolver and raise a claim

People calling you an idiot are twonks, just ignore them

So if a flight stops off somewhere enroute between Stansted and Sofia to drop off a sick passenger, the airline should have immediately got together a crew and aircraft and sent it to Sofia? Even though the original aircraft was still going to Sofia with the rest of the passengers.

Do you think airlines just have aircraft and crews sitting ready at the end of the runway just in case this happens. Even if they did have one, it would still have to get to Sofia when the first aircraft diverted. Or do you think they should have one ready in Sofia also?

See the Monarch case. But basically, yes they are expected to have aircraft and crews available. That is the courts decision. My opinion is irrelevant, the law is what counts.

What exactly was the monarch case?

I will save you the effort of Google.

Incoming flight struck by lightning, plane grounded for checks as required by aviation rules, no alternate plane available. Monarch lost the case.

2 conclusions drawn, lightning strike is not exceptional circumstance, other aircraft should have been available. There are lots of similar cases for technical faults and lots of cases that demonstrate that many thing you think would be exceptional, like weather, are not exceptional.

Big question, is medical emergency on another flight exceptional, possibly not, medical emergencies are surprisingly common. (I have a mate who is a Lufthansa pilot. He reckons medical emergencies are frequent).

So actually that's an entirely different example to what may have happened to the OP.

[anonymous-user]

djc206 said:

Medical emergencies are incredibly common, diversions for medical reasons less so but you could argue not exceptional. Regardless of the law and your legal right to compensation would you want to deter airlines from instigating diversions by claiming extraordinary sums of money for relatively minor inconvenience? I really do think the law needs revisiting, the idea that you can claim more than you paid for your fare is ridiculous. The law is an ass.

I've personally worked aircraft where people have had heart attacks and the pilots have dropped their planes like a stone into the nearest airport to try and save the life of the sick passengers. I've worked an aircraft on which a young woman had miscarried and the pilots diverted immediately without hesitation. I hope should I or any my kin ever fall sick to such an extent that we divert but I fear that people being what I consider to be unreasonable and inflexible in light of such an event will shift the culture towards ploughing on.

Unfortunately that's exactly what will happen if higher percentages of people make these claims.

Imagine you're running an airline with tiny margins in a cut throat industry, passengers are buying tickets for 60 euros and you know that a medical diversion might result in every passenger being paid 400 euros and again on the next sector of the aircraft,

Would you advise your crews to divert regardless of cost or push on if it's a bit unclear what's wrong with them, you're already telling them to carry the minimum amount of legal fuel and giving them the minimum amount of legal rest and making them work the maximum amount of legal hours.

[blueg33]

El stovey said:

So actually that's an entirely different example to what may have happened to the OP.

No its not. Its about exceptional circumstance and delay because alternative aircraft not available. Lots of parallels.

Edited by blueg33 on Sunday 26th February 11:41

[King Herald]

El stovey said:

Unfortunately that's exactly what will happen if higher percentages of people make these claims.

Imagine you're running an airline with tiny margins in a cut throat industry, passengers are buying tickets for 60 euros and you know that a medical diversion might result in every passenger being paid 400 euros and again on the next sector of the aircraft,

Would you advise your crews to divert regardless of cost or push on if it's a bit unclear what's wrong with them, you're already telling them to carry the minimum amount of legal fuel and giving them the minimum amount of legal rest and making them work the maximum amount of legal hours.

Maybe they should do it democratically, ask the other passengers: "divert, or let him die, place your votes now". There could be a vote system on the in-seat screen.

But then there would be the losing few who demand a re-vote, and then a Re-re-vote unlit they get their way, ala Brexit and Trump.....

[gregs656]

Just recently I have been hearing adverts on the radio for airline delay claims handling people.

The law as it stands goes too far.

[V8LM]

Other than have an aircraft waiting at the airport (and every other airport) just in case, what could the airline have done to lessen the four hour delay?

[Blaster72]

Bit harsh on the OP really.

Compensation for flight delays is clearly laid down and applying for it is simple with the number of firms out there now.

OP, have a look on flightstats.com for your flight and it'll tell you how long it was delayed to support your claim.

All the info you need is also on the CAA website http://www.caa.co.uk/Passengers/Resolving-travel-p...

I'd say you're in the €400 range due to flight distance although as already said it might be turned down as an extraordinary circumstance if a medical emergency delay your aircraft arriving in Sofia.

The only thing I can see you've done wrong is to use a 3rd party to claim, they take a cut of any compensation don't they??

[V8LM]

The outbound Ryanair flight was 3.5 hours late leaving Stansted on Friday, so if you were on 9962 delayed 3.5 hours back (ATD 3:31 pm) then maybe question the medical emergency and diversion...

ETA:

The outbound flight would probably have been the first of the day for the aircraft - http://www.flightstats.com/go/FlightStatus/flightS...

Flightradar24 has the status of the flight as Unknown - https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/fr9961

Edited by V8LM on Sunday 26th February 18:07

[Blaster72]

The compensation rules are based on schedule vs actual arrival times too not departure times just for info.

[paul789]

Compensation is one of the words / phrases guaranteed to wind up PH, just like MSport, S-Line or "Yes, but public opinion can evolve".