Alitalia MilleMiglia - No EC241/2004

Good evening,

Alitalia have been an shambles this evening.

To cut what could be a long story short, I have been refused an EC241/2004 form. I will look later but I thought by law they were obliged to give me compensation and let me know what my rights are.

Not sure where to get my cash now.... Every Alitalia person is denying responsibility

Good evening,

Alitalia have been an shambles this evening.

To cut what could be a long story short, I have been refused an EC241/2004 form. I will look later but I thought by law they were obliged to give me compensation and let me know what my rights are.

Not sure where to get my cash now.... Every Alitalia person is denying responsibility

I'm not too sure what you mean by EC261/2004 "form"?? There are no forms, and compensation certainly does not have to be paid "on the spot". Informing a person covered by a relevant case about their rights is indeed a legal obligation as part of the directive. There are a few possible standard ways in which this is done (posting the information at the airport etc). To know if you are indeed eligible, we would need more information as to what actually happened as it is not very clear from your post (just to be clear - I'm certainly not blaming you, I know how infuriating flying incidents are, and FT is certainly not priority no1 in those cases, but if you want to give more details, maybe some of us on the forum can provide more useful help or advice).

Good evening,

Alitalia have been an shambles this evening.

To cut what could be a long story short, I have been refused an EC241/2004 form. I will look later but I thought by law they were obliged to give me compensation and let me know what my rights are.

Not sure where to get my cash now.... Every Alitalia person is denying responsibility

First of all its 261/2004 :p Depending on the situation (if you let us know what actually happened then we could help you) you may well be eligible. If they are denying responsibility and you are 100% sure they owe you the cash, then you will have to take them to court I think.

First of all its 261/2004 :p

Maybe he does mean EC241/2004 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32004R0241:EN:HTML).

Commission Regulation (EC) No 241/2004 of 12 February 2004 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables.

Fruit and vegetables, interesting...

I assume it's something else we're talking about here though, if it was a delay or a cancellation you're talking about, you'd better give us the details so we can analyse the situation!

All,

Firstly to clarify I am not particularly interested in EU vegetable legislation, as important as the subject may be. ;-)

I will stick to the operational failures. AZ1479 FCOVCE was delayed which resulted in my flight AZ1480 being initially delayed from 1800 to 2100. I went to the lounge and the kind third-party agent transferred me to the AZ1476 which was to leave at 1905 leaving some room (in her opinion ; I don't know the FCO MCTs) to connect to the 2115 AZ210 to LHR.

Boarding was completed late (a few minutes past 1905), not helped by the fact that the aircraft was parked at a remote stand in VCE. We then waited over 30 minutes because the aircraft's documentation had not arrived.

The flight left around 35 minutes late (1940 ish; need to check). We arrived at a remote stand again at FCO. A member of staff was waiting with a placard for London and said the flight was closed and we would be overnighting.

For clarity, AZ did organise a hotel. The AZ1480 eventually landed around 2100 I believe.

However, I have not yet been told about compensation as per EU regulations.

Thanks in advance.

One of the problems is that EC261/2004 is clearer with regards to cancellations (or excessive delays that can be assimilated to cancellations) on single flights as compared to problems coming from missed connections. In fact, a few months ago, European authorities organised a relatively large-scale consultation exercise about that particular aspect. It is most likely that AZ will play the "your VCE-FCO was delayed by under 3 hours, no compensation is due. you missed your connection and commercially we provided you with accommodation and put you on the first available flight, that's it" and that you may have to exchange long emails and decide whether to settle for something commercial or go to court (depending on the agent dealing with your claim you may also be offered some sensible compensation, fingers crossed).

In any case, you should write to AZ customer service, explained the nature of the delay, indicate its cause (if there was any further cause due to exceptional circumstances it might make things yet harder for you) and explain that you request compensation under reg EC261/2004. Then you wait for their answer, if, as I suspect, it is negative and you are not happy with that, you either write back to give them a second chance or simply write to your national air authority (list available on the EU website, e.g. in the UK it is the CAA) to complain. If this does not work either you can also go to a small claims court after that or equivalent. Finally, there are 'professional' claimant services such as EU claim but (1) they take half (I think) of the compensation as payment, and (2) they only tend to accept what they believe to be sure cases anyway.

Now on the substance and follow up. As mentioned, legislation for missed connections is much less clear than for cancelled flights and the EU would like to clarify it by being explicit about it in a revised text of the regulation. One of the issues about regulating missed connections is that it is of course far harder to define cases when the missed connection is the airline's fault or not (4 examples for all you are originally supposed to land at 19.00 and your next flight departs at 21.00. Case 1: You effectively land at 21.15 your next flight departed on time, clearly you couldn't make the connection. Case 2: your first flight landed 1h late at 20.00, next one leaves at 21.00, quite clearly you could have made the connection. Case 3: your first flight landed at 20.30, you miss the next one that leaves at 21.00. What then? Airline will sure claim you could have run and made it while you'll say you could not. Case 4: your first flight lands at 20.50, second flight waits till 21.20 then goes. Again, airline will claim that they did their best while you'll claim you couldn't either guess or make it. Of course, using MCT as a limit would not work as MCTs by nature already include some allowance for normal delays. So what, MCT - 15 minutes? But then how to credit airlines for waiting efforts, etc.

So in any case, frustrating experience for you and it is always very unpleasant to spend an extra night out, not a bad handling by the VCE agent. A bit strange the flight didn't wait if it was a few of you on the flight and they could expedite transit. I think AZ defence is they did not have to inform you about something which, in their minds, you were not entitled to and it is likely you'll need to fight for that one (if you want to) with all the uncertainty that stems from it.

Good evening,

Alitalia have been an shambles this evening.

To cut what could be a long story short, I have been refused an EC241/2004 form. I will look later but I thought by law they were obliged to give me compensation and let me know what my rights are.

Not sure where to get my cash now.... Every Alitalia person is denying responsibility

There's no EC241/2004 (261, btw) form at all.
Airlines shall provide a reply within 6 weeks from your request. If the customer doesn't get a reply at all, or the response is not satisfactory, he/she can file a complaint with the CA against the airline.

Thanks for that - helpful and gives good context. Hopefully will be useful to others as well going forward. I have now retrieved my luggage in LHR. The misery is over.

I will pursue my claim with Alitalia Customer Relations to get some redress with regards to the absolutely shockingly bad treatment received via multiple touchpoints.

A bit strange the flight didn't wait if it was a few of you on the flight and they could expedite transit.

AZ 210 is the one Alitalia flight that is almost always exactly on-time. It is one of the last scheduled arrivals of the night at Heathrow and even the slightest delay winds up busting the curfew there (and hence having to either cancel or divert).

One of the problems is that EC261/2004 is clearer with regards to cancellations (or excessive delays that can be assimilated to cancellations) on single flights as compared to problems coming from missed connections.

Really! I tend to believe that the Reg caters well for either scenario, otherwise there would be little use for the definition in Art 2 of "final destination" which makes clear that connections are equally well served by the Reg:

(h) "final destination" means the destination on the ticket presented at the check-in counter or, in the case of directly connecting flights, the destination of the last flight; alternative connecting flights available shall not be taken into account if the original planned arrival time is respected;

Really! I tend to believe that the Reg caters well for either scenario, otherwise there would be little use for the definition in Art 2 of "final destination" which makes clear that connections are equally well served by the Reg:

(h) "final destination" means the destination on the ticket presented at the check-in counter or, in the case of directly connecting flights, the destination of the last flight; alternative connecting flights available shall not be taken into account if the original planned arrival time is respected;

I'm afraid it is not that simple. You are perfectly right that the 'final destination' is helpful in the case of cancellations and indeed of denied boarding which basically allow the claimant to have the full itinerary taken into account in the calculation of the compensation. It is, however, not that clear cut in the case of delays. What many people seem to dismiss as irrelevant (but it is not) is that EC261/04 is not intended for delays but for cancellations and denied boarding (and downgrading). It only applies to delays when they are basically assimilable to cancellations by their length. This is understood relatively straightforwardedly in the case of a direct flight. However, the grey area that I mention is the one that pertains to what happens when a relatively short delay to flight 1 means that you miss your connection and that this means a longer cumulated delay. You can hope that the phrasing of the regulation will mean that courts will always rule in favour of the 'misconnected' passenger, but at the moment at least, airlines are systematically fighting those cases. As for the legislator, as I mentioned, this was explicitly part of the questions raised in a recent consultation in preparation for a planned tweaking of the regulation.

I'm afraid it is not that simple. You are perfectly right that the 'final destination' is helpful in the case of cancellations and indeed of denied boarding which basically allow the claimant to have the full itinerary taken into account in the calculation of the compensation. It is, however, not that clear cut in the case of delays. The ECJ in Sturgeon (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62007J0402:EN:HTML), though, does explicitly refer to the need to award compensation to passengers whose flights are delayed and, as a result reach their final destination more than 3 hours later than originally planned (see, in particular, para 61 of the judgment), which suggests that centipede100's reading of the Reg is the correct one as far as the Court is concerned. Given, more generally, the mode of reasoning followed by the Court in Sturgeon, I would find it rather strange for delayed arrivals at final destination exceeding three hours due to a misconnect resulting from a shorter delay in the first flight not to give rise to application of Art 7 of the Reg.

The fact that the Commission raised the issue in the consultation does not necessarily imply anything with regard to the current correct interpretation of the Reg.

The ECJ in Sturgeon (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62007J0402:EN:HTML), though, does explicitly refer to the need to award compensation to passengers whose flights are delayed and, as a result reach their final destination more than 3 hours later than originally planned (see, in particular, para 61 of the judgment), which suggests that centipede100's reading of the Reg is the correct one as far as the Court is concerned. Given, more generally, the mode of reasoning followed by the Court in Sturgeon, I would find it rather strange for delayed arrivals at final destination exceeding three hours due to a misconnect resulting from a shorter delay in the first flight not to give rise to application of Art 7 of the Reg.

The fact that the Commission raised the issue in the consultation does not necessarily imply anything with regard to the current correct interpretation of the Reg.

You are of course right and both you and I have already confirmed our belief that indeed this is the way the Court is going to continue to rule (at least until any modification is brought to the text) but I was trying to answer the OP as to why AZ did not spontaneously offer him/her information about compensation. What I mentioned - and still believe - is that they will still make that answer and try to gain some time. They have effectively very little to lose in doing so and quite a lot to gain as many people will get discouraged from challenging their refusal to pay up. The number of cases involving AZ alone constitutes evidence that that particular airline does not give up easily and case law does not prevent people from trying to creatively argue that the particular case is different because of x and y. I did not, in any way, suggest that the OP would lose a court case to get his compensation, but just stated my belief that it is likely that he will need to fight for his money if he wants it. As for the consultation about the phrasing, indeed, it does not change anything as to how the current texts will be interpreted by court but can be used as an argument by AZ to show they are acting in good faith and limit the reputational damage in case there ends up being bad press about the way they handle that type of claims (I assume the OP is not an isolated case).

I received a call from a deluded Alitalia Customer Relations person in the UK.

They are refusing compensation.

They claim that my flight was delayed from VCE due to unforeseen technical issues. I was embarrassed for the representative as I restated the fact that actually the aircraft arrived in VCE on time, boarding of the aircraft was late and the poor organisational skills led to an over half-an-hour wait for aircraft documentation past STD. She also kept referring to my original flight from VCE-FCO despite me being re-booked.

I challenged her several times with facts but she was robotically towing the line her managers probably told her to say.

It seems that in the first instance I need to take this up with the UK's Civil Aviation Authority and will do so.

Just shocking. Not even a gesture of goodwill !

hello,

i got a similar problem with AZ (20hours delay, yes it's possible) :)
I filed a complaint in France (35 euro for the court, you not need a lawyer)
At this time, AZ offered to compensate me (400euros), i refused and I expect the judgment in November.

AZ is really the bad pupil of Skyteam.
AF, KLM .. are much more concilliant.

hello,

i got a similar problem with AZ (20hours delay, yes it's possible) :)
I filed a complaint in France (35 euro for the court, you not need a lawyer)
At this time, AZ offered to compensate me (400euros), i refused and I expect the judgment in November.

AZ is really the bad pupil of Skyteam.
AF, KLM .. are much more concilliant.

If your delayed flight was between 1500kms and 3500kms, why didn't you accept the 400 euros the airline is legally obliged to pay you in compensation?

If your delayed flight was between 1500kms and 3500kms, why didn't you accept the 400 euros the airline is legally obliged to pay you in compensation?

Alitalia refused to pay at the beginning, I had to go to court for AZ finally agrees to pay.
For the interest of consumers, so I decided to have a symbolic judgment. And i lost my time and money, so i ask to the court 600 euros (400 euros for EC law and 200 euros for the procedure fees).

AZ, Ryanair, Easyjet, and other company in EEC must respect the legislation.

If your delayed flight was between 1500kms and 3500kms, why didn't you accept the 400 euros the airline is legally obliged to pay you in compensation?

Where is this duty specified in EC241/2004?

Where is this duty specified in EC241/2004?

EC261/2004 surely?!!

The obligation to compensate passengers for delays of 3 hours or more arose from the Sturgeon judgement: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62007CJ0402:EN:HTML

hello,

i got a similar problem with AZ (20hours delay, yes it's possible) :)
I filed a complaint in France (35 euro for the court, you not need a lawyer)
At this time, AZ offered to compensate me (400euros), i refused and I expect the judgment in November.

AZ is really the bad pupil of Skyteam.
AF, KLM .. are much more concilliant.

Good for you NickoSnow. Did you go through any independent body first or did you just go from the Alitalia rejection straight to court ?

I agree with your sentiments about Alitalia. A vulgar airline devoid of any service culture.

Good for you NickoSnow. Did you go through any independent body first or did you just go from the Alitalia rejection straight to court ?

I agree with your sentiments about Alitalia. A vulgar airline devoid of any service culture.

In each cities in France, we have the "Juge de proximité (Judge of proximity)". You paid only 35 euros and you don't need an lawyer.

in the order :
- i have sent a simple letter to alitalia for my complain
- aliltalia reject my request
- i have sent a registered letter to alitalia with obligation to reply and respect the law
- no reponse of allitalia
- i make a complain to the court (i paid only 35 euros to the court for registration)
- alitalia receive the convocation
- alitalia proposed a voucher to me (400 euros)
- i refused the voucher
- in the beginning of september, alitalia did not come to court
- the judge make a decision in november.

I'm a frequent flyer of Alitalia, AF, KLM ..
I already got problems with Air France, but they were listening and they have always found a solution. I could ask for a refund, but the main thing is to feel respected. So I did not ask for a refund.

With Alitalia, I had to sleep in Rome, without luggage, without toilet bag and in a very bad conditions.

However, these problems are rare, I continue to travel on Alitalia sometimes. Alitalia planes are old, dirty and late. But Alitalia is very not expensive :)

i missed to say, the business class on AZ it's a joke ...

Alitalia planes are old, dirty and late.

Good for you for asserting your rights, and I hope your action is successful.

But I think you're slightly behind the times on this assertion. When I flew AZ extensively a decade ago this might have been fair comment. But over recent years the fleet has been comprehensively renewed and most aircraft are new/nearly new (with a few exceptions...and I flew FCO-YYZ in the summer, so had first hand experience of this...) and I've never noticed an issue with cleanliness. Even the timekeeping seems to have improved...at least, I don't notice it as being worse than any other airline.

i missed to say, the business class on AZ it's a joke ...

This is really an unfair, and factually wrong comment. Magnifica on AZ is by far the best J product in Skyteam (excluding KE which I haven't tried). Food and seat much better than AF or KL, and food still better than DL (well, for most people :D). Entertainment system vastly superior to all three.

You may complain about the customer service (but as a CFP customer I have always been treated in an excellent way. I can't comment on non-status-holder service), but this comment makes me doubt highly on the fairness of your evaluation.

In each cities in France, we have the "Juge de proximité (Judge of proximity)".

The same option is available in Italy, it's called Giudice di Pace.

Actually, I am puzzled (but IANAL so take this as a completely uninformed question, not a negative remark): why would a French judge be competent in this case? The subject is a contract with Alitalia, formed under Italian laws. Where am I wrong?

Actually, I am puzzled (but IANAL so take this as a completely uninformed question, not a negative remark): why would a French judge be competent in this case? The subject is a contract with Alitalia, formed under Italian laws. Where am I wrong?

Assuming you are referring to Nickosnow's case, the passenger can bring the claim either in the country where the flight departs or arrives (Rehder ECJ case:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62008J0204:EN:HTML ) or of course in the country where the claimant resides.

Assuming you are referring to Nickosnow's case, the passenger can bring the claim either in the country where the flight departs or arrives (Rehder ECJ case:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62008J0204:EN:HTML ) or of course in the country where the claimant resides.

Nice to know. Thanks Centipede100! In case of an itinerary with multiple legs, that means any country with a stop? Just curious.

Nice to know. Thanks Centipede100! In case of an itinerary with multiple legs, that means any country with a stop? Just curious.

Alitalia France is a registered company to commercial court of Paris : http://www.societe.com/societe/alitalia-compagnia-aerea-italiana-s-p-a-510045917.html

Nice to know. Thanks Centipede100! In case of an itinerary with multiple legs, that means any country with a stop? Just curious.If it is just a connection from one flight to another, the case referenced by Centipede100 makes it clear that the ECJ does not regard this as a significant, so the answer would be no. If the intermediate point is a stopover, that would be a different story.

This is really an unfair, and factually wrong comment. Magnifica on AZ is by far the best J product in Skyteam (excluding KE which I haven't tried). Food and seat much better than AF or KL, and food still better than DL (well, for most people :D). Entertainment system vastly superior to all three.

You may complain about the customer service (but as a CFP customer I have always been treated in an excellent way. I can't comment on non-status-holder service), but this comment makes me doubt highly on the fairness of your evaluation.

good, can u explain why FCO -> BEY, screens down for 1 year, no space for legs ... and the H terminal of FCO is a shame.

just try a CDG -> BEY with MEA - AF (both skyteam) or try a IST -> BEY with Turkish.
Alitalia is just the low cost Skyteam ..

Good for you for asserting your rights, and I hope your action is successful.

But I think you're slightly behind the times on this assertion. When I flew AZ extensively a decade ago this might have been fair comment. But over recent years the fleet has been comprehensively renewed and most aircraft are new/nearly new (with a few exceptions...and I flew FCO-YYZ in the summer, so had first hand experience of this...) and I've never noticed an issue with cleanliness. Even the timekeeping seems to have improved...at least, I don't notice it as being worse than any other airline.


AZ has completely abandoned the quality of some flights, especially with the A320 business class are a disgrace. After this airline is not expensive.

good, can u explain why FCO -> BEY, screens down for 1 year, no space for legs ... and the H terminal of FCO is a shame.

just try a CDG -> BEY with MEA - AF (both skyteam) or try a IST -> BEY with Turkish.
Alitalia is just the low cost Skyteam ..

Don't you think it is a bit unfair to judge of the overall quality of AZ as compared to AF on what is probably the only route which AF (for demand reasons) considers as long haul while AZ considers it medium haul? It's a bit like saying that AF business class is rubbish as compared to LX just because AF fly TLV as a medium haul route (like the majority of European airlines now) and LX as a long haul one. Moreover, on the particular route, the flights to/from FCO are about 1h shorter than to/from CDG.

To be honest, in medium haul C, I have found AZ product significantly better than the AF equivalent (although, as you say, not nearly as good as TK or OS, but then neither are LH, LX, BA, etc). You may find the AZ C cabin a disgrace but I'm not sure what you find in it that is worse than KL, LH, LX, IB, let alone AF with a risk of getting the non-reclining NEO seats especially on A318 or on unfortunate rotations. On long haul routes AZ are miles better. I fully understand your frustration with the customer service issue you experienced but I think you may be throwing the baby with the bathwater here.

Don't you think it is a bit unfair to judge of the overall quality of AZ as compared to AF on what is probably the only route which AF (for demand reasons) considers as long haul while AZ considers it medium haul? It's a bit like saying that AF business class is rubbish as compared to LX just because AF fly TLV as a medium haul route (like the majority of European airlines now) and LX as a long haul one. Moreover, on the particular route, the flights to/from FCO are about 1h shorter than to/from CDG.

To be honest, in medium haul C, I have found AZ product significantly better than the AF equivalent (although, as you say, not nearly as good as TK or OS, but then neither are LH, LX, BA, etc). You may find the AZ C cabin a disgrace but I'm not sure what you find in it that is worse than KL, LH, LX, IB, let alone AF with a risk of getting the non-reclining NEO seats especially on A318 or on unfortunate rotations. On long haul routes AZ are miles better. I fully understand your frustration with the customer service issue you experienced but I think you may be throwing the baby with the bathwater here.

+1000

I received a call from a deluded Alitalia Customer Relations person in the UK.

They are refusing compensation.

They claim that my flight was delayed from VCE due to unforeseen technical issues. I was embarrassed for the representative as I restated the fact that actually the aircraft arrived in VCE on time, boarding of the aircraft was late and the poor organisational skills led to an over half-an-hour wait for aircraft documentation past STD. She also kept referring to my original flight from VCE-FCO despite me being re-booked.

I challenged her several times with facts but she was robotically towing the line her managers probably told her to say.

It seems that in the first instance I need to take this up with the UK's Civil Aviation Authority and will do so.

Just shocking. Not even a gesture of goodwill !

As noone replied to this;

It seems correct to me to use the extraordinary circumstances on your original flight if they were present.