EU261 argument: sick passenger is external factor
Jan 6, 2016, 4:43 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 614
EU261 argument: sick passenger is external factor
I had a long flight delay on an EU-South America flight. The delay was a result of the inbound flight being late, and I ended up getting rebooked on another carrier but arrived 6 hours later than my originally scheduled arrival time.
I filed a request for EU261 compensation with the carrier and received a response back stating that the reason the inbound flight was delayed was that the plane had a sick passenger and had to return to the gate before departure. They consider this an external factor outside the airlines control and they therefore are not required to pay EU261 compensation.
Does anyone have any experience in this situation? It that a valid reason to not pay compensation?
I filed a request for EU261 compensation with the carrier and received a response back stating that the reason the inbound flight was delayed was that the plane had a sick passenger and had to return to the gate before departure. They consider this an external factor outside the airlines control and they therefore are not required to pay EU261 compensation.
Does anyone have any experience in this situation? It that a valid reason to not pay compensation?
Jan 6, 2016, 6:30 pm
#2
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: a proud member of FT since 05-05-1998
Programs: DL, AF and KL - UA - *G
Posts: 2,239
If YOUR flight was not the one having the problem they are not exempt - they could have used a different plane or rebooked you....
Only if you were on the flight with the medical problem they are exempt but NOT for the following flights!
Only if you were on the flight with the medical problem they are exempt but NOT for the following flights!
Jan 7, 2016, 1:51 am
#5
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 614
Thanks for the responses.
The airline was actually not LH. It was Avianca, so not one of their bases where they can easily substitute planes.
I posted in this forum as I believe the people here have much more experience regarding 261.
The airline was actually not LH. It was Avianca, so not one of their bases where they can easily substitute planes.
I posted in this forum as I believe the people here have much more experience regarding 261.
Jan 7, 2016, 1:59 am
#6
Suspended
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Atherton, CA
Programs: UA 1K, AA EXP; Owner, Green Bay Packers
Posts: 21,690
How late would you have been if you stayed on the original flight? Hardly seems like taxiing back to the gate would have made them 6 hours late.
...and good luck collecting from Avianca, especially since you chose to move to a different airline.
...and good luck collecting from Avianca, especially since you chose to move to a different airline.
Jan 7, 2016, 2:11 am
#7
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 614
They rebooked me on the same flight 24 hours later. Reason being that I would miss my connection with no other connecting opportunities that day so the best option was to keep me on same flights the next day.
I didn't agree to this and had them book me on another airline which still ended up with arrival time 6 hours later.
I didn't agree to this and had them book me on another airline which still ended up with arrival time 6 hours later.
Jan 7, 2016, 2:23 am
#8
Suspended
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PVG, FRA, SEA, HEL
Programs: UA Premier Gold
Posts: 4,783
...and good luck collecting from Avianca, especially since you chose to move to a different airline.
The OP may choose to sue Avianca at the court which is responsible for the EU airport, that the plane was supposed to depart from.
With a court judgment in hand, the bailiff could tarnish the bank accounts of Avianca located at European banks.
Jan 7, 2016, 3:13 am
#10
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denmark
Programs: TK Elite
Posts: 11,848
As the OP requested to be rebooked I predict that it will be difficult to get compensation for delay. The OP took a flight that does not appears to have been late.
As this was at an outstation for Avianca it is more relevant to consider this as extraordinary circumstances. IMO the argument makes sense to some extent.
Anyway, good luck in getting compensation from Avianca...
As this was at an outstation for Avianca it is more relevant to consider this as extraordinary circumstances. IMO the argument makes sense to some extent.
Anyway, good luck in getting compensation from Avianca...
Jan 7, 2016, 3:26 am
#11
Suspended
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Atherton, CA
Programs: UA 1K, AA EXP; Owner, Green Bay Packers
Posts: 21,690
The OP may have a difficult time in court because he chose to take a different airline rather than the original only slightly delayed flight. This confuses matters significantly as it is then not clear exactly how long his ultimate delay might have been had he not voluntarily accepted the alternative arrangements.
Avianca's argument about medical necessity might well get at least a little sympathy from the court.
OP might prevail, he might not. Best of luck!
Jan 7, 2016, 3:38 am
#12
Moderator: Lufthansa Miles & More, India based airlines, India, External Miles & Points Resources
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: MUC
Programs: LH SEN
Posts: 48,180
Regards Oliver2002
Mod LH|M&M forum
Jan 7, 2016, 4:48 am
#13
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: a proud member of FT since 05-05-1998
Programs: DL, AF and KL - UA - *G
Posts: 2,239
And a tarnished bank account is difficult to burnish.
The OP may have a difficult time in court because he chose to take a different airline rather than the original only slightly delayed flight. This confuses matters significantly as it is then not clear exactly how long his ultimate delay might have been had he not voluntarily accepted the alternative arrangements.
Avianca's argument about medical necessity might well get at least a little sympathy from the court.
OP might prevail, he might not. Best of luck!
The OP may have a difficult time in court because he chose to take a different airline rather than the original only slightly delayed flight. This confuses matters significantly as it is then not clear exactly how long his ultimate delay might have been had he not voluntarily accepted the alternative arrangements.
Avianca's argument about medical necessity might well get at least a little sympathy from the court.
OP might prevail, he might not. Best of luck!
Jan 7, 2016, 4:57 am
#14
Suspended
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Atherton, CA
Programs: UA 1K, AA EXP; Owner, Green Bay Packers
Posts: 21,690
That all does not matter they did not get him to his final destination within 3 hours of his ORIGINAL arrival time - that is all a judge will look at - outpost or not, why all does not matter THEY rebooked who asked for whar does not matter - EU261 is VERY easy you are 3 hours+ late they have to pay - unless something exempted THIS your flight....they do not look at flights before or after or inbound or anything else....
Jan 7, 2016, 5:05 am
#15
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 614
I don't have the time to bother with suing with them.
What I'll do is push back again and see what happens. If they still shut me down (as I expect) I will pass it off to one of those companies that attempts to get the compensation for you.
What I'll do is push back again and see what happens. If they still shut me down (as I expect) I will pass it off to one of those companies that attempts to get the compensation for you.