Jan 19, 2017, 10:33 am
Last edit by: ffay005
Please note the FlyerTalk Terms of Use: 'We are not lawyers or a law firm and we do not provide legal, business or tax advice. The accuracy, completeness, adequacy or currency of the content is not warranted or guaranteed. Our sites and services are not substitutes for the advices or services of an attorney. We recommend you consult a lawyer or other appropriate professional if you want legal, business or tax advice.'
When seeking claims from AY, use this form: https://www.finnair.com/int/gb/infor...vices/feedbackAY will not accept claims by email, phone or in person.
Past decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) relating to Regulation 261/2004 (by judgment date in chronological order):
European Commission's Interpretative Guidelines (note that this policy document is persuasive, but only the CJEU's interpretation of Regulation 261/2004 is authoritative and binding): http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-conte...XC0615%2801%29. National courts do not have to follow the European Commission's Interpretative Guidelines (but are obliged to follow the CJEU's case-law). For example, although the European Commission takes the view that 'missed connecting flights due to significant delays at security checks or passengers failing to respect the boarding time of their flight at their airport of transfer do not give entitlement to compensation' (para 4.4.7 of the Interpretative Guidelines), the Edinburgh Sheriff Court took a different view in Caldwell v easyJet. Sheriff T Welsh QC held that 'the facts proved can properly be characterised as denied boarding because of the operational inadequacies of Easyjet ground staff’s management of the Easyjet queues on 14 September 2014 and their failure to facilitate passage through security check, customs and passport control when asked, in circumstances, where it was obvious the passengers were in danger of missing their flight'.
When AY+ Flight Reason AY Offered AY explanation Won/Lost, How, Time
Summer13 no status (HKG-)HEL-LHR Prior to landing, LHR was closed as the fire services there were unavailable, so the flight was diverted and landed in LTN, where passengers were offloaded. However, the plane then flew from LTN to LHR with luggage in the hold, so passengers had to make their own way to LHR to retrieve their luggage (as AY provided no ground transport arrangements), eventually arriving at LHR and reclaiming baggage over 6 hours later than the scheduled arrival time. Requested 600€ plus transport and phone call costs incurred, but AY only agreed to reimburse transport and phone call costs AY claimed that 'the delay of this flight happened in extraordinary circumstances' Filed claim through ESCP in the County Court in England. AY contested the claim. The Court ruled against AY. In its judgment, the Court cited CJEU's decision in Eglitis and Wallentin-Hermann and rejected AY's defence as the flight diversion only caused a small initial delay. AY failed to discharge its burden of proof that it took all reasonable measures, as evidenced by proper contingency plans and steps to assist passengers at LTN. The delay in arrival at LHR was significantly lengthened by this factor. AY eventually paid the damages and costs awarded by the Court.
Summer13 no status (LHR-)HEL-HKG Technical fault Requested 600€ plus phone call costs incurred, but AY only agreed to reimburse phone call costs AY initially claimed that the technical fault was not foreseeable Filed claim through ESCP in the County Court in England. AY conceded the claim and eventually paid 600€ + phone call costs + court costs.
Fall15 AYG HEL-LHR-US HEL-LHR late, miss connect 200€ voucher, reroute 3,5 hours requested 600€, re-offered 400€ due to <4 hours -> accepted.
Nov15 AYS HEL-AMS Equip swap -> rerouting 3+ hours 400€ cash (as per EC261) or 550€ voucher offered in 2 days accepted
Jan16 AYP KUO-HEL ATR crew shortage, cancelled 50€ voucher Claimed EU 261 + taxi + hotel. NO -> paid taxi+hotel -> escalated to KRIL -> NoRRA offered 250€ voucher. Accepted
Jan16 AYS WAW-HEL "extraordinary crew shortage" 50€ voucher raised to "kuluttajaoikeusneuvoja". They state that crew shortage can usually not be declared an extraordinary -> escalated to KRIL -> AY offered 150€ -> declined -> AY offers 200€ voucher -> Accepted. 8 months to resolve the matter!
Jan16 AA Platinum = OWS BKK-HEL delay, no equip combined 300€ voucher (for 2 pers) extraordinary manufacturing fault of A350 declined offer -> escalated to KRIL -> AY offered 680€ voucher / 400 cash (for 2 pers) -> declined -> KRIL decision Feb18 = AY should compensate 300€ / pax
Q1/16 ?? JFK-HEL diverted back to JFK ?? technical fail, new equip escalated to KRIL -> 600€ offered, accepted
Feb16 ?? (LHR-)HEL-PEK cancelled, re-routed, arrived at PEK with 20 hr delay and, because of this, missed seeing dying grandfather by a few hours ?? 'extraordinary circumstances' due to pilot sickness, AY refused compensation -> filed small claim in England and won (see Guardian article)
Feb16 ?? HEL-PEK 6h delay 150€ voucher manufacture fail of A350 ??
Q1/16 AYG LHR-HEL A350 broke up 50€ voucher ??
?? OWE HKG-HEL 6h delay (A350) 600€*2pers ?? 2 weeks wait only for compensation
?? ?? BKK-HEL 13h delay 600€ cash / 800€ voucher ?? Just 2 days to get compensation, accepted 800 voucher
Q1/16 ?? BKK-HEL misconnect, 6h delay 400/€550€ misconnect raised the discance to apply 600 -> offered 600€ cash / 800 voucher
Mar16 AYP PVG-HEL cancel, reroute, 12h delay 600/800€ cancel&reroute 800€ voucher accepted
?? ?? ?? cancelled, long delay 600/800 technical fault accepted
Mar16 ?? HEL-HKG 8h delay 200€ voucher extraordinary fail A350 escalated to KRIL -> no info
Nov16 OWE (LHR-)HEL-TLL overnight delay nothing NoRRA pilot shortage Claim for EUR 400 filed in the England and Wales small claims track (not ESCP), AY admitted the whole of the claim a few days before the hearing (details)
???16 AYS PEK-HEL cancelled 100/200€ sick pilot, no overtime declined -> escalated to KRIL. No info yet.
Feb17 OWE BKK-HEL-LHR 2h delay in BKK, misconnect in HEL 600€ cash / 800€ voucher ?? Submitted compensation request, AY responded around one week later, accepted 800€ voucher (details)
Feb 2017 AYP KUO-HEL 06:00 cancelled ATR shortage HEL-LHR was missed, at LHR 6 h late €400 in cash or €550 AY voucher. Returning HEL-KUO 23:40 cancelled ATR shortage rerouted to JOE, bus to KUO, at KUO 2h 40min late €250 in cash or €350 AY voucher.
Apr 2017 OWE TLL-HEL-LHR AY118 delayed from TLL-HEL "crew rest" then later, "Try Norra, not us" €400 claimed. Rejected. MCOL in UK. Disputed by AY. County Court civil case, Oxford (10/11/17) Judgement : AY was the operating carrier under EC2111/2005, compensation and costs and expenses awarded.
Apr 2017 OWE TLL-HEL-LHR AY118 delayed from TLL-HEL "crew rest" then later, "Try Norra, not us", then "Delayed due to weather" €400 claimed. Rejected. 2 seperate agencies tried but gave up on the case. European Small Claims Procedure started at Den Haag sub-district court, AY didn't defend. Judgement (11/6/2019): compensation, costs and interest awarded.
Dec 2017 AY Gold AY HEL-KOK operated by Norra canceled due to crew shortage, delay due to reroute >3 hours EUR 250 claimed. Accepted by AY and an alternative of a EUR 350 voucher offered.
May 28 2017 AYP, AY 380 KUO-HEL was cancelled due to lack of planes (admitted by Finnair - Flightradar 24 gold is an invaluable tool for this sherlockholmesing: one KUO flight was cancelled in the previous evening as OH-LKM had broken in HAM and it should have taken care of the next morning KUO-HEL flight 7:30, OH-LKP arrived late from GVA 23:40 and took off to KUO well after midnight being there 01:33, OH-LKP should have flown KUO-HEL flight 6:15 but crew rest prevented this, OH-LKP flew KUO-HEL 7:30 flight instead). Missed LHR connection. Arrived at LHR 5 h 54 min later than planned. EUR 400 or voucher of EUR 600 was offered without any resent.
Dec 2018. HEL-LPA delayed 4 hours because routine maintenance took longer than expected. Pax AY Plat. Compensation paid within 24 hours (offered €400 cash or €550 voucher).
Some more cases from earlier history can be read HERE (unfortunately only in Finnish)
List of National Enforcement Bodies (NEBs) in EU/EEA Member States and Switzerland published by the European Commission (updated: April 2018): https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites...ent_bodies.pdf
European Commission's guidelines with criteria for determining which NEB is competent for handling complaints (updated: April 2017): https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites...procedures.pdf
If you decide to engage a claim agency/lawyer to pursue your claim, please first read the Information Notice published by the European Commission (updated: March 2017): http://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/...gencies_en.pdf
To file a court claim, the CJEU stated in Rehder (see above) the criteria for determining which Member State's court has jurisdiction. If you booked a package combining flight(s) and accommodation, Advocate General Sharpston stated in her Opinion in Flight Refund v Lufthansa (Case C‑94/14) at paras 9 and 59-60 that a consumer claiming compensation under Regulation 261/2004 can file a court claim in the jurisdiction where he/she habitually resides, as an alternative to filing a court claim in the jurisdiction of the airport of departure or arrival.
You can file a claim at a court with jurisdiction to rule on your case either through the national procedure or through the European Small Claims Procedure (ESCP). The ESCP is a primarily written procedure and is available where the claimant and defendant are domiciled in different EU Member States (with the exception of Denmark) for claims up to EUR 2,000 (increasing to EUR 5,000 with effect from 14 July 2017).
When seeking claims from AY, use this form: https://www.finnair.com/int/gb/infor...vices/feedbackAY will not accept claims by email, phone or in person.
Past decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) relating to Regulation 261/2004 (by judgment date in chronological order):
- Sturgeon v Condor (Case C-402/07): Passengers who reach their final destination at least 3 hours late because their flight was delayed are entitled to the amount of compensation laid down in Article 7 of the Regulation.
- Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia (Case C-549/07): ‘Extraordinary circumstances’ (which release airlines from their obligation to compensate passengers) do not include aircraft technical problems (unless the problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control). See also van der Lans v KLM below.
- Rehder v Air Baltic (Case C-204/08): Passengers can file a legal claim either in the jurisdiction of the place of departure or the jurisdiction of the place of arrival
- Rodríguez v Air France (Case C-83/10): The term ‘cancellation’ in the Regulation includes the situation where the aircraft took off but had to return to the departure airport and passengers were transferred to other flights.
- Eglītis v Latvijas Republikas Ekonomikas ministrija (Case C-294/10): At the stage of organising the flight, the airline is required to provide for a certain reserve time to allow it, if possible, to operate the flight in its entirety once the extraordinary circumstances have come to an end.
- Nelson v Lufthansa (Case C-581/10): The Court reaffirmed its previous decision (Sturgeon v Condor).
- Folkerts v Air France (Case C-11/11): Passengers on directly connecting flights who arrive at their final destination at least 3 hours late are entitled to compensation.
- McDonagh v Ryanair (Case C-12/11): Even where a flight delay/cancellation is caused by ‘extraordinary circumstances’, the airline continues to be under a duty to provide care (in the form of accommodation, meals, transfers between the airport/hotel, telephone calls)
- Finnair v Lassooy (Case C–22/11): The term ‘denied boarding’ in the Regulation covers cases where boarding is denied because of overbooking, as well as other reasons.
- Moré v KLM (Case C-139/11): The time limit for filing a legal claim is based on the rules governing limitation periods in the Member State where the claim is filed.
- Rodríguez Cachafeiro v Iberia (Case C 321/11): The term ‘denied boarding’ in the Regulation includes a situation where, in the context of a single contract of carriage (PNR) on immediately connecting flights and a single check-in, an airline denies boarding to some passengers because the first flight had been delayed and it mistakenly expected those passengers not to arrive in time to board the second flight.
- Germanwings v Henning (Case C 452/13): The concept of ‘arrival time’, which is used to determine the length of the flight delay, refers to the time at which at least one of the doors of the aircraft was opened, as long as, at that moment, passengers were actually permitted to leave the aircraft.
- van der Lans v KLM (Case C-257/14): ‘Extraordinary circumstances’ (which release airlines from their obligation to compensate passengers) do not include aircraft technical problems which occur unexpectedly, which are not attributable to poor maintenance and which are also not detected during routine maintenance checks.
- Mennens v Emirates (Case C 255/15): Where passengers are downgraded on a particular flight, the ‘price of the ticket’ refers to the price of that particular flight, but if this information is not indicated on the ticket, the price of that particular flight out of the total fare is calculated by working out the distance of that flight divided by the total distance of the flight itinerary on the ticket. Taxes and charges are not included in the reimbursement of the ticket price/fare, unless the tax/charge is dependent on the class of travel.
- Pešková v Travel Service (Case C‑315/15): A bird strike constitutes 'extraordinary circumstances'. However, even if a flight delay/cancellation is caused by an event constituting 'extraordinary circumstances', an airline is only released from its duty to pay compensation if it took all reasonable measures to avoid the delay/cancellation. To determine this, the court will consider what measures could actually be taken by the airline, directly or indirectly, without requiring it to make intolerable sacrifices. Further, even if all of these conditions are met, it is necessary to distinguish between the length of the delay caused by extraordinary circumstances (which could not have been avoided by all reasonable measures) and the length of the delay caused by other circumstances. For the purpose of calculating the length of the qualifying delay for compensation, the delay falling into the former category would be deducted from the total delay.
- Krijgsman v SLM (C‑302/16): Where a passenger has booked a flight through a travel agent, and that flight has been cancelled, but notification of the cancellation was not communicated to the passenger by the travel agent or airline at least 14 days prior to departure, the passenger is entitled to compensation.
- Bossen v Brussels Airlines (C‑559/16): On a flight itinerary involving connecting flights, the distance is calculated by using ‘great circle’ method from the origin to the final destination, regardless of the distance actually flown.
- Krüsemann v TUIfly (C‑195/17): The spontaneous absence of a significant number of flight crew staff (‘wildcat strikes’) does not constitute 'extraordinary circumstances'.
- Wegener v Royal Air Maroc (C‑537/17): The Court reaffirmed its previous decision (Folkerts v Air France).
- Wirth v Thomson Airways (C‑532/17): Where there is a 'wet lease' (with the lessor carrier providing an aircraft, including crew, to the lessee airline, but without the lessor bearing operational responsibility for the flight in question), the lessor carrier is not responsible under the Regulation.
- Harms v Vueling (C‑601/17): For the purpose of calculating the ticket price, the difference between the amount paid by the passenger and the amount received by the air carrier (corresponding to the commission collected by a person acting as an intermediary between those two parties) is included in the ticket price, unless that commission was set without the knowledge of the air carrier.
- CS v České aerolinie (C‑502/18): For a journey with 2 connecting flights (in a single reservation) departing from an EU member state and to a final destination outside the EU via an airport outside the EU, a passenger who is delayed by 3 hours or more in reaching the final destination because of a delay in the second flight which is operated as a codeshare flight by a non-EU carrier may bring an action for compensation against the EU air carrier that performed the first flight.
European Commission's Interpretative Guidelines (note that this policy document is persuasive, but only the CJEU's interpretation of Regulation 261/2004 is authoritative and binding): http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-conte...XC0615%2801%29. National courts do not have to follow the European Commission's Interpretative Guidelines (but are obliged to follow the CJEU's case-law). For example, although the European Commission takes the view that 'missed connecting flights due to significant delays at security checks or passengers failing to respect the boarding time of their flight at their airport of transfer do not give entitlement to compensation' (para 4.4.7 of the Interpretative Guidelines), the Edinburgh Sheriff Court took a different view in Caldwell v easyJet. Sheriff T Welsh QC held that 'the facts proved can properly be characterised as denied boarding because of the operational inadequacies of Easyjet ground staff’s management of the Easyjet queues on 14 September 2014 and their failure to facilitate passage through security check, customs and passport control when asked, in circumstances, where it was obvious the passengers were in danger of missing their flight'.
When AY+ Flight Reason AY Offered AY explanation Won/Lost, How, Time
Summer13 no status (HKG-)HEL-LHR Prior to landing, LHR was closed as the fire services there were unavailable, so the flight was diverted and landed in LTN, where passengers were offloaded. However, the plane then flew from LTN to LHR with luggage in the hold, so passengers had to make their own way to LHR to retrieve their luggage (as AY provided no ground transport arrangements), eventually arriving at LHR and reclaiming baggage over 6 hours later than the scheduled arrival time. Requested 600€ plus transport and phone call costs incurred, but AY only agreed to reimburse transport and phone call costs AY claimed that 'the delay of this flight happened in extraordinary circumstances' Filed claim through ESCP in the County Court in England. AY contested the claim. The Court ruled against AY. In its judgment, the Court cited CJEU's decision in Eglitis and Wallentin-Hermann and rejected AY's defence as the flight diversion only caused a small initial delay. AY failed to discharge its burden of proof that it took all reasonable measures, as evidenced by proper contingency plans and steps to assist passengers at LTN. The delay in arrival at LHR was significantly lengthened by this factor. AY eventually paid the damages and costs awarded by the Court.
Summer13 no status (LHR-)HEL-HKG Technical fault Requested 600€ plus phone call costs incurred, but AY only agreed to reimburse phone call costs AY initially claimed that the technical fault was not foreseeable Filed claim through ESCP in the County Court in England. AY conceded the claim and eventually paid 600€ + phone call costs + court costs.
Fall15 AYG HEL-LHR-US HEL-LHR late, miss connect 200€ voucher, reroute 3,5 hours requested 600€, re-offered 400€ due to <4 hours -> accepted.
Nov15 AYS HEL-AMS Equip swap -> rerouting 3+ hours 400€ cash (as per EC261) or 550€ voucher offered in 2 days accepted
Jan16 AYP KUO-HEL ATR crew shortage, cancelled 50€ voucher Claimed EU 261 + taxi + hotel. NO -> paid taxi+hotel -> escalated to KRIL -> NoRRA offered 250€ voucher. Accepted
Jan16 AYS WAW-HEL "extraordinary crew shortage" 50€ voucher raised to "kuluttajaoikeusneuvoja". They state that crew shortage can usually not be declared an extraordinary -> escalated to KRIL -> AY offered 150€ -> declined -> AY offers 200€ voucher -> Accepted. 8 months to resolve the matter!
Jan16 AA Platinum = OWS BKK-HEL delay, no equip combined 300€ voucher (for 2 pers) extraordinary manufacturing fault of A350 declined offer -> escalated to KRIL -> AY offered 680€ voucher / 400 cash (for 2 pers) -> declined -> KRIL decision Feb18 = AY should compensate 300€ / pax
Q1/16 ?? JFK-HEL diverted back to JFK ?? technical fail, new equip escalated to KRIL -> 600€ offered, accepted
Feb16 ?? (LHR-)HEL-PEK cancelled, re-routed, arrived at PEK with 20 hr delay and, because of this, missed seeing dying grandfather by a few hours ?? 'extraordinary circumstances' due to pilot sickness, AY refused compensation -> filed small claim in England and won (see Guardian article)
Feb16 ?? HEL-PEK 6h delay 150€ voucher manufacture fail of A350 ??
Q1/16 AYG LHR-HEL A350 broke up 50€ voucher ??
?? OWE HKG-HEL 6h delay (A350) 600€*2pers ?? 2 weeks wait only for compensation
?? ?? BKK-HEL 13h delay 600€ cash / 800€ voucher ?? Just 2 days to get compensation, accepted 800 voucher
Q1/16 ?? BKK-HEL misconnect, 6h delay 400/€550€ misconnect raised the discance to apply 600 -> offered 600€ cash / 800 voucher
Mar16 AYP PVG-HEL cancel, reroute, 12h delay 600/800€ cancel&reroute 800€ voucher accepted
?? ?? ?? cancelled, long delay 600/800 technical fault accepted
Mar16 ?? HEL-HKG 8h delay 200€ voucher extraordinary fail A350 escalated to KRIL -> no info
Nov16 OWE (LHR-)HEL-TLL overnight delay nothing NoRRA pilot shortage Claim for EUR 400 filed in the England and Wales small claims track (not ESCP), AY admitted the whole of the claim a few days before the hearing (details)
???16 AYS PEK-HEL cancelled 100/200€ sick pilot, no overtime declined -> escalated to KRIL. No info yet.
Feb17 OWE BKK-HEL-LHR 2h delay in BKK, misconnect in HEL 600€ cash / 800€ voucher ?? Submitted compensation request, AY responded around one week later, accepted 800€ voucher (details)
Feb 2017 AYP KUO-HEL 06:00 cancelled ATR shortage HEL-LHR was missed, at LHR 6 h late €400 in cash or €550 AY voucher. Returning HEL-KUO 23:40 cancelled ATR shortage rerouted to JOE, bus to KUO, at KUO 2h 40min late €250 in cash or €350 AY voucher.
Apr 2017 OWE TLL-HEL-LHR AY118 delayed from TLL-HEL "crew rest" then later, "Try Norra, not us" €400 claimed. Rejected. MCOL in UK. Disputed by AY. County Court civil case, Oxford (10/11/17) Judgement : AY was the operating carrier under EC2111/2005, compensation and costs and expenses awarded.
Apr 2017 OWE TLL-HEL-LHR AY118 delayed from TLL-HEL "crew rest" then later, "Try Norra, not us", then "Delayed due to weather" €400 claimed. Rejected. 2 seperate agencies tried but gave up on the case. European Small Claims Procedure started at Den Haag sub-district court, AY didn't defend. Judgement (11/6/2019): compensation, costs and interest awarded.
Dec 2017 AY Gold AY HEL-KOK operated by Norra canceled due to crew shortage, delay due to reroute >3 hours EUR 250 claimed. Accepted by AY and an alternative of a EUR 350 voucher offered.
May 28 2017 AYP, AY 380 KUO-HEL was cancelled due to lack of planes (admitted by Finnair - Flightradar 24 gold is an invaluable tool for this sherlockholmesing: one KUO flight was cancelled in the previous evening as OH-LKM had broken in HAM and it should have taken care of the next morning KUO-HEL flight 7:30, OH-LKP arrived late from GVA 23:40 and took off to KUO well after midnight being there 01:33, OH-LKP should have flown KUO-HEL flight 6:15 but crew rest prevented this, OH-LKP flew KUO-HEL 7:30 flight instead). Missed LHR connection. Arrived at LHR 5 h 54 min later than planned. EUR 400 or voucher of EUR 600 was offered without any resent.
Dec 2018. HEL-LPA delayed 4 hours because routine maintenance took longer than expected. Pax AY Plat. Compensation paid within 24 hours (offered €400 cash or €550 voucher).
Some more cases from earlier history can be read HERE (unfortunately only in Finnish)
List of National Enforcement Bodies (NEBs) in EU/EEA Member States and Switzerland published by the European Commission (updated: April 2018): https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites...ent_bodies.pdf
European Commission's guidelines with criteria for determining which NEB is competent for handling complaints (updated: April 2017): https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites...procedures.pdf
If you decide to engage a claim agency/lawyer to pursue your claim, please first read the Information Notice published by the European Commission (updated: March 2017): http://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/...gencies_en.pdf
To file a court claim, the CJEU stated in Rehder (see above) the criteria for determining which Member State's court has jurisdiction. If you booked a package combining flight(s) and accommodation, Advocate General Sharpston stated in her Opinion in Flight Refund v Lufthansa (Case C‑94/14) at paras 9 and 59-60 that a consumer claiming compensation under Regulation 261/2004 can file a court claim in the jurisdiction where he/she habitually resides, as an alternative to filing a court claim in the jurisdiction of the airport of departure or arrival.
You can file a claim at a court with jurisdiction to rule on your case either through the national procedure or through the European Small Claims Procedure (ESCP). The ESCP is a primarily written procedure and is available where the claimant and defendant are domiciled in different EU Member States (with the exception of Denmark) for claims up to EUR 2,000 (increasing to EUR 5,000 with effect from 14 July 2017).
Finnair and EC 261 compensation
Jul 18, 2016, 6:25 am
#136
Moderator, Finnair
Join Date: May 2011
Location: MMX (CPH)
Programs: Eurobonus Diamond, QR Gold, AY+ Platinum, A3*G, Nordic Choice Lifetime Platinum, SJ Prio Black
Posts: 14,174
I have no idea. Either people in general are not aware of their rights, or they feel the hotel and food is compensation enough. Or it simply means that this operator did not recieve any complaints.
Here is a short list of delays march - october 2015. It has looked like this for at leats 5 years. But I've stopped tracking the delays and stopped flying AY69 instead. I am generally a fan of AY but in this area I do hope they take them to
court, because these delays are an integral part of the business and will go on forever unless it starts to hurt them.
Here is a short list of delays march - october 2015. It has looked like this for at leats 5 years. But I've stopped tracking the delays and stopped flying AY69 instead. I am generally a fan of AY but in this area I do hope they take them to
court, because these delays are an integral part of the business and will go on forever unless it starts to hurt them.
Code:
Date Delay (minutes) 2015-03-31 206 2015-05-23 505 2015-05-29 497 2015-06-14 193 2015-06-28 124 2015-07-07 561 2015-07-16 237 2015-07-23 509 2015-07-26 496 2015-08-16 491 2015-09-08 502 2015-09-28 493 2015-10-14 502 2015-10-17 561
Jul 20, 2016, 5:47 am
#138
Moderator, Finnair
Join Date: May 2011
Location: MMX (CPH)
Programs: Eurobonus Diamond, QR Gold, AY+ Platinum, A3*G, Nordic Choice Lifetime Platinum, SJ Prio Black
Posts: 14,174
Sure, but you probably would want to gather more recent data for that.
Tracking is from flightaware. You can gather current statistics from a free account, and access history from a paid account or pay for a full report of all data they have on AY69.
Airlines usually tries to claim all third party flight trackers are unreliable and has zero value in court. Naturally they do not hold zero value, it doesn't matter if the delay was 502 minutes or 498 minutes. The frequency of extreme delays alone can be used to establish an long term pattern of severe delays, making the claim of "extraordinary" faults look as ridicolous as it is.
Tracking is from flightaware. You can gather current statistics from a free account, and access history from a paid account or pay for a full report of all data they have on AY69.
Airlines usually tries to claim all third party flight trackers are unreliable and has zero value in court. Naturally they do not hold zero value, it doesn't matter if the delay was 502 minutes or 498 minutes. The frequency of extreme delays alone can be used to establish an long term pattern of severe delays, making the claim of "extraordinary" faults look as ridicolous as it is.
Jul 20, 2016, 6:38 am
#139
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 4
Ok, thanks for the info. We'll file a case later this week, and I'll also include a link to this thread. I understand that discussions such as this probably have little or no relevance in an actual court case (if it ever goes that far), but we've got to start somewhere...
Jul 20, 2016, 7:12 am
#140
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
The sole likely valid statistical study suggests that less than 2% of likely valid EC 261/2004 claims are ever made (not paid, but even made to the carriers).
There may well be many reasons for this, but the fact remains that this may be an uneasy system in which a very few people do collect compensation and the carriers do not particularly care.
There may well be many reasons for this, but the fact remains that this may be an uneasy system in which a very few people do collect compensation and the carriers do not particularly care.
Aug 25, 2016, 3:13 am
#141
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: HEL
Programs: AY Platinum, TK Elite, BT VIP, AA, BA, SK, DL, NT, WB + hotels
Posts: 8,749
And apparently, as ridiculous as it may sound, AY tries to explain that these are "extraordinary circumstances that could not have been avoided by any reasonable measure". 
I would find it hilarious that they try to compare their own mismanagement of crew matters with war or weather, but I don't since I'm affected. I got offered a €50 gift card instead of €250 cash for a cancelled (international) flight operated by Nordic Regional, reason for cxl shortage of crew.
I would find it hilarious that they try to compare their own mismanagement of crew matters with war or weather, but I don't since I'm affected. I got offered a €50 gift card instead of €250 cash for a cancelled (international) flight operated by Nordic Regional, reason for cxl shortage of crew.
After the first round in KRIL, the offer was €150 gift card. After I declined, they approached me directly and offered €150 cash/€200 gift card. I took the gift card.
€200 as a gift card is less than the €250 cash compensation they would ultimately be required to pay should KRIL make a decision in my favour, but since AY has a reputation of not following the KRIL recommendations, I thought I'll suffer €50 just to be on the safe side.
Nov 16, 2016, 11:40 am
#142
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: HEL
Programs: AY+ Gold
Posts: 428
UPDATE: Just received AY response to KRIL.
Some quotes written by AY:
1) 3h 32min of this delay was due to technical fault occurred while landing at HEL the day before our BKK-HEL flight
2) The reason for the delay is "flap moving damper accumulator fault"
3) Fastest way to solve this situation was a replacement aircraft (I think this is ........, the delayed aircraft was OH-LWB and our flight was operated by OH-LWB. I don´t have the data for OH-LWA for 17JAN so can´t confirm this, but AY stated that the fault was in their newest A350 which was delivered December 30th 2015 = OH-LWB)
4) Additional 8min delay due to ATC restrictions in BKK
5) Additional 16min delay due to "exceptional headwinds"
= Total delay of 4h 2min which they admit
- Finnair has contacted Airbus. Airbus and the part manufacturer are solving this issue. Other carriers have had similar issues.
They offered same 300€ voucher (for two persons = 150€/pax) or 200€ cash.
What do you think about my options (must decide before 4th of July):
- Proceed further with KRIL without reply
- Proceed further with KRIL and send a reply including information about false statement about "replacement aircraft"
- Accept the 300€ voucher (I don´t think I will go this way)
Some quotes written by AY:
1) 3h 32min of this delay was due to technical fault occurred while landing at HEL the day before our BKK-HEL flight
2) The reason for the delay is "flap moving damper accumulator fault"
3) Fastest way to solve this situation was a replacement aircraft (I think this is ........, the delayed aircraft was OH-LWB and our flight was operated by OH-LWB. I don´t have the data for OH-LWA for 17JAN so can´t confirm this, but AY stated that the fault was in their newest A350 which was delivered December 30th 2015 = OH-LWB)
4) Additional 8min delay due to ATC restrictions in BKK
5) Additional 16min delay due to "exceptional headwinds"
= Total delay of 4h 2min which they admit
- Finnair has contacted Airbus. Airbus and the part manufacturer are solving this issue. Other carriers have had similar issues.
They offered same 300€ voucher (for two persons = 150€/pax) or 200€ cash.
What do you think about my options (must decide before 4th of July):
- Proceed further with KRIL without reply
- Proceed further with KRIL and send a reply including information about false statement about "replacement aircraft"
- Accept the 300€ voucher (I don´t think I will go this way)
1) Solving the problem/fault is not complete by AY/Airbus
2) Technical Follow-up document from Airbus sent with AY response, marked as "classified"
3) They point out that this has been completely exceptional circumstances. The plane has been 2 weeks old, and it´s a hidden manufacturing fault that AY hasn´t been able to prevent.
4) Broken part is expected to last for 6 years and due to this Airbus has´t recommended AY to keep this spare part available in Helsinki. Now it was flown from Germany.
5) So they state that it's manufacturing and design fault in a brand new aircraft
They still "keep open the possibility" to make a deal by raising their offer to 400€ cash or 680€ voucher (=200-340€/pax).
KRIL asked us to think about this offer and inform them if we have some new information that they can take into account.
Next step: If we don´t accept the offer, KRIL will most likely make their decision, or do they still give AY another chance to convince us after 2 unsuccessful responses?
Any thoughts?
Pretty similar case on Norra E90 (unfortunately only in Finnish)
Last edited by HJP; Nov 16, 2016 at 12:50 pm
Nov 16, 2016, 1:56 pm
#143
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: HEL
Programs: AY+ Gold (OWS)
Posts: 528
No, my understanding is that 2 rounds of letters is all that there will be. But expect to wait at least a year prior to KRIL rendering a _recommendation_ in the matter. KRIL is absolutely useless, but you can take Finnair to district court after receiving a recommendation. But if you lose, you will have to pay up Finnair's costs.
Nov 16, 2016, 4:06 pm
#144
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: HEL
Programs: AY Platinum, TK Elite, BT VIP, AA, BA, SK, DL, NT, WB + hotels
Posts: 8,749
My understanding is that the correspondence goes on until there is no new information. In your case, you may reply by telling them just why AY's arguments don't hold. (In my case, Norra presented a reply with totally ridiculous arguments. I answered very briefly, telling why the arguments are not at all reasonable/believable. Shortly after that, Norra contacted me directly with a fairly good offer (€200 gift card instead of €250 cash).)
While I do not understand anything about the technical details, it does sound like the fault really could be categorized as "there was nothing AY could do", on the other hand their continuously growing offers hint in the opposite direction. If they were so sure, then why would they be interested in compensating you at all?
I'd say €1000 gift card would be accetable in your case. You'll buy flight tickets anyway, so it doesn't really matter whether it's cash or a gift card. The amount is a little lower but saves you from a year of waiting + an unsure outcome. Even if KRIL decides in your favour, there's no guarantee AY will follow their recommendation.
While I do not understand anything about the technical details, it does sound like the fault really could be categorized as "there was nothing AY could do", on the other hand their continuously growing offers hint in the opposite direction. If they were so sure, then why would they be interested in compensating you at all?
I'd say €1000 gift card would be accetable in your case. You'll buy flight tickets anyway, so it doesn't really matter whether it's cash or a gift card. The amount is a little lower but saves you from a year of waiting + an unsure outcome. Even if KRIL decides in your favour, there's no guarantee AY will follow their recommendation.
Nov 17, 2016, 3:26 am
#145
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: HEL
Programs: AY+ Gold (OWS)
Posts: 528
While I do not understand anything about the technical details, it does sound like the fault really could be categorized as "there was nothing AY could do", on the other hand their continuously growing offers hint in the opposite direction. If they were so sure, then why would they be interested in compensating you at all?
What can be held extraordinary, on the other hand, is if the hidden defect affects the whole aircraft type. In other words, if there is a design defect that would affect all (or most) A350s and the planes needed to be grounded (whether for hours or weeks) because of that, the airline would not be liable to pay compensation. A good example of this would be the 787 battery problems that grounded the fleet.
In this case, Airbus has apparently delivered an airplane with a component that has a hidden defect. However, nothing suggests that the problems would extend to other A350s. It is an isolated instance and, while unfortunate, does not constitute exceptional circumstances.
Nov 17, 2016, 4:25 am
#146
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK and Southern France
Posts: 18,364
Unless Airbus recalls/makes a recommendation affecting all A350s regarding a hidden defect, there is no extraordinary circumstance.
Nov 17, 2016, 8:08 am
#147
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: HEL
Programs: AY+ Gold
Posts: 428
According to Airbus Technical follow-up letter there hasn't been many parts removed from service due to the same reason. Can't write about exact details.
But, the aircraft they are talking about is different than the one that was flown to BKK that evening to get us home. Also this aircraft was delayed in previous route, so how can we know which aircraft was supposed to fly us home in the first place?
But, the aircraft they are talking about is different than the one that was flown to BKK that evening to get us home. Also this aircraft was delayed in previous route, so how can we know which aircraft was supposed to fly us home in the first place?
Nov 17, 2016, 9:35 am
#148
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: HEL
Programs: AY+ Gold (OWS)
Posts: 528
It doesn't really matter which aircraft it was supposed to be, because no matter which aircraft breaks down, it's not an extraordinary circumstance if it's related to a single aircraft. The Airbus technical follow up just corroborates your case.
Dec 18, 2016, 1:47 am
#149
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: HEL
Programs: AY Platinum, TK Elite, BT VIP, AA, BA, SK, DL, NT, WB + hotels
Posts: 8,749
In Helsingin Sanomat, a passenger writes about a case where a bird strike the previous day had lead to her flight being cancelled. AY denied compensation, but after using an EU claim company, she got her compensation. So at least in some cases, using the companies seems to work. Link: http://www.hs.fi/mielipide/art-2000005009809.html