Barry Lyndon

Hello everyone,

My flight SIN-AMS was delayed for at least for > 2 hours. As a consequence, I arrived late in AMS, and KLM finally rebooked me to the next flight to LYS.

I arrived almost 5 hours late on my final destination (LYS).

I am thinking of claiming a compensation, but I am not sure to what I am eligible according to EU regulations. I read on several thread that when you arrived > 3 hours late at your final destination, you should be able to clame

Also to mention (I am usually not into airlines staff bashing) that the staff in SIN was quite incompetent, they could not even anticipate the rebooking, they basically told "you will see when you arrive in AMS".

Thanks for your feedback...

irishguy28

The delay has to be over 3 hours for the EU regulation to come into play on flights of 1,500km or more.

Of course, depending on the reason for the delay, the EU regulation may not even have been applicable at all.


I'm not sure what more you can expect. This is standard procedure. I don't see that KLM could have gotten you to LYS any faster.

Again, although you arrived 5 hours later than you expected, this hinges on the ~2 hour delay you experienced at SIN. Again, there probably was no quicker way of getting you to LYS than on the next KL flight.

You obviously weren't at AMS in time to take the booked flight. So you can't claim EU261/2004 on the basis of just that flight. That you arrived 5 hours later than planned is unfortunate, but not compensatable.


I'm not sure you have any grounds for claiming compensation. The delay at SIN was within the allowable time, so EU261/2004 does not apply.

Of course, this caused you to miss your booked LYS connection, but you were put on the very next flight.

Delays are part and parcel of travel. You do not appear to have been overly inconvenienced by the delay and seem to have been brought to LYS by the next quickest possible means.

This is more or less normal for staff outside of an airline's hub. The KLM staff you were dealing with at SIN may not even be direct employees of KLM, and wouldn't necessarily have the authority or ability to rebook you from the hub.

Barry Lyndon

All right, thanks for the feedback !

Actually I asked when I was at the counter at SIN if they could put me reroute me via CDG on AF or even put me on the SQ flight on AMS to ensure I will get my connection.... I got a "cannot".

Ayway, SIN-AMS seems to be often delayed, next time I will avoid it !

pjhartog

Actually, I think the EU rules do apply.

That the initial delay was 2 hours does not matter - the arrival and the final destination was more than 3 hours (and less than 6) after the original ETA and therefore you should be able to claim for EUR 300.

See if you can use www.euclaim.nl or similar - KLM is nasty and avoids payment in all ways possible so you need to take the time and effort.

good luck

PJH

irishguy28

Not sure how you come to that conclusion.

The compensation amounts you mention, found in Article 7, are only referred to in the following cases:
* Denied Boarding (Article 4)
* Cancellation (Article 5)
* Upgrading and Downgrading (Article 10)

None of those Articles apply in the case highlighted here, so the issue of compensation does not arise.

Had the delay of the original flight surpassed 5 hours, then yes, compensation would have become necessary as it is opened up via Ariticle 8 (Right to reimbursement or rerouting).

Not also that the issue of the delta between the expected and actual arrival times only arises in Article 7. So again, that the arrival time was 5 hours earlier than booked is not of any special relevance and cannot be compensated for under this regulation.

Of course, there is absolutely no harm in turning to www.euclaim.eu but I'm not sure they would recommend following this up.

Centipede100

I believe you need to check your facts irishguy28.

261/2004 comes into play as soon as a confirmed reservation for a flight has been made. The exact provisions and entitlements do indeed vary depending on the circumstances and timings/distance.

Reasons for the delay may indeed mean that compensation is not payable for the delay but there are other entitlements that are payable/reimbursed whatever the reasons for the delay.

A delay of 3 hours or more arriving at the passenger's final destination leads to an entitlement to compensation unless the defence of "extraordinary circumstances" under Art 5.3 is proved by the airline.

The entitlement for the delay experienced by the OP is 600 euros.

EC 261/2004 Regulation in full here: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...4R0261:EN:HTML

Sturgeon judgement (which gave rise to delay compensation) is here: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...CJ0402:EN:HTML

irishguy28

So here we go.

Article 3 - Scope.
OP falls within the scope of the regulation. So we must read on.

Article 4 - Denied Boarding.
Not applicable in the present case.

Article 5 - Cancellation.
Not applicable in the present case.

Article 6 - Delay.

Only inputting the relevant bits:

1. When an operating air carrier reasonably expects a flight
to be delayed beyond its scheduled time of departure:

(c) for four hours or more in the case of all flights not falling
under (a) or (b), [(a) is excluded as (a) refers only to flights of less than 1,500km, (b) is excluded as it refers to flights of less than 3,500km]

So Article 6 doesn't apply - as the delay in departure is not of a sufficient length.

Article 7 - Right To Compensation
Not applicable in the present case, as we have not been referred to this article by any preceding (or subsequent) article


Article 8 - Right To Reimbursement or re-routing
Not applicable in the present case, as we have not been referred to this article by any preceding (or subsequent) article

Article 9 - Right to Care
Was referred to above in Article 7, but does not apply in the present case, as the delay in the long-haul flight was not sufficient (4 hours) to trigger this right to care

Article 10 - Upgrading and Downgrading
Not applicable in the present case.

The remaining articles also do not apply.

This appears to be a misreading of Article 7 (which, in any case, does not apply in the present case).

Article 7 can only be accessed if the delay in the original flight was 5 hours or more, and in this case, €600 would have been payable.


The second point of the Sturgeon ruling, though, would override all the above and seemingly mandate a payment of €600. But given that KL can hardly be expected to have arranged a new AMS-LYS flight just for the OP, I don't see how they could be expected to pay €600 as the "five hour delay" was really only a two-hour delay (the additional three hours being a requirement to wait for the next regularly-scheduled AMS-LYS flight). If a court enforced the compensation in this case, then airlines would eventually stop selling through tickets, as an "acceptable" delay on the first can still end up being an "unacceptable" delay under this ruling when a transfer is being made.

Centipede100

I don't believe you have read exactly what I wrote in my post!

Read it again and refer me to the aspects in the Regulation and Precedent Case Law which I appear to have misquoted/misunderstood.

You final point above "that KL can hardly be expected to have arranged a new AMS-LYS flight just for the OP, I don't see how they could be expected to pay €600 as the "five hour delay" was really only a two-hour delay (the additional three hours being a requirement to wait for the next regularly-scheduled AMS-LYS flight), is frankly your own interpretation, and is not supported in any way by what the law actually states.

For certainty, Operative part 2 of Sturgeon states: 2. Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed may be treated, for the purposes of the application of the right to compensation, as passengers whose flights are cancelled and they may thus rely on the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of the regulation where they suffer, on account of a flight delay, a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours, that is, where they reach their final destination [in this case LYS] three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier.

irishguy28

I've done that above. The original EU261/2004 makes no specific provision for connecting passengers. That further "delays" are introduced by having missed the original flight and then having to wait for the next one formed no part of the original regulation.

Delay is measured only as regards the departure of the delayed flight.

The issue of arriving later than planned only occurs in the context of having accepted a re-routing in the original EU261/2004. (Taking the same routing, but possibly later flights on subsequent connections, is not covered by "re-routing" in this context).

That Sturgeon ruling certainly went totally the opposite way. Now such additional waiting time must be considered "delay" - even if a passenger may have naturally booked such a connection, anyway, under slightly different circumstances! A passenger on just SIN-AMS in the OP's case would definitely not be entitled to compensation. A passenger making a connection may be (and in most cases would be, unless they had planned connecting onto a high-frequency route). For some routings (which are served less frequently, and not by many other airlines) it seems that any small delay can therefore now inevitably lead to the requirement to pay compensation.

No wonder they wanted submissions regarding the regulation earlier this year! Hopefully their second stab at it will be clearer.

Aviatrix

I believe - from things I've read in various places - that this type of scenario is one on which the jury is genuinely still out. Sometimes careless wording in court rulings leads to interpretations that were never intended; I think this is such a case and that further judgements will be needed.

Personally I would never dream of claiming compensation if a short delay to Flight 1 leads to a 5 hr+ delay in my getting home... something which, in my case, happens quite a lot because "home" is NWI which only has three flights a day. I think it would be morally wrong, and it could lead to airlines abandoning smaller airports.

Centipede100

Agreed in that the original Reg makes no reference to compensation for delays or references to connections in relation to delays, but does provide for re-routing and right to care dependent on the delayed time.

Agreed insofar as original Reg concerned.

But think about/read the rationale in Sturgeon for introducing the Precedent. Passengers whose flights are cancelled suffered a "loss of time" for which they are compensated, whilst delayed passengers were not, even though sometimes they suffered worse time delays than those who experienced cancellations. This led, in the eyes of the ECJ, to the original Reg not allowing passengers the "Principle of Equal Treatment" under general EU law.

I have no doubt that the revision to the Reg will clarify certain aspects which may not be as clear as they ought to be. I also understand, however, that the revisions will incorporate the precedent case law ruling principles of Wallentin-Hermann and Sturgeon.

NickB

Correction: the Regulation does not EXPLICITLY detail what happens when an initial delay results in a more substantial delay at arrival due to a missed connection.

This is not the same as not making provision at all for connecting passengers. In effect, what we have is a lack of clarity in the Regulation as to what happens in that situation. It seems to me that it would be misleading to peremptorily assert that no compensation arise in this situation.

FWIW, and in the light of the line of reasoning followed by the ECJ in Sturgeon, it seems to me that the case for compensation arising is very substantially greater than that against it.

Centipede100

I am going to disagree with you on this. I believe that the wording of the operative part of Sturgeon was very deliberately and carefully chosen so as to incorporate just this type of flight connection scenario, since "final destination" is well defined in the Reg.

pjhartog

Gents,

while following the Dutch elections, I have chosen not to follow each of the individual replies.

I am 100% certain the relevant EU regulations take the delay at the final point of arrival as decisive - so wheter the delay is suffered on a first flight (in full or not) or (if applicable) on a connecting flight - is of no interest. The only measure is whether the delay was under control of the airline or not (mechanical is under control - some weather or vulcanoes are not) and if it more than 3 or 6 hours.

So - CLAIM !

good luck and keep us posted

PJH

Verboten

I'm also of the opinion that EC261 should be interpreted from the passenger's point of view, i.e. destination of the passenger rather than destination of a flight.

Or should I say, I hope?

For those passengers connecting to a long-haul flights, if they miss their connection, very often the next available flight is the day after, so 24 hours of delay at final destination. The airline has to provide care (hotel, food, etc.) per EC261 but how about the cash compensation? If €600 is due then I can well imagine that I for one, in my vanity and with my flexibility, intentionally book those easy-to-misconnect itineraries.