Mnhuis

I asked KLM for compensation for a delay I had. I am now wondering if you think their response is adequate.
On 20-21 Aug I intended to fly DTW-EWR-AMS, booked by KLM, both on codeshare operated by Delta. The first leg DTW-EWR was delayed 148 min, so I missed EWR-AMS. The reason for the delay was announced as something technical. The fastest alternative they could offer me was:
- cab from EWR to JFK
- fly JFK-LHR (Delta again)
- wait 4 hours
- fly LHR-AMS (KLM this time)
Final delay was 9 hr 25 min. I filed a complaint because of the delay and the general discomfort of this journey, mentioning EU 261/2004 regulation.
KLM replied that DTW-EWR by Delta caused the delay, that Delta is not a community carrier, and that therefore I cannot get compensation as per 261/2004. Instead, they do offer a one-year KLM EMD voucher of EUR150.

My question: is KLM correct to only base my EU 261/2004 claim on Delta flight DTW-EWR? After all, its delay was only 148 min. It is the rest of the journey including the additional and long stopover at LHR that made the final delay so big. Also, the rest of this journey was not only Delta, but KLM as well.

Do you think I should just accept the EUR150 offer or ask for more? Is EUR150 reasonable for this kind of delay, even when not taking into account the existence of EU regulation 261/2004?

Often1

KL was entirely correct and the mistake here was to claim EC 261/2004 compensation rather than to ask DL, the operating carrier, for a customer service gesture.

1. EC 261/2004 only applies to the operating carrier. The flight which caused the delay was operated by DL which is a non-EU ("community") carrier operating between two points outside the EU ("community). As such, there is no EC 261/2004 due.

2. Under the circumstances, it is extremely generous of KL to offer anything. Not only was OP delayed by DL, but his connection xEWR was DL-operated.

3. DL, on the other hand, ought to have provided a voucher for the EWR-JFK ground transfer (if the transfer to JFK was for other than passenger convenience) and some form of a meal voucher for any missed meal(s) occasioned by the delay. DL ought to provide cash compensation for those two items. In addition, DL will likely provide some miles for the general inconvenience.

As a general matter, it is important to understand what you are asking for from whom before making the ask. Many carriers, seeing the reference to EC 261/2004 and recognizing that it does not apply, would have simply denied the request outright.

Mnhuis

Thank you for your thoughts on this, I appreciate that.

To be honest, I was completely convinced that I should always contact the carrier I booked the trip with, KLM, for all matters (whether they be general questions, complaints, etc) regarding the flights, regardless of the carrier that will actually operate the flight on behalf of KLM. While I still find it a little odd, it is good to know that responsibilities regarding costumer service are in fact shared between codesharing partners, even though I only booked with KLM and never specifically chose Delta.

Often1

Bottom line here is that KL did nothing wrong here. No violation of law (EC 261/2004), no violation of its contract with you, and no particular reason to provide any form of customer service gesture. But, it did anyway.

To be frank, if you got EUR 150, a taxi and a meal, that's pretty good under the circumstances. Not so sure DL will do more (bearing in mind that DL handles customer service here in the US and KL handles it in Europe).

Grouchy

Looking at the OP post and name i'm thinking he is living in europe. Even if he contacted Delta, the email would arrive at the desk of Air France and KLM handle Customer Care. This what i generally get when i contact Delta;

Hartelijk dank voor uw e-mail. Graag laat ik u weten dat Air France en KLM Customer Care correspondentie voor Delta Air Lines in Europa behandelen.

I would like to inform you that Air France and KLM handle Customer Care correspondence for Delta Air Lines in Europe.

Yoshi212

What discomfort did you experience?
Was the taxi not to your liking?

Aviatrix

I think you're being a bit unfair here. Four hours at LHR after an overnight flight isn't much fun. Getting home nine hours late isn't much fun.

Yoshi212

I was being wise but 4 hours in LHR during transit really isn't that bad. 3 hours is more my usual LHR layover but it isn't unbearable. OP wasn't forced to take this routing. It was the soonest DL could arrange for. If OP wanted to wait until the next day DL would have done that too. Delays suck and OP does deserve compensation but OP wanted to get home as fast as possible.

Often1

You are correct. But, that does not change the application of EC 261/2004 which applies as to the operating carrier.

I have to guess that KL awarded the EUR 150 and will settle that up with DL. That is why I doubt that a separate complaint to DL will yield much. OP does not appear to complain about the cost of the taxi, so I presume that it was paid for by a voucher or otherwise handled.

KrnGrs

He was delayed 9!!! hours - I would call that very 'discomfortable'.

mfkne

And on top of that the EU considers 2 hours delay enough to warrant compensation in case of cancellation, so it's pretty clear where the discomfort comes from in this case.

Yoshi212

Once again delays suck but they are also part of traveling. Delta owes the OP but they did get him home as soon as possible. a 9 hour delay in arrival with a 4 hour layover in LHR means they got OP from DTW to EWR and then to JFK for the flight to LHR all within within 5 hours with enough time for travel from EWR-JFK and check-in. And this was the quickest option. OP could have gone with less discomforting routings such as waiting the next day for the original routing but OP wanted to get home as most of us do.
OP deserves more than 150 Euro from DL in my opinion but drop the hyperbolic drama.

KrnGrs

Your sarcastic remark about his discomfort wasn't really contributing much either. All he did was ask if he should get more compensation, which even you seem to think, so why be sarcastic about it?

Often1

Even the EU does not consider 2 hours to be a generally-compensable delay for long hauls. But, clearly, if OP's ticket were covered by EC 261/2004, he would be entitled to EUR 600 for this 9-1/2 hour delay.

But, this isn't the EU, no other major jurisidiction, save Israel, in the world has either followed suit or imposed the level of compensation imposed by the EU, and that is for a reason.

Yoshi212

Because people love using buzzwords to get more out of situation. I was a juror on a case involving a woman suing for "pain and suffering" after her husband closed a door on her foot during a fight. She sued the hotel not her soon to be ex-husband. Pain and suffering for the loss of a toenail; something the hotel had nothing to do with.
Now the first line of my initial response was actually sincere(though hard to tell). What discomfort did the OP experience? Did the OP have a broken seat, was the cab involved in an accident or any other legit situation that caused actual discomfort? Or was it a buzzword?