Delayed QF2 Compensation
Dec 26, 2016, 6:37 pm
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,406
Dec 26, 2016, 8:32 pm
#18
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
If EC 261/2004 applies, OP would be entitled to EUR 600 for a Type III flight. I presume that what would be considered "duty of care" under EC 261/2004, e.g. hotel and meals, was covered in any event. If not, that would be compensated too.
This is not the first time the issue arises and it is hard to understand how the EU could assert jurisdiction over a delay which ocurred on a flight between two points outside the EU on a non-EU carrier where the reason for the delay has nothing to do with the EU in any manner.
This is wholly different than the situation where the flight departs from the EU, arrives into the connection point sufficiently late to cause a misconnect to the final ticketed destination, but not late enough at the connection point to warrant compensation. In that instance, compensation is, of course due and is measured at the final ticketed destination.
I would be surprised if OP prevails here, at least initially and without a fight on the specific facts of this case as this is not quite the EK fact pattern.
This is not the first time the issue arises and it is hard to understand how the EU could assert jurisdiction over a delay which ocurred on a flight between two points outside the EU on a non-EU carrier where the reason for the delay has nothing to do with the EU in any manner.
This is wholly different than the situation where the flight departs from the EU, arrives into the connection point sufficiently late to cause a misconnect to the final ticketed destination, but not late enough at the connection point to warrant compensation. In that instance, compensation is, of course due and is measured at the final ticketed destination.
I would be surprised if OP prevails here, at least initially and without a fight on the specific facts of this case as this is not quite the EK fact pattern.
Dec 26, 2016, 8:43 pm
#19
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: MEL CHC
Posts: 21,026
If EC 261/2004 applies, OP would be entitled to EUR 600 for a Type III flight. I presume that what would be considered "duty of care" under EC 261/2004, e.g. hotel and meals, was covered in any event. If not, that would be compensated too.
This is not the first time the issue arises and it is hard to understand how the EU could assert jurisdiction over a delay which ocurred on a flight between two points outside the EU on a non-EU carrier where the reason for the delay has nothing to do with the EU in any manner.
This is wholly different than the situation where the flight departs from the EU, arrives into the connection point sufficiently late to cause a misconnect to the final ticketed destination, but not late enough at the connection point to warrant compensation. In that instance, compensation is, of course due and is measured at the final ticketed destination.
I would be surprised if OP prevails here, at least initially and without a fight on the specific facts of this case as this is not quite the EK fact pattern.
This is not the first time the issue arises and it is hard to understand how the EU could assert jurisdiction over a delay which ocurred on a flight between two points outside the EU on a non-EU carrier where the reason for the delay has nothing to do with the EU in any manner.
This is wholly different than the situation where the flight departs from the EU, arrives into the connection point sufficiently late to cause a misconnect to the final ticketed destination, but not late enough at the connection point to warrant compensation. In that instance, compensation is, of course due and is measured at the final ticketed destination.
I would be surprised if OP prevails here, at least initially and without a fight on the specific facts of this case as this is not quite the EK fact pattern.
If the trip was sold say as QF9 LHR-DXB then QF2 DXB-SYD that's very different
Dec 26, 2016, 9:54 pm
#20
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,600
Paragraphs 12 and 13 at https://www.smarterwebcompany.co.uk/...ay%202016).pdf seem to relate to it quite well
Originally Posted by Liverpool County Court
In Scheenkel the Court of Justice of the EU held that the meaning of "flight" within the regulation was a "unit" of transport as opposed to a "journey". That being the case the Defendant argues that in applying the decision to the facts in the case the second leg of the journey must be viewed separately and that given the second leg of her journey was from a non EU country to another non EU country then neither 3.1(a) or 3.1(b) applies and Regulation is not engaged
Dec 26, 2016, 10:26 pm
#21
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Melbourne
Programs: ►QFWP/LTG►VA WP►HyattExpl.►HiltonGold►ALL Silver
Posts: 21,994
Basically if the Gahan appeal succeeds it will effectively overturn Sanghvi (or at least severely attenuate its use going forward).
The CJEU held in Air France SA v Folkerts that for the purposes of calculating compensation arrival at the claimant’s final destination should be used as the criteria. This was on the basis of the inconvenience of the delay was destination based, rather than at connecting posrt(s).
A little under two years beforehand in Sanghvi, the High Court, following Schenkel, determined that Regulation 261 was only concerned with individual flight components of any journey, and that the claimant’s second flight was outside the scope of Article 3.
As a result there is a conflict between the binding High Court authority and a later, contradictory view from the CJEU.
In Gahan, the judge in relation to Folkerts distinguished that both flights were of a Community Carrier and fell within the scope of Regulation 261, so was not relevant in that manner to Gahan.
None of these cases are specifically relevant to a Direct flight such as QF2 LHR-SYD.
The CJEU held in Air France SA v Folkerts that for the purposes of calculating compensation arrival at the claimant’s final destination should be used as the criteria. This was on the basis of the inconvenience of the delay was destination based, rather than at connecting posrt(s).
A little under two years beforehand in Sanghvi, the High Court, following Schenkel, determined that Regulation 261 was only concerned with individual flight components of any journey, and that the claimant’s second flight was outside the scope of Article 3.
As a result there is a conflict between the binding High Court authority and a later, contradictory view from the CJEU.
In Gahan, the judge in relation to Folkerts distinguished that both flights were of a Community Carrier and fell within the scope of Regulation 261, so was not relevant in that manner to Gahan.
None of these cases are specifically relevant to a Direct flight such as QF2 LHR-SYD.
Last edited by serfty; Dec 27, 2016 at 3:57 pm
Dec 26, 2016, 10:33 pm
#22
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,600
If the appeal succeeds, then I cannot see any reason why a claim for this would not succeed , since it seems to be the same situation
They are directly relevant
according to IATA - A leg is defined as The operation between a departure station and the next arrival station
so QF2 consists of 2 legs
and the court stated
the second leg of the journey must be viewed separately
If the Court of Appeal rules in favour of Gahan, lodge a claim immediately. Lodge before then and I suspect that all that will happen is that the case will be deferred until the definitive ruling. There is 6 years to lodge the claim in the UK, so no reason to rush out and pay to submit the case until a ruling is given
They are directly relevant
according to IATA - A leg is defined as The operation between a departure station and the next arrival station
so QF2 consists of 2 legs
and the court stated
the second leg of the journey must be viewed separately
If the Court of Appeal rules in favour of Gahan, lodge a claim immediately. Lodge before then and I suspect that all that will happen is that the case will be deferred until the definitive ruling. There is 6 years to lodge the claim in the UK, so no reason to rush out and pay to submit the case until a ruling is given
Dec 26, 2016, 11:15 pm
#23
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,406
This case is interesting - unlike the other cases, this is a single flight coupon and a single boarding pass.
On arrival in Australia, London passengers would not be incorrect to state they boarded this flight in London (for the purposes of their arrival cards).
Whether or not that makes a difference remains to be seen, but it is at least a matter of distinction.
On arrival in Australia, London passengers would not be incorrect to state they boarded this flight in London (for the purposes of their arrival cards).
Whether or not that makes a difference remains to be seen, but it is at least a matter of distinction.
Dec 26, 2016, 11:51 pm
#24
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,600
This case is interesting - unlike the other cases, this is a single flight coupon and a single boarding pass.
On arrival in Australia, London passengers would not be incorrect to state they boarded this flight in London (for the purposes of their arrival cards).
Whether or not that makes a difference remains to be seen, but it is at least a matter of distinction.
On arrival in Australia, London passengers would not be incorrect to state they boarded this flight in London (for the purposes of their arrival cards).
Whether or not that makes a difference remains to be seen, but it is at least a matter of distinction.
I would hold off until the appeal ruling and, if it fails, then decide whether it is worth gambling the cost of lodging a claim on the hope it will be classed separately
Alternatively, lodge now and see if a court rules quicker than waiting for the appeal ruling and does not go with Sanghi vs Cathay
Dec 27, 2016, 12:20 am
#25
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,406
Possibly - but this case can be distinguished if the court so wishes, because the facts are different. Single flight coupon, single boarding pass, and for all intents and purposes including ticketing and anything else (FF points) the airlines consider this a single flight (for example on a RTW this is would be a single segment). The other cases all involved a connecting flight with a separate flight number and separate coupon.
Dec 30, 2016, 3:59 am
#26
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: SYD
Programs: QF WP (OWE), VA PLAT, EY GLD, SPG PLAT, Hyatt DIA, Hilton DIA, Hertz PC
Posts: 8,527
Yesterday's QF2 went tech as well. Food spoilt and crew timed out. QF considered swapping QF9 and QF2 birds but that would have resulted in even greater misconnects.
The previous day QF2 diverted to DWC due to fog.
The previous day QF2 diverted to DWC due to fog.
Dec 30, 2016, 5:23 am
#27
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: SYD, GOT
Programs: BA GGL; SK EBG; QF LTG; Hilton Diamond, A-Club Platinum, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 2,724
I would consider this one flight, and so does QF through the allocation of credits/points based on the through flight rather than the higher two segments.
Dec 30, 2016, 8:15 pm
#28
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: SYD
Programs: QF WP (OWE), VA PLAT, EY GLD, SPG PLAT, Hyatt DIA, Hilton DIA, Hertz PC
Posts: 8,527
QF2 pax have been delayed 24 hours to allow the previously delayed pax to fly. Basically rolling delays due to a faulty fuel gauge sensor http://www.smh.com.au/national/qanta...31-gtk7b5.html
Dec 31, 2016, 2:03 am
#29
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Portland OR Double Emerald (QF and AA), DL PM/MM, Starwood Plat
Posts: 19,589
QF2 pax have been delayed 24 hours to allow the previously delayed pax to fly. Basically rolling delays due to a faulty fuel gauge sensor http://www.smh.com.au/national/qanta...31-gtk7b5.html
Looks like he wasn't impressed to be stranded in DXB and wasn't about to be talking with the QF pax there. How ironic that QF is saddled with a CEO who is so out of touch with what is happening to his airline even when he is on the scene and could be working at the coalface
Dec 31, 2016, 2:10 am
#30
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,406
QF2 pax have been delayed 24 hours to allow the previously delayed pax to fly. Basically rolling delays due to a faulty fuel gauge sensor http://www.smh.com.au/national/qanta...31-gtk7b5.html
If they had predetermined this, I reckon it should be treated as a delayed/cancelled flight for the purpose of EU261.
Shuffling pax part way through shouldn't absolve the airline from paying compensation.