Qatar Airway - 24h Delay - How to get the compensation
Jul 15, 2014, 5:59 am
#16
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Programs: Many. Too many. I came here to cut them down. I failed.
Posts: 2,999
I'm sure someone will be along to clarify this, but I believe...
EC261/2004 only applies for European Airlines, or Foreign Airlines on their flights into Europe.
I do not think VCE-DOH-Australia is covered.
EC261/2004 only applies for European Airlines, or Foreign Airlines on their flights into Europe.
I do not think VCE-DOH-Australia is covered.
Jul 15, 2014, 6:53 am
#17
Suspended
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PVG, FRA, SEA, HEL
Programs: UA Premier Gold
Posts: 4,783
Presuming that the misconnect was caused by the additional security delay, that is the end of the story. Nobody is going to look behind a Captain's decision
A European court is free to ask to look behind a captains decision.
If the pilot/airline responds that the court had no business in questioning the pilots decision, then QR might loose the case.
The burden of proof for extraordinary circumstances lies with the airline. They need to explain themselves in a complete manner.
Airlines lost a number EC261/2004 cases. In many cases the court complained in their opinion that the airlines failed to deliver additional documents (e.g. maintenance records etc.).
In addition: Italien courts are not known to be particular friendly to Non-Italien businesses.
Jul 15, 2014, 6:58 am
#18
Suspended
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PVG, FRA, SEA, HEL
Programs: UA Premier Gold
Posts: 4,783
EC261/2004 only applies for European Airlines, or Foreign Airlines on their flights into Europe.
I do not think VCE-DOH-Australia is covered.
I do not think VCE-DOH-Australia is covered.
1) EC261/2004 applies to all flights departing from the soil of the European Union.
2) EC261/2004 applies to all flights departing from and arriving on the soil of the European Union, if it is an EU airline
3) EC261/2004 does not apply to all flights arriving on the soil of the European Union. (you called it "on their flights into Europe")
Also Europe is not all European Union. TK flights departing IST (or SU flights from SVO) are not covered by EC261/2004, even though IST and SVO are located in Europe.
VCE-DOH-Australia is covered by EC261/2004 because the delay that caused the misconnect in DOH happened on a flight, that departed from the soil of the European Union.
Jul 15, 2014, 7:14 am
#19
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Programs: Many. Too many. I came here to cut them down. I failed.
Posts: 2,999
You are completely wrong.
1) EC261/2004 applies to all flights departing from the soil of the European Union.
2) EC261/2004 applies to all flights departing from and arriving on the soil of the European Union, if it is an EU airline
3) EC261/2004 does not apply to all flights arriving on the soil of the European Union. (you called it "on their flights into Europe")
VCE-DOH-Australia is covered by EC261/2004 because the delay that caused the misconnect in DOH happened on a flight, that departed from the soil of the European Union.
1) EC261/2004 applies to all flights departing from the soil of the European Union.
2) EC261/2004 applies to all flights departing from and arriving on the soil of the European Union, if it is an EU airline
3) EC261/2004 does not apply to all flights arriving on the soil of the European Union. (you called it "on their flights into Europe")
VCE-DOH-Australia is covered by EC261/2004 because the delay that caused the misconnect in DOH happened on a flight, that departed from the soil of the European Union.
Jul 15, 2014, 7:15 am
#20
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: VCE
Posts: 14,165
Well, it sounds like the customer service on the ground after you eventually arrived in DOH was not so bad. Onboard staff have no way of knowing if and when any onward flight may be held, so that was perhaps irresponsible of them to suggest to certain pax that their flight would be held. In most cases, delaying several hundred other people who are at Doha and ready to depart on each of several flights is not going to happen.
The number of flights I have sat on at DOH or in the old premium terminal "waiting for connecting passengers" may have lead me to believe that when onboard staff said "we have spoken with the captain and flight control" that they were not being irresponsible and that indeed they had spoken with the captain and flight control. Surely if you fly through DOH frequently you have probably seen the same thing- it is one of the few times where the QR black card actually holds weight together with a J class ticket.
Jul 15, 2014, 7:16 am
#21
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: VCE
Posts: 14,165
Jul 18, 2014, 7:56 pm
#23
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NYC/SIN
Programs: CX DM, SQ KF
Posts: 2,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by ANstar
if the main delay was due to a passenger being removed - then I would say it is outside of the airlines control (either medical or security) so I guess you would not be entitled to anything.
Hard to conclude so far. It you make a claim, it will be QR who have to prove that this was due to reasons outside QR's control. If the passanger in question had to be taken off because he e.g. had boarded the wrong flight, it would be within QR's control. If the reason was that the passanger fell sick, it would be fair to say this was outside QR's control. So, hard to make any firm assumption without more info.
But if this was within QR's control, you would be covered by the EU regulations. That would mean €600 + any additional DOCUMENTED cost this has caused you.
But with QR, you might have a long way ahead if you. But then again, QR might at one point wake up and realize that complying without a fight might be a smart way marketing and get positive PR. You never know.
I have friends and family that trade flights for more than €14 mill a year, and the lack of coherent, consistent and predictable policy in these issues is certainly a growing reason why QR is not the preferred carrier at the moment.
And i sincerely hope QR will improve, because at its best, QR is realy good and should be a product to be experienced by all travellers.
Originally Posted by ANstar
if the main delay was due to a passenger being removed - then I would say it is outside of the airlines control (either medical or security) so I guess you would not be entitled to anything.
Hard to conclude so far. It you make a claim, it will be QR who have to prove that this was due to reasons outside QR's control. If the passanger in question had to be taken off because he e.g. had boarded the wrong flight, it would be within QR's control. If the reason was that the passanger fell sick, it would be fair to say this was outside QR's control. So, hard to make any firm assumption without more info.
But if this was within QR's control, you would be covered by the EU regulations. That would mean €600 + any additional DOCUMENTED cost this has caused you.
But with QR, you might have a long way ahead if you. But then again, QR might at one point wake up and realize that complying without a fight might be a smart way marketing and get positive PR. You never know.
I have friends and family that trade flights for more than €14 mill a year, and the lack of coherent, consistent and predictable policy in these issues is certainly a growing reason why QR is not the preferred carrier at the moment.
And i sincerely hope QR will improve, because at its best, QR is realy good and should be a product to be experienced by all travellers.