Originally Posted by
bl540611
Wise & Great FTers!
Merry Christmas Happy Holidays! I need some help with an EC 261 claim.
My flight cancelled on LO33 on 9/19/19 from BUD-JFK was cancelled and I was rebooked on another Star Alliance carrier and arrived in New York much later than anticipated. After submitting an EC 261 claim, I received the following response:
I feel that this defect has been widespread / known since late 2016, and should be considered akin to regular maintenance. It's not like RR sent a directive on 9/18/19 grounding all jets for immediate inspection!
Does anybody have any experience challenging this excuse as it seems like LOT is trying to get out of this one.
Originally Posted by
bl540611
Wise & Great FTers!
Merry Christmas Happy Holidays! I need some help with an EC 261 claim.
My flight cancelled on LO33 on 9/19/19 from BUD-JFK was cancelled and I was rebooked on another Star Alliance carrier and arrived in New York much later than anticipated. After submitting an EC 261 claim, I received the following response:
I feel that this defect has been widespread / known since late 2016, and should be considered akin to regular maintenance. It's not like RR sent a directive on 9/18/19 grounding all jets for immediate inspection!
Does anybody have any experience challenging this excuse as it seems like LOT is trying to get out of this one.
Hi there!
Did you get any positive response?
I am looking for passengers traveling on the flight from Chicago ORD to Warsaw WAW on November 20th with LOT (LO4). After boarding, the passengers were informed some maintenance had to be performed and they were kept in a plane for 5hrs before departing. My husband had a connecting flight to Cracow, and because of the delay, he missed it. He was rebooked to another flight and arrived to Cracow (the final destination) 8 hrs later than originally expected. We have made a claim and, after 3 weeks, got a denying (of course...) response from LOT:
“We are sorry to learn about the inconvenience that you experienced due to the irregularity of flight LO 004 from Chicago to Warsaw on 20 November 2019.
Kindly be informed that the irregularity of flight was caused by circumstances beyond the carrier’s control.
At the same time, please be advised that due to the disclosure of a design flaw in the engines of the aircraft planned to operate the flight, the carrier had to follow instructions and take actions according to obligatory procedures. It was necessary to provide immediate unexpected checks and rewievs. As the passengers’ and crew’s safety is always top priority, a plane will not fly until it is declared airworthy.
We would also like to emphasize that the design flaw revealed in the Rolls-Royce engines is a global problem.
In accordance with the Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 such factors are treated as extraordinary circumstances which exempt the carrier from the obligation to pay compensation.
Therefore, there is no ground to accept your compensation request.
We regret very much that you were inconvenienced and we would appreciate the opportunity to serve you under more favourable conditions.”
Is anyone here in the same situation? How can they state the issue with Rolls-Royce engines is “extraordinary circumstances” if, at the same time, they state it’s “the global problem?”. My understanding is that if it’s a known issue, there is an obvious chance to avoid it. I feel like LOT is trying to get away with it again and will say anything not to pay the passengers back. Should I use some company’s help (like airhelp?) to appeal? I’d like to avoid appealing to the aviation agency - last time I contacted them, I waited for a couple of months for a response. Any advice?