Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Aer Lingus | AerClub
Reload this Page >

denied European Regulation 261/2004 compensation. Advice?

denied European Regulation 261/2004 compensation. Advice?

Old Sep 5, 19, 2:16 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 16
Question denied European Regulation 261/2004 compensation. Advice?

I was recently on an Aer Lingus flight that was delayed more than 3 hours headed to a destination greater than 2500 km in distance due to damage on the loading bay door from baggage handler negligence. I submitted a E261 compensation claim and received the below rejection response. How does employee negligence = technical issue? Do I have any recourse in this case? Thank you

The EI 451 was disrupted due to technical issue. Aer Lingus deems this an extraordinary circumstance and wish to invoke Article 5 Paragraph 3 of the European Regulation 261/2004. Regrettably, no compensation is due.
neekolas86 is offline  
Old Sep 5, 19, 2:34 am
  #2  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Netherlands
Programs: Gold: A3, KL Silver: AZ, BA
Posts: 23,946
There are many, many claims agencies which can take up your case for you on a no win, no fee basis.
irishguy28 is offline  
Old Sep 5, 19, 2:43 am
  #3  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, United Kingdom
Programs: British Airways Gold
Posts: 2,477
It's not uncommon for airlines to try to fob off claimants with extraordinary circumstances as a large proportion give up. As a general principle airlines are responsible for the actions of their contractors.

I would persevere a little longer, indicate you don't believe it meets the criteria for extraordinary circumstances based on precedent cases, and indicate you are willing to pursue your claim in court. That should flush out how confident they are in their position.
moondog and neekolas86 like this.
ajeleonard is offline  
Old Sep 5, 19, 3:06 am
  #4  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NT Australia
Programs: QF WP
Posts: 1,638
Is this Naples-Dublin?
nancypants is offline  
Old Sep 5, 19, 3:13 am
  #5  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 16
It was Dublin-Naples
nancypants likes this.
neekolas86 is offline  
Old Sep 5, 19, 3:16 am
  #6  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 16
Originally Posted by ajeleonard View Post
It's not uncommon for airlines to try to fob off claimants with extraordinary circumstances as a large proportion give up. As a general principle airlines are responsible for the actions of their contractors.

I would persevere a little longer, indicate you don't believe it meets the criteria for extraordinary circumstances based on precedent cases, and indicate you are willing to pursue your claim in court. That should flush out how confident they are in their position.
Good idea. I found this case which states:
1. Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation of a flight is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision, unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control. Although the Community legislature included in the indicative list set out in recital 14 in the preamble to that regulation ‘unexpected flight safety shortcomings’ and although a technical problem in an aircraft may be amongst such shortcomings, the fact remains that the circumstances surrounding such an event can be characterised as ‘extraordinary’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 only if they relate to an event which, like those listed in that recital, is not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and is beyond the actual control of that carrier on account of its nature or origin. Air carriers are confronted as a matter of course in the exercise of their activity with various technical problems to which the operation of those aircraft inevitably gives rise. The resolution of a technical problem caused by failure to maintain an aircraft must therefore be regarded as inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier’s activity.

4. The fact that an air carrier has complied with the minimum rules on maintenance of an aircraft cannot in itself suffice to establish that that carrier has taken ‘all reasonable measures’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and, therefore, to relieve that carrier of its obligation to pay compensation provided for by Articles 5(1)(c) and 7(1) of that regulation.
neekolas86 is offline  
Old Sep 5, 19, 4:18 am
  #7  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 16
Update from Aer Lingus:

It is our understanding with regard to this disruption that we are compliant with EU regulation.

While I cannot provide further details, I would like to direct you to contact the Commission for Aviation Regulation, which has been designated as the enforcement body in Ireland for Regulation EC 261/2004 at Alexandra House, Earlsfort Terrace Dublin 2.
I just reached out to Ireland for Regulation so hopefully they will respond quickly.
neekolas86 is offline  
Old Sep 5, 19, 9:03 am
  #8  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 30,148
Originally Posted by neekolas86 View Post
Update from Aer Lingus:
I just reached out to Ireland for Regulation so hopefully they will respond quickly.
Well, at least they were kind enough to give you the address.
moondog is offline  
Old Sep 25, 19, 5:21 am
  #9  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 16
Commission for Aviation response

Having examined the evidence provided by all parties the Commission has decided that no compensation is payable to you. The reason that the Commission has decided no compensation is payable to you is that the length of the delay was insufficient for compensation to be payable, as Aer Lingus has informed us that the delay was less than 3 hours. Additionally, this is in line with the delay time given by third party flightstats.com.
Does anyone have a Professional flightstats.com account that can verify? I know for certain we landed more than 3 hours past the scheduled arrival time. This is just wrong.
neekolas86 is offline  
Old Sep 25, 19, 5:58 am
  #10  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 42,846
This is purely a factual dispute. The sole questions are the time the flight was originally scheduled to arrive and the time at which it arrived (the time at which the first cabin door was open and available for passenger offloading). You say that it was more than 3 hours, while EI says it was not.

National enforcement bodies tend to be completely useless and especially useless when there is a factual dispute.

Consider whether there is any backup evidence for your view, e.g., did you turn your phone on and make a call after landing, but while still on the aircraft?

For the benefit of others, available data disappears quickly. Take screenshots of key databases such as FlightStats immediately.
nancypants likes this.
Often1 is offline  
Old Sep 25, 19, 6:05 am
  #11  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, United Kingdom
Programs: British Airways Gold
Posts: 2,477
Was this EI450 on August 24th?

FR24 showing 11.30 STA and actual landing at 13.52. 3 hours late would be 14.30, so unless it took more than 38 mins to open the door after landing, they may be right.
nancypants likes this.
ajeleonard is offline  
Old Sep 25, 19, 6:06 am
  #12  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Netherlands
Programs: Gold: A3, KL Silver: AZ, BA
Posts: 23,946
Originally Posted by neekolas86 View Post
Does anyone have a Professional flightstats.com account that can verify? I know for certain we landed more than 3 hours past the scheduled arrival time. This is just wrong.
Which date was the flight?

I also note that DUB-NAP is 2077km and therefore below the 2500km mentioned in the original post...but EC261/2004 makes no reference to 2500km. Your flight is Type 2 (all intra-Community flights of more than 1500 kilometres, and all other flights between 1500 and 3500 kilometres)
irishguy28 is offline  
Old Sep 25, 19, 6:55 am
  #13  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 16
Originally Posted by ajeleonard View Post
Was this EI450 on August 24th?

FR24 showing 11.30 STA and actual landing at 13.52. 3 hours late would be 14.30, so unless it took more than 38 mins to open the door after landing, they may be right.
Thank you. I have no supporting evidence so I’ll assume this is correct and drop it.
neekolas86 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread