Help with EC Regulation 261/2004 - AC is denying my claim
Jul 22, 2018, 11:24 am
#31
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,271
Can someone confirm these facts for me?
1. The 8-day-out schedule change caused an arrival delay of 4.5 hours at YEG.
2. The 7-14 day requirement is an arrival time within 4 hours at the final destination (YEG)
If that's the case, the delay on the day of departure isn't even relevant.
1. The 8-day-out schedule change caused an arrival delay of 4.5 hours at YEG.
2. The 7-14 day requirement is an arrival time within 4 hours at the final destination (YEG)
If that's the case, the delay on the day of departure isn't even relevant.
You aren't asking to have 'facts' confirmed canadiancow, you are asking to have an idea confirmed as being a fact.
Jul 22, 2018, 11:37 am
#32
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,600
Can someone confirm these facts for me?
1. The 8-day-out schedule change caused an arrival delay of 4.5 hours at YEG.
2. The 7-14 day requirement is an arrival time within 4 hours at the final destination (YEG)
If that's the case, the delay on the day of departure isn't even relevant.
1. The 8-day-out schedule change caused an arrival delay of 4.5 hours at YEG.
2. The 7-14 day requirement is an arrival time within 4 hours at the final destination (YEG)
If that's the case, the delay on the day of departure isn't even relevant.
Original scheduled arrival time 19:55
at 8 days before departure, he was informed that the new arrival time was 0130
This reads as new arrival time as 5hrs 35 minutes later than scheduled
It has been ruled that a delay has to be treated the same as a cancellation
This was to deal with situation of airlines rescheduling flights to try and avoid paying compensation ( e.g. delaying a flight for 24 hours )
There is no way , that I can see, that an airline can claim an extraordinary circumstance would allow for changing a flight > 1 week before departure
As such I cannot see how this cannot be due anything other than EUR600 per passenger
Indeed - in this case, the additional delay on day of departure is irrevevant since the 4 hours period had already been exceeded
It seems some people are having difficulty understanding that the airline can 'reschedule' a flight and when they do, that is not a 'delay' or a 'cancellation'.
From AC's 'Terms of Carriage':
"Schedules and timetables
Time and aircraft type shown in timetables or elsewhere are approximate and not guaranteed, and form no part of the contract. Schedules are subject to change without notice and carrier assumes no responsibility for passenger making connections not included as part of the itinerary set out in the ticket. Carrier is not responsible for changes, errors or omissions either in timetables or other representations of schedules."
From AC's 'Terms of Carriage':
"Schedules and timetables
Time and aircraft type shown in timetables or elsewhere are approximate and not guaranteed, and form no part of the contract. Schedules are subject to change without notice and carrier assumes no responsibility for passenger making connections not included as part of the itinerary set out in the ticket. Carrier is not responsible for changes, errors or omissions either in timetables or other representations of schedules."
Jul 22, 2018, 11:48 am
#33
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: YVR - MILLS Waypoint (It's the third house on the left)
Programs: AC*SE100K, wood level status in various other programs
Posts: 6,232
Slight correction, according to the first post in this thread, the original arrival time in YEG was 21:00. The rescheduled time was 01:30. A delay of 4:30.
Jul 22, 2018, 12:04 pm
#34
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,600
Jul 22, 2018, 12:29 pm
#35
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: YVR - MILLS Waypoint (It's the third house on the left)
Programs: AC*SE100K, wood level status in various other programs
Posts: 6,232
Getting back to the original point of this thread, it seems like the OP probably has limited choices.
From up-thread there was:
As well as this suggestion:
So, other than debating more points of European law, do we have any other concrete suggestions?
From up-thread there was:
1. Turn this matter over to one of the claims agencies. They typically take 25-33% of the loot, but handle all of the details. They also only get paid if they win so won't take a claim they can't win. A good barometer for you as they are not emotional, just engaging in a business transaction.
2. As this is not a violation of Canadian law, your choice of law here comes down to Portugal. File an action in Portugal.
3. Put this behind you and move on.
2. As this is not a violation of Canadian law, your choice of law here comes down to Portugal. File an action in Portugal.
3. Put this behind you and move on.
With all due respect to those on this forum I think you will find the best advice available would come from Gabor Lukas at airpassengerrights.ca. Best to post on the Facebook Group at https://www.facebook.com/groups/AirPassengerRights/ - I suggest posting the salient facts and just the facts in bullet point form without any emotive content.
Jul 22, 2018, 12:51 pm
#36
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,600
I would suggest in 1st instance writing back to clarify that the issue was not the short delay on day of departure ( which could potentially have been due to congestion) but referring to the orginal change at 8 days before departure and how that change could not have been due to congestion
If it still ignores that, then either take it to court or , if happy to take a hit on compensation received, pass it on to one of the agencies which will pursue the claim - DO NOT use one that will just give advice on what to do , but still claim a percentage of the compensation received
If it still ignores that, then either take it to court or , if happy to take a hit on compensation received, pass it on to one of the agencies which will pursue the claim - DO NOT use one that will just give advice on what to do , but still claim a percentage of the compensation received
Jul 22, 2018, 1:34 pm
#37
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: PHL, NYC, DC
Posts: 9,708
I see 3 parts to this story based on the stuff I read so far............
1. SKCH @ T-8.
AC notified OP, but has OP discussed with AC reservations or at airport during outbound travel that the proposed schedule is unacceptable? Has OP discussed with AC the possibility of rescheduling to something that is mutually agreeable? The way I look at it is, if OP accepted it face value and did not raise an issue or proposed alternatives, I hardly see any recourse to EU261. It be a different story if OP talked to the airline, did not reach an mutually agreeable workaround, forced to accept this 4+ hr delay plus plus......
2. SKCH...... IMO does not count towards delay, unless it fell to one of those EU261 covered categories (i.e. last min change, not notifying OP and not accommodating to alternative proposals).
3. Actual delay from origin-destination was only 70 mins (01:30 to 02:40) which is not covered by EU261
But my world of logical thinking is just simple and plain.....
Agree with others, perhaps take a cut but let professionals handle the situation.
1. SKCH @ T-8.
AC notified OP, but has OP discussed with AC reservations or at airport during outbound travel that the proposed schedule is unacceptable? Has OP discussed with AC the possibility of rescheduling to something that is mutually agreeable? The way I look at it is, if OP accepted it face value and did not raise an issue or proposed alternatives, I hardly see any recourse to EU261. It be a different story if OP talked to the airline, did not reach an mutually agreeable workaround, forced to accept this 4+ hr delay plus plus......
2. SKCH...... IMO does not count towards delay, unless it fell to one of those EU261 covered categories (i.e. last min change, not notifying OP and not accommodating to alternative proposals).
3. Actual delay from origin-destination was only 70 mins (01:30 to 02:40) which is not covered by EU261
But my world of logical thinking is just simple and plain.....
Agree with others, perhaps take a cut but let professionals handle the situation.
Last edited by global happy traveller; Jul 22, 2018 at 1:39 pm
Jul 22, 2018, 2:01 pm
#38
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,600
I see 3 parts to this story based on the stuff I read so far............
1. SKCH @ T-8.
AC notified OP, but has OP discussed with AC reservations or at airport during outbound travel that the proposed schedule is unacceptable? Has OP discussed with AC the possibility of rescheduling to something that is mutually agreeable? The way I look at it is, if OP accepted it face value and did not raise an issue or proposed alternatives, I hardly see any recourse to EU261. It be a different story if OP talked to the airline, did not reach an mutually agreeable workaround, forced to accept this 4+ hr delay plus plus......
1. SKCH @ T-8.
AC notified OP, but has OP discussed with AC reservations or at airport during outbound travel that the proposed schedule is unacceptable? Has OP discussed with AC the possibility of rescheduling to something that is mutually agreeable? The way I look at it is, if OP accepted it face value and did not raise an issue or proposed alternatives, I hardly see any recourse to EU261. It be a different story if OP talked to the airline, did not reach an mutually agreeable workaround, forced to accept this 4+ hr delay plus plus......
The airline cannot get out of paying compensation by just choosing to change the schedule of the flights. I it makes a change 2+ weeks before departure, then the airline is not liable to pay compensation
Jul 23, 2018, 9:15 am
#39
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,271
The flight AC1917 was re-scheduled by 3.55 hours. It is no accident that it was just under a 4 hour change in schedule. AC is not stupid.
As noted above, the rule being referred to regarding 4 hours refers to a 'rescheduled' flight.
When is the airline liable to compensation for a rescheduled flight?
Compensation is due when:
The airline has not notified its customers of a change fewer than 14 days prior to departure
Between the 7th and 14th day prior to departure the airline does not offer its customers an alternative flight within a window of less than two hours before, or four hours after, the original schedule.
Note the last word in that quote, "schedule". It refers to the change of a schedule and nothing else. AC rescheduled AC1917 by 3.55 hours, within the parameters allowed. You don't get to tag on a connecting flight to the 4 hour window. Where does anyone see any reference to connecting flights being part of it? Where does anyone see any reference to 'final destination' being part of the 4 hour window? I see people referring to the final destination but I see no evidence for that assumption. It's just an assumption that is convenient for allowing people to continue to argue compensation is due. Can anyone provide any evidence to show that connecting flights and final destination are included in the rules for a reschedule? If so, I'd like to see a link that shows it.
The connecting flight AC173 was not rescheduled. The connection was changed to another flight AC177 to accommodate the arrival time of the rescheduled AC1917. So where does anyone see a reschedule of more than 4 hours? Answer there is none.
As noted above, the rule being referred to regarding 4 hours refers to a 'rescheduled' flight.
When is the airline liable to compensation for a rescheduled flight?
Compensation is due when:
The airline has not notified its customers of a change fewer than 14 days prior to departure
Between the 7th and 14th day prior to departure the airline does not offer its customers an alternative flight within a window of less than two hours before, or four hours after, the original schedule.
Note the last word in that quote, "schedule". It refers to the change of a schedule and nothing else. AC rescheduled AC1917 by 3.55 hours, within the parameters allowed. You don't get to tag on a connecting flight to the 4 hour window. Where does anyone see any reference to connecting flights being part of it? Where does anyone see any reference to 'final destination' being part of the 4 hour window? I see people referring to the final destination but I see no evidence for that assumption. It's just an assumption that is convenient for allowing people to continue to argue compensation is due. Can anyone provide any evidence to show that connecting flights and final destination are included in the rules for a reschedule? If so, I'd like to see a link that shows it.
The connecting flight AC173 was not rescheduled. The connection was changed to another flight AC177 to accommodate the arrival time of the rescheduled AC1917. So where does anyone see a reschedule of more than 4 hours? Answer there is none.
Jul 23, 2018, 9:30 am
#40
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,271
At the end of the day, all that happened is the OP got home a few hours later than he had expected to. It's not the end of the world as we know it. This culture of claiming compensation is getting ridiculous. Air Canada rescheduled a flight. They didn't do it on a whim, they obviously had some actual reason for having to do so. They entered into a contract with the OP to get him from A to B and they did that. The contract allowed for a flight being rescheduled if necessary. Obviously, they found it necessary. That's unfortunate and annoying but it happens, it's part of travel. No one set out to ruin the OP's day.
Jul 23, 2018, 9:33 am
#41
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,600
The flight AC1917 was re-scheduled by 3.55 hours. It is no accident that it was just under a 4 hour change in schedule. AC is not stupid.
As noted above, the rule being referred to regarding 4 hours refers to a 'rescheduled' flight.
Can anyone provide any evidence to show that connecting flights and final destination are included in the rules for a reschedule? If so, I'd like to see a link that shows it.
As noted above, the rule being referred to regarding 4 hours refers to a 'rescheduled' flight.
Can anyone provide any evidence to show that connecting flights and final destination are included in the rules for a reschedule? If so, I'd like to see a link that shows it.
in Article 2 - defintiions section
Originally Posted by EC261
h) ‘final destination’ means the destination on the ticket
presented at the check-in counter or, in the case of directly
connecting flights, the destination of the last flight; alternative
connecting flights available shall not be taken into
account if the original planned arrival time is respected;
presented at the check-in counter or, in the case of directly
connecting flights, the destination of the last flight; alternative
connecting flights available shall not be taken into
account if the original planned arrival time is respected;
Originally Posted by EC261
(ii) they are informed of the cancellation between two
weeks and seven days before the scheduled time of
departure and are offered re-routing, allowing them to
depart no more than two hours before the scheduled
time of departure and to reach their final destination
less than four hours after the scheduled time of arriva
weeks and seven days before the scheduled time of
departure and are offered re-routing, allowing them to
depart no more than two hours before the scheduled
time of departure and to reach their final destination
less than four hours after the scheduled time of arriva
Jul 23, 2018, 10:07 am
#42
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,271
Your article 2 quote is simply a definition of what 'final destination' means. I think we all understand what a final destination is. But it doesn't hurt to show it I suppose.
Article 5 refers to Cancellation of a flight and Article 6 refers to a delay of a flight. Neither refers to a rescheduled flight.
'Delay' is not defined in Article 2 (definitions) but 'Cancellation' is defined. " ‘cancellation’ means the non-operation of a flight which was previously planned and on which at least one place was reserved." The flight in question was not cancelled it was rescheduled. As in any legal document, definitions are meant to be specific and avoid ambiguity. Cancellation means cancellation, we see it on the overhead boards all the time in airports. The subject of this thread is not a cancelled flight by definition.
EC261 in fact makes no mention of rescheduled flights whatsoever. So again, can anyone provide a link to anything that does cover rescheduled flights?
Article 5 refers to Cancellation of a flight and Article 6 refers to a delay of a flight. Neither refers to a rescheduled flight.
'Delay' is not defined in Article 2 (definitions) but 'Cancellation' is defined. " ‘cancellation’ means the non-operation of a flight which was previously planned and on which at least one place was reserved." The flight in question was not cancelled it was rescheduled. As in any legal document, definitions are meant to be specific and avoid ambiguity. Cancellation means cancellation, we see it on the overhead boards all the time in airports. The subject of this thread is not a cancelled flight by definition.
EC261 in fact makes no mention of rescheduled flights whatsoever. So again, can anyone provide a link to anything that does cover rescheduled flights?
Jul 23, 2018, 10:18 am
#43
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,600
Other court rulings since it was introduced detail that delays are to be treated as cancellation and are entitled to compensation ( for > 3500km) at
3+ hours : EUR300
4+ hours : EUR600
See Sturgeon and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH: ECJ 19 Nov 2009 for this https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-cont...EX:62007CJ0402
In the case of a delay to a flight , the flight is rescheduled to a new time
3+ hours : EUR300
4+ hours : EUR600
See Sturgeon and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH: ECJ 19 Nov 2009 for this https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-cont...EX:62007CJ0402
In the case of a delay to a flight , the flight is rescheduled to a new time
Originally Posted by European Court of Justice
Articles 2(l), 5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 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 repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that a flight which is delayed, irrespective of the duration of the delay, even if it is long, cannot be regarded as cancelled where the flight is operated in accordance with the air carrier’s original planning.
2. Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed may be treated, for the purposes of the application of the right to compensation, as passengers whose flights are cancelled and they may thus rely on the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of the regulation where they suffer, on account of a flight delay, a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours, that is, where they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier. Such a delay does not, however, entitle passengers to compensation if the air carrier can prove that the long delay was caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken, namely circumstances beyond the actual control of the air carrier.
3. Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation or delay 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.
2. Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed may be treated, for the purposes of the application of the right to compensation, as passengers whose flights are cancelled and they may thus rely on the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of the regulation where they suffer, on account of a flight delay, a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours, that is, where they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier. Such a delay does not, however, entitle passengers to compensation if the air carrier can prove that the long delay was caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken, namely circumstances beyond the actual control of the air carrier.
3. Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation or delay 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.
Jul 23, 2018, 2:13 pm
#44
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: YEG
Posts: 3,925
Other court rulings since it was introduced detail that delays are to be treated as cancellation and are entitled to compensation ( for > 3500km) at
3+ hours : EUR300
4+ hours : EUR600
See Sturgeon and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH: ECJ 19 Nov 2009 for this https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-cont...EX:62007CJ0402
In the case of a delay to a flight , the flight is rescheduled to a new time
3+ hours : EUR300
4+ hours : EUR600
See Sturgeon and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH: ECJ 19 Nov 2009 for this https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-cont...EX:62007CJ0402
In the case of a delay to a flight , the flight is rescheduled to a new time
FWIW I entered the flight information on one of the EU claims websites, and it appears that the basis of calculation is the rescheduled flight time, not the flight time originally booked. Of course, the website could be wrong but I recommend that the OP either contact one of the refund brokers to see if they'll take the case, or drop the matter.
Also, FWIW making a dummy booking, it appears that AC1917 flights on subsequent Mondays (23-JUL and 30-JUL) have also been rescheduled to later (although different) flight times.
https://www.flightright.com/your-rights/eu-regulation
Jul 23, 2018, 2:56 pm
#45
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,125
I don't think anyone is arguing that, but your line of arguments assumes that a flight being rescheduled (over 1 week) in advance and a flight being delayed are the same thing. I've not seen anyone here post anything yet that a flight rescheduled over a week in advance is considered to be a delayed flight.
The airline is also required to pay cash compensation ... unless one of the following conditions applies:
- the airline notifies the passengers at least two weeks prior to departure
- the airline notifies the passengers between one and two weeks prior to departure, and re-routes passengers so that they can:
- depart no more than two hours earlier than scheduled, and
- arrive no more than four hours later than scheduled
- the airline notifies the passengers less than one week prior to departure, and re-routes passengers so that they can:
- depart no more than one hour earlier than scheduled, and
- arrive no more than two hours later than scheduled
- the cancellation was caused by extraordinary circumstances that could not have been avoided by any reasonable measure.