|
Compensations for Cancellations/Delays/Changes - EC 261/2004 MASTER THREAD for AF
I'm flying AF soon and was doing my research on EC 261 issues (I'm US-based) when I noticed that there wasn't a centralized place for this information in this AF forum, so I wanted to help out by starting this thread, sharing some of the info I've found, and adding a wiki for info pertaining to EC 261 and links specific to AF. I hope this will help; please ignore or delete (mods) if don't think it will.
Update: Draft wiki posted. |
Great idea!
The only objection I have is for your definition of Type 1 flights as it also applies to flights NOT wholly within the EU of less than 1500km (As written in the EC261) for example some flights to Switzerland, Channel Islands, Isle of Man etc. Also I'm wondering if it applies to companies that are based in territories that belong to France but are not part of the EU. For example, an Air Saint Pierre flight to YUL or an Air Tahiti Flight PPT to LAX. The document only talks about the status of Gibraltar, but you could very well book Air Calin or Air Tahiti flights with Air France. |
Just saw this article, quote from http://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuw...talen-bij-pech
BRUSSEL - Ook als een vlucht wordt geannuleerd vanwege onvoorziene technische problemen moeten luchtvaartmaatschappijen de passagiers schadevergoeding betalen. Dat oordeel sprak het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie donderdag uit. De luchtvaartmaatschappij moet in zo'n geval een vergoeding van 250 tot 600 euro betalen, afhankelijk van de afstand van de vlucht. Dat hoeft echter niet als de maatschappij kan aantonen dat de annulering het gevolg is van "buitengewone" omstandigheden die zelfs niet hadden kunnen worden voorkomen als alle "redelijke maatregelen" waren getroffen. Ook bij verborgen fabricagefouten, sabotage of terrorisme hoeft geen vergoeding te worden uitgekeerd. De zaak ging over een passagier van een KLM-vlucht vanuit Ecuador die met 29 uur vertraging aankwam in Amsterdam. Volgens KLM kwam de vertraging door "buitengewone omstandigheden": een kapotte brandstofpomp en een defecte hydraulische eenheid die goed waren onderhouden. Het hof ziet dit echter niet als buitengewoon. EUClaim, dat passagiers bijstaat bij het krijgen van schadevergoedingen na vertraging, vindt het oordeel van de rechters "geheel in de lijn der verwachting". De organisatie stelt vast dat een technisch mankement inherent is aan de bedrijfsvoering van een luchtvaartmaatschappij en daarom dus niet als buitengewone omstandigheid gezien mag worden. Personally I have had AF skimping on compensation on exactly such issue. Flight computer kept crashing while taxiing to the runway. Air France never accepted that such issues result from operating the aircraft all day long - and only after sending a dozen emails back and forth they offered a 150 euro voucher: Not as compensation, but rather as gesture of goodwill. This verdict proves that I should have received the full 400 euros compensation. |
As a data points, I had a YYZ-CDG-LHR flight delayed a few years back for just under 4 hours.
I emailed AF and they sent me 100GBP voucher per passenger. I didn't know about EC261 and so left it at that. About 9 months later I emailed them again citing EC261 and without any resistance sent me an option of 300EUR cash or 400EUR travel voucher. I've already used both travel vouchers. |
Originally Posted by Xandrios
(Post 25440470)
Just saw this article, quote from http://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuw...talen-bij-pech
|
It seems that I missed the recent activity in that discussion. Thanks for referencing the other thread, may be of value to this AF topic as well.
|
I was scheduled to fly the following today:
AF CDG-AMS 1h30m layover in AMS DL AMS-SEA The AF flight was 20 minutes delayed by late arrival of the inbound aircraft. After boarding they said they had previously flown CDG-AMS and AMS-CDG that morning, and that the engine wasn't performing to spec (too high of oil consumption). They looked at it for a while and then announced that they were going to get a replacement aircraft, which would cause a delay of about 3 hours and told everyone to disembark. This would cause a missed connection in AMS for me so I went into the AF lounge and had them look into rebooking options. There was room on today's DL CDG-SEA nonstop, but they wouldn't let me on it because they wouldn't be able get my luggage switched over in time. Other re-routing options (such as today via LAX,SFO,JFK were sold out) So they rebooked me onto tomorrow's CDG-SEA non stop, which will get me into SEA 22h58m later than originally scheduled. Is this covered? What are my next steps, and what should I expect? |
Originally Posted by SEA-Flyer
(Post 25452939)
I was scheduled to fly the following today:
AF CDG-AMS 1h30m layover in AMS DL AMS-SEA The AF flight was 20 minutes delayed by late arrival of the inbound aircraft. After boarding they said they had previously flown CDG-AMS and AMS-CDG that morning, and that the engine wasn't performing to spec (too high of oil consumption). They looked at it for a while and then announced that they were going to get a replacement aircraft, which would cause a delay of about 3 hours and told everyone to disembark. This would cause a missed connection in AMS for me so I went into the AF lounge and had them look into rebooking options. There was room on today's DL CDG-SEA nonstop, but they wouldn't let me on it because they wouldn't be able get my luggage switched over in time. Other re-routing options (such as today via LAX,SFO,JFK were sold out) So they rebooked me onto tomorrow's CDG-SEA non stop, which will get me into SEA 22h58m later than originally scheduled. Is this covered? What are my next steps, and what should I expect? |
Originally Posted by NickB
(Post 25454103)
Yes, it is covered and you should be entitled to €600 compensation (in addition to overnight accommodation and meals but I assume that AF has provided that).
|
Originally Posted by SEA-Flyer
(Post 25455382)
No meals or accommodation - but those weren't really an issue. For food, I ate in their lounge (DL Diamond Medallion with a business class ticket) while they sorted it out. For accommodation, they gave me two taxi vouchers and I went back to my apartment.
|
I thought of a nuanced hypothetical I haven't read about yet:
Let's say you have AAA-CDG-BBB booked, all Type 1 flights. You have a 23-hour connection in CDG, an intentional long layover to visit the city overnight. Your AAA-CDG flight is canceled, and rebooked onto another AAA-CDG flight 24 hours later (small airport, limited connections). But because of the long layover, you merely have to be rebooked onto the next CDG-BBB flight and be late to your final destination by 4 hours. What should happen with the cash compensation in his scenario?
Originally Posted by Chuvash
(Post 25422059)
Great idea!
The only objection I have is for your definition of Type 1 flights as it also applies to flights NOT wholly within the EU of less than 1500km (As written in the EC261) for example some flights to Switzerland, Channel Islands, Isle of Man etc. |
(such as today via LAX,SFO,JFK were sold out) AF just didn't want to pay DL for carrying the passenger on US-domestic segments, |
Originally Posted by warakorn
(Post 25482103)
this is bull****.
AF just didn't want to pay DL for carrying the passenger on US-domestic segments, CDG-JFK had J1, but JFK-SEA had no seats available in either F or Y - would have been forced overnight in JFK (not interested). CDG-ATL had J1, but ATL-SEA had only seats in Y and got into SEA after midnight (no thanks). Also, because the itinerary was for Europe-US, I believe that any revenue/expenses would be split by the AF/KL/DL joint venture, so it wouldn't be the case of AF needing to pay DL for the US-domestic segment. As I understand, the JV doesn't apply to just the intercontinental flights, but rather to the fare and routing, so any US domestic or intra-Europe connections are included in the JV. |
Originally Posted by IceTrojan
(Post 25481644)
I thought of a nuanced hypothetical I haven't read about yet:
Let's say you have AAA-CDG-BBB booked, all Type 1 flights. You have a 23-hour connection in CDG, an intentional long layover to visit the city overnight. Your AAA-CDG flight is canceled, and rebooked onto another AAA-CDG flight 24 hours later (small airport, limited connections). But because of the long layover, you merely have to be rebooked onto the next CDG-BBB flight and be late to your final destination by 4 hours. What should happen with the cash compensation in his scenario?
Originally Posted by Reg 261/2004, Art 7(1)
In determining the distance, the basis shall be the last destination at which the denial of boarding or cancellation will delay the passenger's arrival after the scheduled time.
This is all rather speculative as we have no precedents and arguments could be made either way on these. One thing I would be pretty sure of, however, is that you could not claim two distinct sets of compensation for one single canx/delay incident. Thus, you would not be able to claim for AAA-CDG and distinctly for CDG-BBB. It would either be claiming for AAA-CDG or AAA-(cdg)-BBB (unless there is a distinct non-consequential additional delay/canx on the CDG-BBB flight itself in addition to the delay/canx on the AAA-CDG). Incidentally, I do not understand where those €200 figures come from. |
Originally Posted by NickB
(Post 25487681)
Incidentally, I do not understand where those €200 figures come from.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:02 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.