DeppityDawg

I submitted a claim for a cancelled flight (AF7529 TLS CDG 14FEB) which led to rebooking and a 5+ hour delayed arrival at my long-haul destination.

AF has replied saying that they are not responsible for compensation because the flight was “cancelled due to damage to the right wing caused by an impact with a foreign object”. Unless the foreign object was actually extraterrestrial, surely someone can be held responsible for this damage and for providing compensation to passengers (via claims to AF).

Should I press the issue or would you all consider this to be extraordinary circumstances? At the very least it would seem they have not disclosed enough information about the incident to absolve them of responsibility.

By the way, the flight was only cancelled after boarding was complete and we all sat at the gate for an hour. So maximally inconvenient (and very early in the morning, for me).

Often1

Seems entirely correct if one presumes that the foreign object was not controlled by AF. I don't think that it matters in the least whether the object is extra or terrestrial.

EC 261/2004 is a scheme established to place responsibility on the operating carrier of a flight for the purpose of causing carriers to operate roughly on schedule. Third parties have no responsibility under the Regulation. This is not to suggest that you could not sue the third party for your actual damages.

Thus, this one is down to who controlled the object. An AF fuel bowser banging the wing would seem to be compensable. A rock thrown by an angry passenger not so.

NickB

Says who? I wish you would not present your own personal interpretations of what Regulation 261/2004 might or might not be about as objective, immanent truths. If you are going to formulate opinions which have no solid basis to support them, you could perhaps preface them with: "AIUI" or "In my opinion" or some such to show that what you are stating is just an opinion, rather than a fact.

There is, AFAIK, no support in the caselaw of the Court of Justice for the view that just because the airline has not caused the event that results in the delay or cancellation, it is automatically exempted from liability.

Have a look at the Order of the Court in the Siewert case for an example where the Court finds that an event that caused damage to a plane did not amount to an extraordinary circumstance. IF I were the OP, I would push back and insist that this does not amount to an extraordinary circumstance and insist on demanding compensation.

Ditto

Just to add a little bit, EC261 doesn't only look at the party responsible for the reason of the original delay/cancellation but also takes into account what reasonable measures the airline should have taken to avoid delaying PAX.
One excellent example is that the airline is usually responsible for any 'knock-on effect' delays even if the first flight of the day is delayed due to weather, ATC etc.
Another example is, say this incident would have occurred in CDG or any other AF hub (I'm not sure if TLS counts as an AF hub), surely they would have replacement aircraft they could have used to minimize the delay.

brunos

The plane was in TLS on time (no knock on effect), pax boarded and some technical problem could not be solved.
NickB is the expert on this topic. But my uneducated guess is that if the problem was just a "normal" technical maintenance problem, it is not an extraordinary circumstance. If the wing was damaged by some OVNI, AF might argue that it is extraordinary. My words above are just to illustrate not legal jargon.

In any case, I fully agree with NickB that you should keep insisting, possibly citing some court cases.

warakorn

This BS! EC261/2004 liability by the operating carrier cannot be waived because a third party is responsible for the delay/cancellation.

AF has to proof that this was a foreign that is not inherent to the normal operation of the plane (e.g. some sand that you find at all airports).
My guess is that some groundhandler may have damaged parts of the plane -> this is not an extraordinary circumstance.