bilancarbone

On February 8th, I flew on KL757 (AMS-PTY) with a friend. Our tickets were issued on 2 distincts PNRs as one was booked on airfrance.fr and the other one on klm.fi . We have the same status, are contributing roughly the same to AFKL revenue and were travelling on the same faring class this day. The only difference being the AMS-PTY segment issuer.

His was issued on a AF (057XXXX) ticket, mine on a KL (074XXXXX) ticketAfter boarding this plane, the crew informed us that there were problems related to cargo offloading and that the flight would stay stuck on the ground for at least an hour. The offloading finally required more than 2 hours, resulting in an additional need for deicing.The plane took off 2 hours and 41 minutes late and landed at PTY 3 hours and 35 minutes late.

KLM being responsible for this incident, I submitted two complaints under EC 61/2004 on the KL website. The complaint for my friend's ticket was processed in a fews days and KL apologised for their poor management of cargo and offered €300 cash or a €500 KL voucher (I obviously chose the latter). The complaint for my ticket took longer to unfold, and resulted in the standard message "We're sorry, but this delay is due to exceptional weather conditions that waive our responsibility under EC 61/2004".

I called the AF plat line, which apologised for the unfair treatment of my complaint and tried to force compensation, which they were unable to do, the case being handled by KL customer service. They recommended me to reply to KLM with proof that I was granted compensation for the other ticket, which I did. KL customer support stood anyway with their "exceptional weather conditions" ........ despite the email sent to my friend apologised for the poor cargo management causing the delay.

I felt so mistreated by their attitude that I tried to go further and did some research on the European Commission's website, which lists National Enforcement Bodies for "compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights", accessible on this link
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites...ent_bodies.pdf
They list "Inspectie Leefomgeving en Transport" as responsible body for The Netherlands, but the website www.ilent.nl states that they do not accept anymore complaints from individuals, and that those complaints must be raised through dutch regional courts.

I also tried to open a case on the European Commission's Online Dispute Resolution platform a month ago, but KL did not reply, probably hoping that I won't spend too much energy by hiring a Dutch lawyer for €500...

Did anyone tried another way to get EC 61/2004 compensation from KL ?

747jetter

You are entitled to 600 EUR cash compensation. I dont think you did the right thing to get 500 EUR voucher but that was your choice. If nothing else just let some companies online handle this issue. Their commission is about 20% from that 600 EUR.

Wil973

I think between 3 and 4 hours the compensation is around 400 euros..After 4hours it is 600...

747jetter

more than 3500 km and 3 hours = 600 EUR

bilancarbone

I think I read in the EC61/2004 doc that if the delay is between 3 and 4 hours the compensation can be halved by the company, thus the €300 cash offer (and the fairness of the €500 voucher option in my opinion)

LondonElite

Isn’t it a four hour delay to be entitled to compensation of €600? Otherwise it’s a reduced amount of €300 for a segment of that length.

irishguy28

I'm not sure that the full €600 would be payable per person, given that the "replacement" flight got to its destination with a delay of less than 4 hours, thereby allowing compensation to be reduced by 50% under Article 7, paragraph 2 of the regulation. This strategy appears to have been followed by AF, who offered €300 in cash.

I did the free flight check on the Dutch-based EUClaim claims agency, and they have determined that the flight in question doesn't qualify for compensation due to an "extraordinary circumstance" and therefore will not even accept claims for this flight; but you will probably find another claim agency that will take up the case.

bilancarbone

Yes, I need to find a claim agency that does not run an automatic weather check to sort cases.
Weather can indeed be evaluated as exceptional for this flight (although one may make the case that snow is not that uncommon at this time of the year at AMS, and the airlines have to take it into account when planning their flights), but did not cause the delay as, at the gate, the aircraft did not need deicing (it has just landed from another rotation). The delay was caused by poor cargo management, and the 2 hours spent at the gate offloading the cargo caused the need for deicing.

arjen05

If I understand the timeline correctly, the delay in normal circumstances would have been approx. 2 hours, which would not qualify for EU compensation. On top of that, your delay was extended because of severe weather conditions, which pushed it through the 3h threshold for compensation. To me that sounds like KL has a legitimate case of refusing the compensation based on severe weather and the AF employee granting the compensation mistakenly only took the cargo issue into account..

Which doesn't mean that you cannot ask a claim agency to give it a try..

johan rebel

Yeah, but the second delay was a direct consequence of the first.

Johan

Often1

1. EC 261/2004 compensation is payable by the operating carrier and the operating carrier only. It does not matter which carrier ticketed the passenger. Thus, on this KL-operated flight, any claim is properly made to KL.
2. According to OP, the flight arrived 3:55 late. For a Type 3 flight, a delay of that length may entitle OP to compensation of EUR 300. (EUR 600 reduced by 50%). One is always free to accept alternative compensation.

Claims agencies do not accept matters they do not believe that they can win because they do not get paid if they lose. Thus, they have an incentive to get it right. Here, it appears that they did. The delay of roughly 2 hours was not extraordinary but also did not result in an arrival delay of greater than 3 hours. The de-icing delay is certainly a weather-related and extraordinary matter. The fact that it would not have occurred but for the earlier delay may be true, but does nothing for a claim under the Regulation. Prevailing over a KL rejection will mean fighting a long battle (which KL may well want to pursue because it does not want to give up the precedent of such delays).

I suspect that someone at KL hit the "send" key too fast. While it appears unfair to OP, the fact is that the payment to the friend was likely an error with which KL is stuck.

OP may certainly try other claims agencies or could, of course, pursue his own claim without an agency, but the underlying factual problem here is likely to mean that this all fails sooner or later.

flyerCO

Weather didn't cause delay. They had to deice regardless of if plane was delayed or not. The delay in taking off was a result of issue with plane. The fact they then had to deice is irrelevant. If cargo door hadn't had issue, they still would've needed to deice. Also deicing is a foreseeable thing that must occur this time of year. In fact it can be well above freezing on ground and you still need to deice. This isn't a delay because a thunderstorm has appeared and plane can't fly through it.

brunos

I agree that it is unexpected that AF paid the compensation and the OP was lucky with this.

It seems that the aircraft left the gate less than 2h late, because they had to unload some cargo ( maybe some non-boarding pax with checked bags). There is never a mention of a malfunctioning cargo door as claimed by FlyerCO. Then the plane had to de-ice. The fact that the plane could takeoff 2h41 late would even suggest that it left the gate well before 2h (time to taxi to the de-icing machines, wait in line, de-ice, taxi to take-off). Maybe, the aircraft was ordered to wait at the gate for de-icing rather at the de-cing station.

Suggesting that de-icing is treated as "normal" at airports like AMS or CDG, where it is such a rare event, is not a point that airlines (or Dutch courts) would accept.. Speculating as to whether the aircraft would have not needed de-icing if it left the gate an hour earlier is pointless and pure speculation from a legal standpoint. We have read many reports on FT where the de-icing time was substracted from the delay by airlines which refused compensation.
Like Often1, I think that one agent was probably too quick to authorize compensation without checking the details. In any case, I doubt that there is any avenue for getting the second 300 compensation.

Often1

Remember that for EC 261/2004 purposes, the time of departure is irrelevant. What matters is the time of arrival and then whether there is an extraordinary circumstance. Here, the delay was 3:35 and the compensation for a Type 3 flight delayed that long is EUR 300 (EUR 600 reduced by 50%). Then the question arises as to whether deicing is an extraordinary circumstance. As others note, it likely is such a circumstance and moreover the need for deicing is purely weather-dependent. Where the deicing takes place, e.g. at the gate or a deicing stand is also irrelevant. But, what is relevant is that deicing cannot take place until the aircraft is ready for departure. Otherwise, the aircraft has to be treated again. That is a waste from every perspective.

Bottom line is that the arrival delay would likely have been less than 3:00 but for deicing. If that is the case, then no compensation was or is due. Be grateful for what was paid in haste and error.

flyerCO

There was an issue offloading cargo. I meant to out cargo door/equipment but apparently only put door. (One of those two were likely the issue)

Regardless deicing is considered a normal part of flying. No different than fueling. If they needed to add extra fuel due to flying longer route, delay in fueling would still qualify. Deicing is not an uncommon occurrence. As I stated it can be well above freezing (20C/70F) on ground but need to deice. Unless you can point to some ruling I highly doubt a Dutch court would consider otherwise. While I dont know the specific case, I do know I've read about case where airline tried to claim that and was rebuffed. Put simply deicing is normal part of flying.