Quick question: is there some site where I can look up historical weather data? I'm looking for the weather conditions at DOH on 20JAN in the morning (09:00-12:00).

Or if anyone can provide them, this would be appreciated. Thanks.

https://weatherspark.com/#!dashboard;ws=32878

Then scroll back to the right day. Doesn't show anything odd to me mind, other than dew point hit ambient at about that time (mist in other words).

Thank you CWS. I know that it was all normal. They (QR) are trying to brush me off. First they said it was technical and now it is all of a sudden weather related. It's a fun game though. Surprisingly they have admitted that EC261 would apply (if not for that pesky weather...) in the following scenario:
Through ticket AMS-BKK via DOH
DOH-BKK is delayed over 4 hrs
I claim based on arrival time at my final destination, even though the DOH-BKK flight itself isn't covered as a standalone.
So far they seem to accept that line of reasoning.

It may be interesting for more people here, so if you want I keep you posted.

Could be an interesting one as other non-EU airlines, such as Emirates, refuse EU261 compensation if the ex-EU leg is not affected and the delay is fully outside the EU. They quote a number of court cases where they have won and not been required to pay out in similar situations

Hi All

This question relates to CX but I thought I would ask the question on this board as I am sure this is where most of the expertise lays.

Flight booking for 8th March AMS-HKG-SUB. My flight HKG-SUB has been rescheduled and instead of leaving at 15:35 on 9th March has now been recheduled til 02:10hrs on 10th March. All flights booked as one itinerary through CX.

The reason for the rescheduling is due to 'Volcanic Ash Cloud' and CX have been rolling this rescheduling in increments. It seems that CX do not want one of their planes sitting in SUB overnight and as far as I am aware all other airlines are operating as normal to/from SUB.

As it was, I had an 8.5 hour layover in HKG (worse places to be and all that but.....) but this has now been extended to 19 hours.

I have contacted CX by phone and they cannot guarantee duty of care/hotel voucher until I arrive in HKG.

The question is, where do I stand with EC/261 on this? Flight departs EU on a non-EU carrier and ultimately will get to my destination with a delay from original scheduled arrival of about 10.5hours.

Thanks for any help and advice peeps.

Safe & Happy Travels

S

Since the flight affected by the incident (HKG-SUB) is wholly outside the EU, Reg 261/2004 does not apply. The fact that this flights connects to or from a flight that would fall within the scope of the reg makes no difference.

Ok, see where you're coming from now and makes logical sense - BA can't say after the fact that because a flight arrived ahead of schedule (and under 3 hours late) compensation no longer due. I.e. once you take a different rerouting when no scheduled alternative is scheduled to get in less than 3 hours late the compensation is payable.

Might still get a claim through.

See the post by Henkybaby above relating to the same issue, except in DOH instead of HKG.

Airport METAR shows the airport had very thick fog with no vertical visibility and <200 horizontal visibility that morning.

How does this interact with this post / ruling reference?

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/24532751-post2.html

ETA - I see NickB's point, the only leg impacted is outside EU. So not comparable to the AMS-DOH-HKG example

Do you have a link/reference maybe? It is a matter of principle for me to see this through but I can't seem to find any prior cases... Thanks!

EDIT: Hmmm... That does not look good. I do feel that it is against the 'spirit' of EC261 that the judge takes the stance that compensation is on a 'per flight' basis and not based on starting point to final destination* but I am not sure I want to fight the considerable force that ME3 will use to prevent a favourable ruling for little old me...

I even think that it is contradictory to the exiting policy of using arrival time at the final destination to be decisive when your first (exEU) flight is late... But IANAL.

The point is not the "per flight" issue but rather where the incident itself actually occurred. If it occured within the EU (or on an EU-bound flight on an EU carrier), then the airline is responsible for delay to final destination even if there are 10 legs on the ticket before final arrival. But the incident must occur within the scope of the Reg. It is not enough that the whole itinerary starts or finishes within the EU.

Otherwise, on an LHR-AMS-HKG-AKL-NAN-SUV where the last leg, operated by Fiji Airways, is severely delayed/cancelled, Fiji Airways, the operating carrier of that flight (from Nadi to Suva), would be liable for €600 merely because the ticket originates in the EU. IMO, this is patently not within the letter, or spirit, of the Reg.

I disagree. The logic of the reg is that, if the incident occurs within the scope of the Reg, then the airline is liable for the consequences, albeit in a standardised form, of the negative impact of the incident. If it means delay to flights which, in themselves, would be outside the scope of the Reg then so be it. It is also in line with the wording of the Reg, which requires distance to be based on the last destination at which arrival of the passenger is delayed. But that only kicks in if you are within the scope of the reg in the first place.

Without getting too far OT, I believe there is a difference between fares that are aggressively marketed as IF they were point to point (most ME3 fare exEU) and very complicated multi-cities. I am sure I don't have to explain my train of thought as I also understand why 'the law' cannot (yet) distinguish between the two.

I am arguing for exception on 'through tickets' where the fares are demonstrably marketed by the operating airline as if they were point to point itineraries. A bit like below. No mention of booking a flight to DOH and then a flight to xxx. Again, legally probably nonsense but I am sure that it is common sense.

Even on the T&C page it says "Valid on Qatar Airways operated flights only, departing/returning from/to Amsterdam (AMS)". No mention of DOH...

And in the fare rules, it says this fare consists of 2 components. Component 1 = AMS-BKK etc.

If the way a fare or itinerary is advertised were a relevant factor, then the responsible carrier should be the marketing carrier or possibly the ticketing carrier. The fact that the Reg makes the operating carrier responsible suggests a different logic at play here.

I know that legally you are right and there will be no way in h*ll that they will pay, but you do understand the common sense line of reasoning in these scenarios I hope? :)