MDT86

OK I will send a message via the feedback form on the Cathay website:
http://www.cathaypacific.com/cx/en_H...ggestions.html

I know I waited a lot and it may sounds a bit surprising to file a complaint after 2 months, still I should be within the time allowed (I read of some claims made a few years after the flight!).

I will let you know what happens, thanks.

mayodave

http://www.euclaim.co.uk/about-us/cu...FU0JvAodSFYAkQ

http://www.euclaim.co.uk/

MDT86

I cannot use this website as I wrote before.

This is the error I receive.

mayodave

BIt more info in this one that might help http://skyclaim.com/EU261-the-regulation.aspx

brunos

Hi mayodave. I understand your suggestions.
But these "claim" sites should be undertaken after the airline has refused to grant the compensation. There is little reason to losing their fee and going through the process if the airline willingly grant compensation when asked.

As I said earlier, European airlines were much more generous until a year ago when the national regulation bodies issued a joint document outlining when airlines would not be liable, and that document is very favorable to airlines. However, some doubt that courts will side with them in all cases and the European parliament is currently reviewing the issue.
In any case, many of these "claim" sites only accept to deal with airlines based in Europe.

irishguy28

It is immaterial whether you were booked on just one flight; or needed two flights to get to your final destination (as in your case), or whether there were 3, 4 or more flights involved in getting you from your origin to your final destination.

The only criteria are:

- how late you arrive at your final destination (Perth, not Hong Kong)
- what is the distance between your origin and your final destination
- whether the reason for the delay was within control of the airline

The compensation due, and the delay before compensation is due, varies depending on the distance between origin and final destination (i.e. short European flights don't lead to as much compensation, but don't need to be delayed for as long as long haul flights before compensation is due).

Anyways, your "double compensation" issue falls down on the following point - the HKG-PER flight you were originally booked on was not delayed - it operated just fine, it's just that you couldn't be on it because of the cancellation of your MXP-HKG flight. Even if the replacement HKG-PER flight that you travelled on the next day had itself been further delayed, this would only increase the single delay experienced in reaching your final destination, Perth - but any further delay would not have increased the amount of monetary compensation you were entitled to, as the delay you had already experienced leaving Milan had already brought you to the maximum amount of €600. The only additional compensation that may have become attributable to you owing to further delays in the next flight would have been further accommodation, meals and phonecalls.

Note, however, that without knowing exactly why your flight was cancelled, it could well be that the airline considers themselves not liable for paying the monetary compensation. You may have to argue this with them.

percysmith

When I was MXed my insurer told me to get a letter from airline service desk certifying the delay right away. They also have to include the reason (e.g. "mechanical issue which required rectification by our Engineers" (QF)).

I would get this letter and use the reason given to support EC261 claim.

brunos

I agree with irishguy28.

When you ask a EU airline (or an airline departing from EU) for compensation under EC261/2004, the airline is required to give you the reason for denying. Typically 'extraordinary circumstances due to technical fault/extreme weather/strike at the airport'.
You can keep insisting and argue with the airline, but that usually takes you nowhere. In some countries there are simple avenue for suing, like the 'small courts" in Britain which tends to be favorable to consumers. But I do not think that you would have much chance in HK courts (CX is headquartered in HK). You could try Italian courts if the ticket was issued in Italy and the flight departed from Italy but, if they accept it, good luck.

The EU Court of Justice is not a regular court that hear cases from individuals. Only EU national courts can possibly refer some questions to the EU Court of Justice regarding the interpretation of EU Directive EC261/2004.

The threat of legal proceedings could be sufficient for induce CX to pay the EUR600, but it is not a very credible threat. The "claim" website might be more efficient in the initial phase, but I doubt that they would take the case of a non-EU airline and they won't push to the actual suing in Hong Kong or Italy.

So your initial, and probably only, avenue is CX customer service. If you hold status with them, they might be more favorably inclined.

percysmith

We have a Small Claims Tribunal here.

But I think it's highly unlikely they'll enforce EU regulations. Take CX to the national regulator in the EU country and let them kick CX.

irishguy28

The national regulator is actually powerless in the matter. You would have to use the small claims procedure in the relevant country - in this case, Italy. Or if you're feeling particularly vindictive (and flush with cash), you could mount a full-blown legal battle in the regular courts (not to be recommended - but there have been several cases of EC261/2004 claims ending up in front of national courts).

If CX push back on you and you feel like you're getting nowhere, but that the reason for cancellation is actually within the remit of the airline, it may then be worthwhile calling on one of the companies that specialise in chasing EU261 claims to fight on your behalf. They mostly operate on a no-win, no-fee basis, and if they get compensation, they take a fixed percentage of it so you should not at all end up out of pocket.

irishguy28

There are other services which will process claims for you if they believe compensation is justified.

However, at least one of these alternates believes that your flight operated as normal that day:



If the flight you were originally booked on did in fact operate, this means that you were in fact involuntarily denied boarding, then you have an even more clear-cut case for compensation.

(It would be strange, indeed, for an entire MXP-HKG planeload of passengers to simply be accommodated on the next day's flight as your original post seems to suggest. Can you tell us what happened to all the other affected passengers? When and where were you informed of the "cancellation"? Could it be that the flight actually operated but you were told otherwise?)

MDT86

That's strange, I agree, but I reckon it was indeed happened.

My first plane was half empty when I checked in online the day before - the one I took the next day was fully booked.

Moreover, at the desk they told me about 50 people had been already sent from Milan to Rome earlier that morning (I was at the desk about 4 hours before the estimated departure time) with another flight to go from Rome to Hong Kong.
They checked if there were other flights to Rome, but no more seats were available.

All the other passengers were offered like me accommodation, meals (lunch + dinner + breakfast the day after) and transport from the airport to the hotel (and return the day after).

When I arrived at the airport the monitor showed the flight as "undefined delayed". At the desk I was informed the airplane was grounded and would have not taken off, due to "some problems with the wing that probably happened at landing".
I do not believe that flight operated, indeed we had to wait for the next day when the other plane arrived, and we took that one.

I could not find any more information about any accident or anything, neither on the company website, nor anywhere else on the web.
I asked for more information the day after when I took the flight (there were more staff people there, and some of them managers) but I was told the same things.

Anyway, I have just got an answer from Cathay stating that they are going to give me the 600 euro compensation!
I will send all the documents, but everything seems to be OK.

Thank you guys!

brunos

CX is a good airline.
Other airlines might have argued and argued.
CX has few flights departing from Europe every day (as opposed to European airlines with short and long hauls and liable also for arrivals), and they probably took the policy to compensate in all serious cases.

MDT86

That's probably correct.
However, I would be really curious in knowing how many people on that flight asked for compensation. It could be I'm the only one!

MDT86

Got the money today, thank you all again for your useful information!