CeeGull

On 10/2/2017, my cathay pacific flight from Lhr to Hk arrived 30 mins late causing me missed my HK to Penang connection with dragon air. I didnt get to my final destination 7 hours later even with their best effort to put me on nx earliest connection.
When i book my flight directly with Cathay pacific, i raised the question such short transfering time might not be enough but was reassured if the system scheduled that it should be fine.

My question is do i have a case on claiming compensation on this delay?

bart simpson

EC261/2004 is your friend.

You should be entitled to 600EUR since you arrive more than 5 hours late to your final destination. It is only applicable if your flight from London is delayed due to CX's own problem, i.e. not because of weather, strikes, etc.

CeeGull

- Taken longer to refuel at heathrow was the 30 mins delayed reason.
- No early available connection flight from hk to penang, earliest flight availble was 7 hours later which combine with MAS.

Am i still entitle to?

Often1

EC 261/2004 applies because this was a departure from the EU and the delay was not caused by an extraordinary circumstance, e.g., it was either an error by CX or a CX contractor.

The dispute will be whether this was a 30-minute delay at HKG which would not result in any compensation for any Type flight or a 7-hour delay at PEN, your final ticketed destination, which would result in EUR 600 cancellation/delay compensation for a Type 3 flight.

The law seems settled if the first segment were within the EU, but there remains dispute on the current situation. But, it will be resolved soon enough.

Make a claim with CX. Be very specific that it is for EUR 600 and that this is because the delay is measured by time of arrival at PEN as your final ticketed destination. Keep the complaint simple and short. Leave out extraneous details.

Your claim will almost certainly be denied. It is always possible that CX offers you something. You are always free to accept what is offered. Only you know the value of your time. If you do, you are done. If you don't, proceed as below.

Presuming that you are UK-based, you have access to MCOL. If not, you still have access to the small claims process and its telephone hearings. The forms for a Letter Before Action are on the MCOL website. Use those either way. File in short order and maybe CX will pay just to get this done, maybe it will fight and maybe it will offer more than before. Compromise is always up to you.

cxfan1960

What is the reason for taking longer to refuel? Are both flights on one ticket?

In any event, as other said, you can file a claim with CX first.

bart simpson

I think EC261/2004 still holds since the delay is caused by an ex-EU journey.

Can I assume you fly CX250 and connect to KA691 with an original transit time of 80mins?

TravelwhileyouEat

Wouldn't EC 261/2004 apply if it was ticketed as LHR-PEN on a single ticket?

CX sold the ticket to PEN and not HKG (which I'm sure would have priced differently) so the airline can't really claim that it was able to get you to your ex-EU destination within the prescribed arrival time frame.

bart simpson

Yes, EC261/2004 does apply in this case.

But normally airlines (not CX but just airlines in general) tend not to compensate the passengers at the first email but will do so after the first/second conversations since I don't think a lot of people know well about the regulations.

garykung

I don't think so.

1. While many suggest EC261/2004 may apply, I don't think it is the case. EC261 applies all flights operated by EU member state airlines, with the addition of Switzerland. For foreign airlines to be under EC261, the flight itself must be departed from the EU (and Switzerland).

In this case, since OP's flight from HKG is not a continuation of the original EU flight, but rather than a connecting flight from a non-related airlines (Although CX and KA are the same company, each of them has its own AOC). So it will be difficult to argue that EC261 takes place.

2. CX rarely gave out compensation.

HarbourGent

This itinerary sounds overly ambitious to start with and responsibility for that is also on you as a passenger as well as perhaps on the airline in my opinion. You say that you were "reassured if the system scheduled that it should be fine" but that's an abrogation of your personal responsibility for your own travel. "Should be fine" may have meant "if there is a delay, we'll put you on the next available flight" not "you can rely on making this tight connection come what may".
You arrived seven hours late, I think it's reasonable just to accept it and amend your travel accordingly. If your itinerary has so little leeway that half an hour delay on a long haul flight loses you the connection, then you probably should have planned differently.

CeeGull

Yes is on a single ticket. Booking is done directly with cathay pacific online and reconfirmed timing via phone call. I did challenge the telephone advisor about the 85 mins transit but was told not an issue as in same terminal.
Only until I landed, i realised is a very long walk - from one end to another. If only the gate ground staff helped me to inform my next plane, I would have caught it as my boarding pass already issued at LHR.

CeeGull

In hind sight, i should have go with my own instinct and insist changing to a longer connection time but i thought the staff would have knowing better than me - merely a passenger.

nolounge

Well said. +1

nolounge

These outsourced agents generally know...next to nothing. But in her defense, she IS/was correct. Under normal circumstances, 85 minutes would have been more than enough for you to transit between your two flights. Just that in your case, you were unfortunate to come across a delay refueling situation.

HarbourGent summarized it very well above.

Often1

Whether the ticket (forget about itinerary, booking, PNR and other made up terms) is "overly ambitious," it is within MCT and EC 261/2004 does not look at "overly ambitious." CX sets the MCT and if CX wants to avoid the risk on flights departing the EU it could set the MCT higher. But, it has not. Perhaps it will.

To those who suggest that the delay is measured at the connection point not the final ticketed destination, the issue is currently before the CJEU and will be decided soon enough.

OP would be a fool not to make a claim and pursue his claim through the MCOL / Small Claims process in the UK unless he is willing to let EUR 600 go. If the matter goes his way, CX will pay up and if it does not, he will lose and will have wasted about an hour more of his time.

Perhaps the Regulation ought not to have been passed and perhaps it ought not to reward the "overly ambitious" but it does. So long as it does, why shouldn't OP at least try?