Dec 20 CX343 HKG-LGW diverted to LHR due to drones sighted near LGW runway
Dec 22, 2018, 6:30 am
#33
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,596
EU261 will most certainly apply. The duty of care is always applicable whatever the circumstances. The compensation part may not be.
Dec 23, 2018, 4:29 am
#34
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK. BAEC AAdvantage
Programs: Mucci Des Oeufs Brouilles et des Canards
Posts: 3,671
Interesting on the BBC yesterday the reporter highlighted Cathay, China Eastern and other non-EU airlines and pointed out that they aren't obliged for even duty of care under EU261 for inward bound flights, only outbound from the EU. EU261 applies to EU carriers in both directions and non-EU carriers when departing an EU country. Airlines are of course at their own discretion are able to supply what support they can or want to. Would be interesting to hear of the experiences of any CX pax stuck in their non-home destination as a result of this and see what support (if any) was given.
Dec 23, 2018, 5:01 am
#35
Join Date: Nov 2017
Programs: MPC-DM, Enrich-Plat
Posts: 1,310
.. Interesting on the BBC yesterday the reporter highlighted Cathay, China Eastern and other non-EU airlines and pointed out that they aren't obliged for even duty of care under EU261 for inward bound flights, only outbound from the EU. EU261 applies to EU carriers in both directions and non-EU carriers when departing an EU country. Airlines are of course at their own discretion are able to supply what support they can or want to. Would be interesting to hear of the experiences of any CX pax stuck in their non-home destination as a result of this and see what support (if any) was given.
It would be an interesting case, whether the arrival at a neighbouring airport (LHR in stead of LGW) and subsequent transport to LGW, is considered a duty of care item, ie transport further to LGW (which was closed anyway), for those passengers interested in that or just a continuation of the original travel. If a duty of care, then I can imagine, this applies to all airlines, EU and non-EU based and includes the life-goodies. If continuation of to the original destination, then it applies to all airlines, EU and non-EU based, simply because of the CoC, without the life-goodies.
Dec 23, 2018, 5:56 am
#36
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK. BAEC AAdvantage
Programs: Mucci Des Oeufs Brouilles et des Canards
Posts: 3,671
When pax travel onwards, then the duty of care would be the "outbound" airline.
It would be an interesting case, whether the arrival at a neighbouring airport (LHR in stead of LGW) and subsequent transport to LGW, is considered a duty of care item, ie transport further to LGW (which was closed anyway), for those passengers interested in that or just a continuation of the original travel. If a duty of care, then I can imagine, this applies to all airlines, EU and non-EU based and includes the life-goodies. If continuation of to the original destination, then it applies to all airlines, EU and non-EU based, simply because of the CoC, without the life-goodies.
It would be an interesting case, whether the arrival at a neighbouring airport (LHR in stead of LGW) and subsequent transport to LGW, is considered a duty of care item, ie transport further to LGW (which was closed anyway), for those passengers interested in that or just a continuation of the original travel. If a duty of care, then I can imagine, this applies to all airlines, EU and non-EU based and includes the life-goodies. If continuation of to the original destination, then it applies to all airlines, EU and non-EU based, simply because of the CoC, without the life-goodies.
In the case of CX343, I imagine you would of had a number of people who would have been glad to get off the plane at LHR and make their own way home/out. Equally there may have been some who had cars parked at LGW or lived nearby and wanted to be taken their. The "simple" logistics would be to get everyone to clear immigration at LHR, get their bags and then those that wanted transport to LGW, to take up whatever arrangements CX were able to throw together. Alternatively they could offer reimbursement of any self travel to LGW either using the connecting coach service or by train (assuming they would let them take both the HEX and GEX plus tube inbetween - it may be quicker than the coach service) .
The trouble is, it's easy for us armchair experts to solutionize. The logistics of reality, especially when you have an event affecting multiple airlines in large numbers throws up a scenario that's probably difficult to prepare for. Not impossible, just with so many variables, difficult.
Dec 23, 2018, 6:14 am
#37
Join Date: Nov 2017
Programs: MPC-DM, Enrich-Plat
Posts: 1,310
In the case of CX343, I imagine you would of had a number of people who would have been glad to get off the plane at LHR and make their own way home/out. Equally there may have been some who had cars parked at LGW or lived nearby and wanted to be taken their. The "simple" logistics would be to get everyone to clear immigration at LHR, get their bags and then those that wanted transport to LGW, to take up whatever arrangements CX were able to throw together. Alternatively they could offer reimbursement of any self travel to LGW either using the connecting coach service or by train (assuming they would let them take both the HEX and GEX plus tube inbetween - it may be quicker than the coach service) .
The trouble is, it's easy for us armchair experts to solutionize. The logistics of reality, especially when you have an event affecting multiple airlines in large numbers throws up a scenario that's probably difficult to prepare for. Not impossible, just with so many variables, difficult.
Dec 23, 2018, 7:41 am
#38
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK. BAEC AAdvantage
Programs: Mucci Des Oeufs Brouilles et des Canards
Posts: 3,671
I fully appreciate that situation. Years ago I'd booked a RTW ticket with Northwest/KLM. I'd bought a sector Hawaii to Brisbane a year in advance. That sector never actually flew (although the travel agent ticketed it at KLM/NW's ok). They also dropped HNL-SYD, so my only option was to go via Osaka. Of course I didn't have a current visa for Japan at that time so had to stay airside for 6 hours in the old Osaka terminal. Signage was not very clear and I nearly exited the airport until I stopped one of the NW crew who showed me how to get to the "departure lounge". Pre internet days so I didn't know what else I could have done, but definitely didn't want to exit by mistake and suddenly cause a problem for not having the right visa.
Dec 23, 2018, 9:41 am
#39
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,596
[QUOTE=dddc;30566779]The compensation part has definitely been ruled out.
That statement is way to premature. There has been no court ruling on the matter. Whatever the CAA said is irrelevant until someone persues the matter through the courts and gets a ruling. It remains to be seen whether the likes of Bott and co will take this on.
That statement is way to premature. There has been no court ruling on the matter. Whatever the CAA said is irrelevant until someone persues the matter through the courts and gets a ruling. It remains to be seen whether the likes of Bott and co will take this on.
Dec 23, 2018, 9:41 am
#40
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,596
[QUOTE=dddc;30566779]The compensation part has definitely been ruled out.<br /><br />That statement is way to premature. There has been no court ruling on the matter. Whatever the CAA said is irrelevant until someone persues the matter through the courts and gets a ruling. It remains to be seen whether the likes of Bott and co will take this on.
Dec 23, 2018, 12:45 pm
#41
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK. BAEC AAdvantage
Programs: Mucci Des Oeufs Brouilles et des Canards
Posts: 3,671
[QUOTE=rapidex;30567395]
Bott and Co have said No. Two days ago. (21/12/18)
The compensation part has definitely been ruled out.<br /><br />That statement is way to premature. There has been no court ruling on the matter. Whatever the CAA said is irrelevant until someone persues the matter through the courts and gets a ruling. It remains to be seen whether the likes of Bott and co will take this on.
Unfortunately, as the airport closure was an “extraordinary circumstance”, as defined by EU law, and beyond the control of any airline, they are not bound by law to pay compensation that would otherwise be due for flight delays.
Coby Benson, a flight delay compensation solicitor at Bott and Co, said: “The airport was closed due to a decision by air traffic control to suspend flights. As matters stand, any air traffic management decision is deemed to be an extraordinary circumstance under EU Regulation 261 and therefore passengers cannot claim compensation.”
Coby Benson, a flight delay compensation solicitor at Bott and Co, said: “The airport was closed due to a decision by air traffic control to suspend flights. As matters stand, any air traffic management decision is deemed to be an extraordinary circumstance under EU Regulation 261 and therefore passengers cannot claim compensation.”
Dec 23, 2018, 5:29 pm
#42
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,596
[QUOTE=dddc;30567970]
Bott and Co have said No. Two days ago. (21/12/18)
Changes nothing I posted. Until a judge rules the matter is up for discussion or challenge. Half the time judges cant agree on the colour of an orange.
Bott and Co have said No. Two days ago. (21/12/18)
Dec 24, 2018, 4:55 am
#43
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK. BAEC AAdvantage
Programs: Mucci Des Oeufs Brouilles et des Canards
Posts: 3,671
Your Claim Decision
Your Claim Decision