Jan 19, 2017, 10:33 am
Last edit by: ffay005
Please note the FlyerTalk Terms of Use: 'We are not lawyers or a law firm and we do not provide legal, business or tax advice. The accuracy, completeness, adequacy or currency of the content is not warranted or guaranteed. Our sites and services are not substitutes for the advices or services of an attorney. We recommend you consult a lawyer or other appropriate professional if you want legal, business or tax advice.'
When seeking claims from AY, use this form: https://www.finnair.com/int/gb/infor...vices/feedbackAY will not accept claims by email, phone or in person.
Past decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) relating to Regulation 261/2004 (by judgment date in chronological order):
European Commission's Interpretative Guidelines (note that this policy document is persuasive, but only the CJEU's interpretation of Regulation 261/2004 is authoritative and binding): http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-conte...XC0615%2801%29. National courts do not have to follow the European Commission's Interpretative Guidelines (but are obliged to follow the CJEU's case-law). For example, although the European Commission takes the view that 'missed connecting flights due to significant delays at security checks or passengers failing to respect the boarding time of their flight at their airport of transfer do not give entitlement to compensation' (para 4.4.7 of the Interpretative Guidelines), the Edinburgh Sheriff Court took a different view in Caldwell v easyJet. Sheriff T Welsh QC held that 'the facts proved can properly be characterised as denied boarding because of the operational inadequacies of Easyjet ground staff’s management of the Easyjet queues on 14 September 2014 and their failure to facilitate passage through security check, customs and passport control when asked, in circumstances, where it was obvious the passengers were in danger of missing their flight'.
When AY+ Flight Reason AY Offered AY explanation Won/Lost, How, Time
Summer13 no status (HKG-)HEL-LHR Prior to landing, LHR was closed as the fire services there were unavailable, so the flight was diverted and landed in LTN, where passengers were offloaded. However, the plane then flew from LTN to LHR with luggage in the hold, so passengers had to make their own way to LHR to retrieve their luggage (as AY provided no ground transport arrangements), eventually arriving at LHR and reclaiming baggage over 6 hours later than the scheduled arrival time. Requested 600€ plus transport and phone call costs incurred, but AY only agreed to reimburse transport and phone call costs AY claimed that 'the delay of this flight happened in extraordinary circumstances' Filed claim through ESCP in the County Court in England. AY contested the claim. The Court ruled against AY. In its judgment, the Court cited CJEU's decision in Eglitis and Wallentin-Hermann and rejected AY's defence as the flight diversion only caused a small initial delay. AY failed to discharge its burden of proof that it took all reasonable measures, as evidenced by proper contingency plans and steps to assist passengers at LTN. The delay in arrival at LHR was significantly lengthened by this factor. AY eventually paid the damages and costs awarded by the Court.
Summer13 no status (LHR-)HEL-HKG Technical fault Requested 600€ plus phone call costs incurred, but AY only agreed to reimburse phone call costs AY initially claimed that the technical fault was not foreseeable Filed claim through ESCP in the County Court in England. AY conceded the claim and eventually paid 600€ + phone call costs + court costs.
Fall15 AYG HEL-LHR-US HEL-LHR late, miss connect 200€ voucher, reroute 3,5 hours requested 600€, re-offered 400€ due to <4 hours -> accepted.
Nov15 AYS HEL-AMS Equip swap -> rerouting 3+ hours 400€ cash (as per EC261) or 550€ voucher offered in 2 days accepted
Jan16 AYP KUO-HEL ATR crew shortage, cancelled 50€ voucher Claimed EU 261 + taxi + hotel. NO -> paid taxi+hotel -> escalated to KRIL -> NoRRA offered 250€ voucher. Accepted
Jan16 AYS WAW-HEL "extraordinary crew shortage" 50€ voucher raised to "kuluttajaoikeusneuvoja". They state that crew shortage can usually not be declared an extraordinary -> escalated to KRIL -> AY offered 150€ -> declined -> AY offers 200€ voucher -> Accepted. 8 months to resolve the matter!
Jan16 AA Platinum = OWS BKK-HEL delay, no equip combined 300€ voucher (for 2 pers) extraordinary manufacturing fault of A350 declined offer -> escalated to KRIL -> AY offered 680€ voucher / 400 cash (for 2 pers) -> declined -> KRIL decision Feb18 = AY should compensate 300€ / pax
Q1/16 ?? JFK-HEL diverted back to JFK ?? technical fail, new equip escalated to KRIL -> 600€ offered, accepted
Feb16 ?? (LHR-)HEL-PEK cancelled, re-routed, arrived at PEK with 20 hr delay and, because of this, missed seeing dying grandfather by a few hours ?? 'extraordinary circumstances' due to pilot sickness, AY refused compensation -> filed small claim in England and won (see Guardian article)
Feb16 ?? HEL-PEK 6h delay 150€ voucher manufacture fail of A350 ??
Q1/16 AYG LHR-HEL A350 broke up 50€ voucher ??
?? OWE HKG-HEL 6h delay (A350) 600€*2pers ?? 2 weeks wait only for compensation
?? ?? BKK-HEL 13h delay 600€ cash / 800€ voucher ?? Just 2 days to get compensation, accepted 800 voucher
Q1/16 ?? BKK-HEL misconnect, 6h delay 400/€550€ misconnect raised the discance to apply 600 -> offered 600€ cash / 800 voucher
Mar16 AYP PVG-HEL cancel, reroute, 12h delay 600/800€ cancel&reroute 800€ voucher accepted
?? ?? ?? cancelled, long delay 600/800 technical fault accepted
Mar16 ?? HEL-HKG 8h delay 200€ voucher extraordinary fail A350 escalated to KRIL -> no info
Nov16 OWE (LHR-)HEL-TLL overnight delay nothing NoRRA pilot shortage Claim for EUR 400 filed in the England and Wales small claims track (not ESCP), AY admitted the whole of the claim a few days before the hearing (details)
???16 AYS PEK-HEL cancelled 100/200€ sick pilot, no overtime declined -> escalated to KRIL. No info yet.
Feb17 OWE BKK-HEL-LHR 2h delay in BKK, misconnect in HEL 600€ cash / 800€ voucher ?? Submitted compensation request, AY responded around one week later, accepted 800€ voucher (details)
Feb 2017 AYP KUO-HEL 06:00 cancelled ATR shortage HEL-LHR was missed, at LHR 6 h late €400 in cash or €550 AY voucher. Returning HEL-KUO 23:40 cancelled ATR shortage rerouted to JOE, bus to KUO, at KUO 2h 40min late €250 in cash or €350 AY voucher.
Apr 2017 OWE TLL-HEL-LHR AY118 delayed from TLL-HEL "crew rest" then later, "Try Norra, not us" €400 claimed. Rejected. MCOL in UK. Disputed by AY. County Court civil case, Oxford (10/11/17) Judgement : AY was the operating carrier under EC2111/2005, compensation and costs and expenses awarded.
Apr 2017 OWE TLL-HEL-LHR AY118 delayed from TLL-HEL "crew rest" then later, "Try Norra, not us", then "Delayed due to weather" €400 claimed. Rejected. 2 seperate agencies tried but gave up on the case. European Small Claims Procedure started at Den Haag sub-district court, AY didn't defend. Judgement (11/6/2019): compensation, costs and interest awarded.
Dec 2017 AY Gold AY HEL-KOK operated by Norra canceled due to crew shortage, delay due to reroute >3 hours EUR 250 claimed. Accepted by AY and an alternative of a EUR 350 voucher offered.
May 28 2017 AYP, AY 380 KUO-HEL was cancelled due to lack of planes (admitted by Finnair - Flightradar 24 gold is an invaluable tool for this sherlockholmesing: one KUO flight was cancelled in the previous evening as OH-LKM had broken in HAM and it should have taken care of the next morning KUO-HEL flight 7:30, OH-LKP arrived late from GVA 23:40 and took off to KUO well after midnight being there 01:33, OH-LKP should have flown KUO-HEL flight 6:15 but crew rest prevented this, OH-LKP flew KUO-HEL 7:30 flight instead). Missed LHR connection. Arrived at LHR 5 h 54 min later than planned. EUR 400 or voucher of EUR 600 was offered without any resent.
Dec 2018. HEL-LPA delayed 4 hours because routine maintenance took longer than expected. Pax AY Plat. Compensation paid within 24 hours (offered €400 cash or €550 voucher).
Some more cases from earlier history can be read HERE (unfortunately only in Finnish)
List of National Enforcement Bodies (NEBs) in EU/EEA Member States and Switzerland published by the European Commission (updated: April 2018): https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites...ent_bodies.pdf
European Commission's guidelines with criteria for determining which NEB is competent for handling complaints (updated: April 2017): https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites...procedures.pdf
If you decide to engage a claim agency/lawyer to pursue your claim, please first read the Information Notice published by the European Commission (updated: March 2017): http://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/...gencies_en.pdf
To file a court claim, the CJEU stated in Rehder (see above) the criteria for determining which Member State's court has jurisdiction. If you booked a package combining flight(s) and accommodation, Advocate General Sharpston stated in her Opinion in Flight Refund v Lufthansa (Case C‑94/14) at paras 9 and 59-60 that a consumer claiming compensation under Regulation 261/2004 can file a court claim in the jurisdiction where he/she habitually resides, as an alternative to filing a court claim in the jurisdiction of the airport of departure or arrival.
You can file a claim at a court with jurisdiction to rule on your case either through the national procedure or through the European Small Claims Procedure (ESCP). The ESCP is a primarily written procedure and is available where the claimant and defendant are domiciled in different EU Member States (with the exception of Denmark) for claims up to EUR 2,000 (increasing to EUR 5,000 with effect from 14 July 2017).
When seeking claims from AY, use this form: https://www.finnair.com/int/gb/infor...vices/feedbackAY will not accept claims by email, phone or in person.
Past decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) relating to Regulation 261/2004 (by judgment date in chronological order):
- Sturgeon v Condor (Case C-402/07): Passengers who reach their final destination at least 3 hours late because their flight was delayed are entitled to the amount of compensation laid down in Article 7 of the Regulation.
- Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia (Case C-549/07): ‘Extraordinary circumstances’ (which release airlines from their obligation to compensate passengers) do not include aircraft technical problems (unless the problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control). See also van der Lans v KLM below.
- Rehder v Air Baltic (Case C-204/08): Passengers can file a legal claim either in the jurisdiction of the place of departure or the jurisdiction of the place of arrival
- Rodríguez v Air France (Case C-83/10): The term ‘cancellation’ in the Regulation includes the situation where the aircraft took off but had to return to the departure airport and passengers were transferred to other flights.
- Eglītis v Latvijas Republikas Ekonomikas ministrija (Case C-294/10): At the stage of organising the flight, the airline is required to provide for a certain reserve time to allow it, if possible, to operate the flight in its entirety once the extraordinary circumstances have come to an end.
- Nelson v Lufthansa (Case C-581/10): The Court reaffirmed its previous decision (Sturgeon v Condor).
- Folkerts v Air France (Case C-11/11): Passengers on directly connecting flights who arrive at their final destination at least 3 hours late are entitled to compensation.
- McDonagh v Ryanair (Case C-12/11): Even where a flight delay/cancellation is caused by ‘extraordinary circumstances’, the airline continues to be under a duty to provide care (in the form of accommodation, meals, transfers between the airport/hotel, telephone calls)
- Finnair v Lassooy (Case C–22/11): The term ‘denied boarding’ in the Regulation covers cases where boarding is denied because of overbooking, as well as other reasons.
- Moré v KLM (Case C-139/11): The time limit for filing a legal claim is based on the rules governing limitation periods in the Member State where the claim is filed.
- Rodríguez Cachafeiro v Iberia (Case C 321/11): The term ‘denied boarding’ in the Regulation includes a situation where, in the context of a single contract of carriage (PNR) on immediately connecting flights and a single check-in, an airline denies boarding to some passengers because the first flight had been delayed and it mistakenly expected those passengers not to arrive in time to board the second flight.
- Germanwings v Henning (Case C 452/13): The concept of ‘arrival time’, which is used to determine the length of the flight delay, refers to the time at which at least one of the doors of the aircraft was opened, as long as, at that moment, passengers were actually permitted to leave the aircraft.
- van der Lans v KLM (Case C-257/14): ‘Extraordinary circumstances’ (which release airlines from their obligation to compensate passengers) do not include aircraft technical problems which occur unexpectedly, which are not attributable to poor maintenance and which are also not detected during routine maintenance checks.
- Mennens v Emirates (Case C 255/15): Where passengers are downgraded on a particular flight, the ‘price of the ticket’ refers to the price of that particular flight, but if this information is not indicated on the ticket, the price of that particular flight out of the total fare is calculated by working out the distance of that flight divided by the total distance of the flight itinerary on the ticket. Taxes and charges are not included in the reimbursement of the ticket price/fare, unless the tax/charge is dependent on the class of travel.
- Pešková v Travel Service (Case C‑315/15): A bird strike constitutes 'extraordinary circumstances'. However, even if a flight delay/cancellation is caused by an event constituting 'extraordinary circumstances', an airline is only released from its duty to pay compensation if it took all reasonable measures to avoid the delay/cancellation. To determine this, the court will consider what measures could actually be taken by the airline, directly or indirectly, without requiring it to make intolerable sacrifices. Further, even if all of these conditions are met, it is necessary to distinguish between the length of the delay caused by extraordinary circumstances (which could not have been avoided by all reasonable measures) and the length of the delay caused by other circumstances. For the purpose of calculating the length of the qualifying delay for compensation, the delay falling into the former category would be deducted from the total delay.
- Krijgsman v SLM (C‑302/16): Where a passenger has booked a flight through a travel agent, and that flight has been cancelled, but notification of the cancellation was not communicated to the passenger by the travel agent or airline at least 14 days prior to departure, the passenger is entitled to compensation.
- Bossen v Brussels Airlines (C‑559/16): On a flight itinerary involving connecting flights, the distance is calculated by using ‘great circle’ method from the origin to the final destination, regardless of the distance actually flown.
- Krüsemann v TUIfly (C‑195/17): The spontaneous absence of a significant number of flight crew staff (‘wildcat strikes’) does not constitute 'extraordinary circumstances'.
- Wegener v Royal Air Maroc (C‑537/17): The Court reaffirmed its previous decision (Folkerts v Air France).
- Wirth v Thomson Airways (C‑532/17): Where there is a 'wet lease' (with the lessor carrier providing an aircraft, including crew, to the lessee airline, but without the lessor bearing operational responsibility for the flight in question), the lessor carrier is not responsible under the Regulation.
- Harms v Vueling (C‑601/17): For the purpose of calculating the ticket price, the difference between the amount paid by the passenger and the amount received by the air carrier (corresponding to the commission collected by a person acting as an intermediary between those two parties) is included in the ticket price, unless that commission was set without the knowledge of the air carrier.
- CS v České aerolinie (C‑502/18): For a journey with 2 connecting flights (in a single reservation) departing from an EU member state and to a final destination outside the EU via an airport outside the EU, a passenger who is delayed by 3 hours or more in reaching the final destination because of a delay in the second flight which is operated as a codeshare flight by a non-EU carrier may bring an action for compensation against the EU air carrier that performed the first flight.
European Commission's Interpretative Guidelines (note that this policy document is persuasive, but only the CJEU's interpretation of Regulation 261/2004 is authoritative and binding): http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-conte...XC0615%2801%29. National courts do not have to follow the European Commission's Interpretative Guidelines (but are obliged to follow the CJEU's case-law). For example, although the European Commission takes the view that 'missed connecting flights due to significant delays at security checks or passengers failing to respect the boarding time of their flight at their airport of transfer do not give entitlement to compensation' (para 4.4.7 of the Interpretative Guidelines), the Edinburgh Sheriff Court took a different view in Caldwell v easyJet. Sheriff T Welsh QC held that 'the facts proved can properly be characterised as denied boarding because of the operational inadequacies of Easyjet ground staff’s management of the Easyjet queues on 14 September 2014 and their failure to facilitate passage through security check, customs and passport control when asked, in circumstances, where it was obvious the passengers were in danger of missing their flight'.
When AY+ Flight Reason AY Offered AY explanation Won/Lost, How, Time
Summer13 no status (HKG-)HEL-LHR Prior to landing, LHR was closed as the fire services there were unavailable, so the flight was diverted and landed in LTN, where passengers were offloaded. However, the plane then flew from LTN to LHR with luggage in the hold, so passengers had to make their own way to LHR to retrieve their luggage (as AY provided no ground transport arrangements), eventually arriving at LHR and reclaiming baggage over 6 hours later than the scheduled arrival time. Requested 600€ plus transport and phone call costs incurred, but AY only agreed to reimburse transport and phone call costs AY claimed that 'the delay of this flight happened in extraordinary circumstances' Filed claim through ESCP in the County Court in England. AY contested the claim. The Court ruled against AY. In its judgment, the Court cited CJEU's decision in Eglitis and Wallentin-Hermann and rejected AY's defence as the flight diversion only caused a small initial delay. AY failed to discharge its burden of proof that it took all reasonable measures, as evidenced by proper contingency plans and steps to assist passengers at LTN. The delay in arrival at LHR was significantly lengthened by this factor. AY eventually paid the damages and costs awarded by the Court.
Summer13 no status (LHR-)HEL-HKG Technical fault Requested 600€ plus phone call costs incurred, but AY only agreed to reimburse phone call costs AY initially claimed that the technical fault was not foreseeable Filed claim through ESCP in the County Court in England. AY conceded the claim and eventually paid 600€ + phone call costs + court costs.
Fall15 AYG HEL-LHR-US HEL-LHR late, miss connect 200€ voucher, reroute 3,5 hours requested 600€, re-offered 400€ due to <4 hours -> accepted.
Nov15 AYS HEL-AMS Equip swap -> rerouting 3+ hours 400€ cash (as per EC261) or 550€ voucher offered in 2 days accepted
Jan16 AYP KUO-HEL ATR crew shortage, cancelled 50€ voucher Claimed EU 261 + taxi + hotel. NO -> paid taxi+hotel -> escalated to KRIL -> NoRRA offered 250€ voucher. Accepted
Jan16 AYS WAW-HEL "extraordinary crew shortage" 50€ voucher raised to "kuluttajaoikeusneuvoja". They state that crew shortage can usually not be declared an extraordinary -> escalated to KRIL -> AY offered 150€ -> declined -> AY offers 200€ voucher -> Accepted. 8 months to resolve the matter!
Jan16 AA Platinum = OWS BKK-HEL delay, no equip combined 300€ voucher (for 2 pers) extraordinary manufacturing fault of A350 declined offer -> escalated to KRIL -> AY offered 680€ voucher / 400 cash (for 2 pers) -> declined -> KRIL decision Feb18 = AY should compensate 300€ / pax
Q1/16 ?? JFK-HEL diverted back to JFK ?? technical fail, new equip escalated to KRIL -> 600€ offered, accepted
Feb16 ?? (LHR-)HEL-PEK cancelled, re-routed, arrived at PEK with 20 hr delay and, because of this, missed seeing dying grandfather by a few hours ?? 'extraordinary circumstances' due to pilot sickness, AY refused compensation -> filed small claim in England and won (see Guardian article)
Feb16 ?? HEL-PEK 6h delay 150€ voucher manufacture fail of A350 ??
Q1/16 AYG LHR-HEL A350 broke up 50€ voucher ??
?? OWE HKG-HEL 6h delay (A350) 600€*2pers ?? 2 weeks wait only for compensation
?? ?? BKK-HEL 13h delay 600€ cash / 800€ voucher ?? Just 2 days to get compensation, accepted 800 voucher
Q1/16 ?? BKK-HEL misconnect, 6h delay 400/€550€ misconnect raised the discance to apply 600 -> offered 600€ cash / 800 voucher
Mar16 AYP PVG-HEL cancel, reroute, 12h delay 600/800€ cancel&reroute 800€ voucher accepted
?? ?? ?? cancelled, long delay 600/800 technical fault accepted
Mar16 ?? HEL-HKG 8h delay 200€ voucher extraordinary fail A350 escalated to KRIL -> no info
Nov16 OWE (LHR-)HEL-TLL overnight delay nothing NoRRA pilot shortage Claim for EUR 400 filed in the England and Wales small claims track (not ESCP), AY admitted the whole of the claim a few days before the hearing (details)
???16 AYS PEK-HEL cancelled 100/200€ sick pilot, no overtime declined -> escalated to KRIL. No info yet.
Feb17 OWE BKK-HEL-LHR 2h delay in BKK, misconnect in HEL 600€ cash / 800€ voucher ?? Submitted compensation request, AY responded around one week later, accepted 800€ voucher (details)
Feb 2017 AYP KUO-HEL 06:00 cancelled ATR shortage HEL-LHR was missed, at LHR 6 h late €400 in cash or €550 AY voucher. Returning HEL-KUO 23:40 cancelled ATR shortage rerouted to JOE, bus to KUO, at KUO 2h 40min late €250 in cash or €350 AY voucher.
Apr 2017 OWE TLL-HEL-LHR AY118 delayed from TLL-HEL "crew rest" then later, "Try Norra, not us" €400 claimed. Rejected. MCOL in UK. Disputed by AY. County Court civil case, Oxford (10/11/17) Judgement : AY was the operating carrier under EC2111/2005, compensation and costs and expenses awarded.
Apr 2017 OWE TLL-HEL-LHR AY118 delayed from TLL-HEL "crew rest" then later, "Try Norra, not us", then "Delayed due to weather" €400 claimed. Rejected. 2 seperate agencies tried but gave up on the case. European Small Claims Procedure started at Den Haag sub-district court, AY didn't defend. Judgement (11/6/2019): compensation, costs and interest awarded.
Dec 2017 AY Gold AY HEL-KOK operated by Norra canceled due to crew shortage, delay due to reroute >3 hours EUR 250 claimed. Accepted by AY and an alternative of a EUR 350 voucher offered.
May 28 2017 AYP, AY 380 KUO-HEL was cancelled due to lack of planes (admitted by Finnair - Flightradar 24 gold is an invaluable tool for this sherlockholmesing: one KUO flight was cancelled in the previous evening as OH-LKM had broken in HAM and it should have taken care of the next morning KUO-HEL flight 7:30, OH-LKP arrived late from GVA 23:40 and took off to KUO well after midnight being there 01:33, OH-LKP should have flown KUO-HEL flight 6:15 but crew rest prevented this, OH-LKP flew KUO-HEL 7:30 flight instead). Missed LHR connection. Arrived at LHR 5 h 54 min later than planned. EUR 400 or voucher of EUR 600 was offered without any resent.
Dec 2018. HEL-LPA delayed 4 hours because routine maintenance took longer than expected. Pax AY Plat. Compensation paid within 24 hours (offered €400 cash or €550 voucher).
Some more cases from earlier history can be read HERE (unfortunately only in Finnish)
List of National Enforcement Bodies (NEBs) in EU/EEA Member States and Switzerland published by the European Commission (updated: April 2018): https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites...ent_bodies.pdf
European Commission's guidelines with criteria for determining which NEB is competent for handling complaints (updated: April 2017): https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites...procedures.pdf
If you decide to engage a claim agency/lawyer to pursue your claim, please first read the Information Notice published by the European Commission (updated: March 2017): http://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/...gencies_en.pdf
To file a court claim, the CJEU stated in Rehder (see above) the criteria for determining which Member State's court has jurisdiction. If you booked a package combining flight(s) and accommodation, Advocate General Sharpston stated in her Opinion in Flight Refund v Lufthansa (Case C‑94/14) at paras 9 and 59-60 that a consumer claiming compensation under Regulation 261/2004 can file a court claim in the jurisdiction where he/she habitually resides, as an alternative to filing a court claim in the jurisdiction of the airport of departure or arrival.
You can file a claim at a court with jurisdiction to rule on your case either through the national procedure or through the European Small Claims Procedure (ESCP). The ESCP is a primarily written procedure and is available where the claimant and defendant are domiciled in different EU Member States (with the exception of Denmark) for claims up to EUR 2,000 (increasing to EUR 5,000 with effect from 14 July 2017).
Finnair and EC 261 compensation
Dec 9, 2018, 3:54 pm
#751
Join Date: Dec 2016
Programs: AY Silver
Posts: 240
Thanks Often1 - that aligns with my thoughts too, that the recent CJEU decision should apply (useful also for people with delays in Asia/USA etc after Finnair 1st legs from EU) but that the change to 26 hours stopover will complicate things, even though it was only requested because they already cancelled the originally ticketed and preferred flight with 7 hours stopover and only have 1 flight per day. And we would have taken the 2 hour stop if not for the fact that travelling with infants made that almost impossible. Ah well, looks like a lot of letter writing ahead!
Dec 10, 2018, 2:48 pm
#752
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 2,016
I'm pretty sure that the recent ECJ ruling this summer says that delays only to the onwards connecting flights, even outside EU, still count if it is on a single ticket that started in EU, see here for instance:
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel...-a8388201.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel...-a8388201.html
Let's say that you have a flight from EU airport AAA to non-EU airport BBB on a non-EU airline. At BBB, you change to a different flight on the same airline. The court ruled that the second flight is covered by the regulation.
In this case, the person changed from one airline (AY) to a different airline (QF) outside the EU. This is a different situation where the court might end up ruling differently: the family wasn't flying from the EU on QF.
Additionally, the long connection in SIN may be a problem. The regulation doesn't define what a directly connecting flight is, so it would be up to the court to define this and there is a fair chance that the court decides to follow the aviation industry's standard of 24 hours maximum connection.
Dec 10, 2018, 2:59 pm
#753
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: HEL
Programs: AY Platinum, TK Elite, BT VIP, AA, BA, SK, DL, NT, WB + hotels
Posts: 8,747
I failed to notice the 24+ hour connection in SIN. I'd strongly assume EC261 wouldn't apply here since, as far as the airline industry is concerned, SIN was a destination, not a connection point.
Dec 10, 2018, 6:15 pm
#754
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
Thanks Often1 - that aligns with my thoughts too, that the recent CJEU decision should apply (useful also for people with delays in Asia/USA etc after Finnair 1st legs from EU) but that the change to 26 hours stopover will complicate things, even though it was only requested because they already cancelled the originally ticketed and preferred flight with 7 hours stopover and only have 1 flight per day. And we would have taken the 2 hour stop if not for the fact that travelling with infants made that almost impossible. Ah well, looks like a lot of letter writing ahead!
Dec 10, 2018, 9:40 pm
#755
Join Date: Dec 2016
Programs: AY Silver
Posts: 240
This is about ECJ case C-537/17.
Let's say that you have a flight from EU airport AAA to non-EU airport BBB on a non-EU airline. At BBB, you change to a different flight on the same airline. The court ruled that the second flight is covered by the regulation.
In this case, the person changed from one airline (AY) to a different airline (QF) outside the EU. This is a different situation where the court might end up ruling differently: the family wasn't flying from the EU on QF.
Additionally, the long connection in SIN may be a problem. The regulation doesn't define what a directly connecting flight is, so it would be up to the court to define this and there is a fair chance that the court decides to follow the aviation industry's standard of 24 hours maximum connection.
Let's say that you have a flight from EU airport AAA to non-EU airport BBB on a non-EU airline. At BBB, you change to a different flight on the same airline. The court ruled that the second flight is covered by the regulation.
In this case, the person changed from one airline (AY) to a different airline (QF) outside the EU. This is a different situation where the court might end up ruling differently: the family wasn't flying from the EU on QF.
Additionally, the long connection in SIN may be a problem. The regulation doesn't define what a directly connecting flight is, so it would be up to the court to define this and there is a fair chance that the court decides to follow the aviation industry's standard of 24 hours maximum connection.
Yeah this is where things become grey areas!
The ticket we originally purchased had the Qantas flight as an AY codeshare, all on one ticket, bought through Finnair, and 7 hours in SIN, which I think would all be compliant with the regulations (but possibly this would need to be tested/ruled on, the codeshare/swapping companies from an EU to non-EU carrier, but on one booking/ticket side of things)
The fact that Qantas then changed first the connecting leg (which may then not have been a codeshare, will have to check, and not sure if our requested flight was a codeshare or not) and then delayed the connection by 15 hours is very much their fault, but our choice of the longer stop in SIN may scupper things for a compensation request.
Though I'm inclined to argue that the other option given was unworkable given the circumstances and people on the ticket (e.g. we tried to minimise other customer annoyance by making sure we took flights that fitted our infants sleeping patterns, since taking cranky babies on a plane isn't fun for anyone, us, passengers and staff, and we would have gone with other carriers with better times if we had known that the flight times would be changed after booking).
Anyway, overall I'm fairly unhappy with Qantas, and I guess I can only try, and see what happens.
(On that note - where would I go to find out what reason was given for the delay to the plane, as we were never given an explanation, nor offered food/drink etc for the eventual 5 hour delay?)
Last edited by FossilFlyer; Dec 10, 2018 at 9:46 pm
Dec 10, 2018, 9:42 pm
#756
Join Date: Dec 2016
Programs: AY Silver
Posts: 240
Interestingly that was Finnair who made the change after I contacted them, rather than Qantas. Which we were indeed happy with, and in general Finnair have treated us well repeatedly, but they don't fly as far as Australia unfortunately hence the codeshare with Qantas!
Dec 11, 2018, 1:26 pm
#757
Join Date: Dec 2013
Programs: AY+ Plat, A3*G
Posts: 672
Domestic feeder flight delayed by ~40min at HEL and the connection didn't wait (only 35min connection time originally) - rebooked to next flight - 4h10min late from original arrival time at final destination.
EU261 claim in Monday evening, reply today around 8AM offering 250€ in cash or 350€ gift voucher and now the voucher is already in my mailbox. Quite efficient should I say, was expecting hard struggle about this one after reading all the recent reviews (and also from my experience from ~4 years ago).
One thing that struck my eye:
"Lennon liikennöinyt lentoyhtiö on ollut Nordic Regional Airlines, Norra ja vastaamme palautteeseen heidän puolestaan. Finnair suorittaa poikkeuksellisesti liikennöivän lentoyhtiön Nordic Regional Airlines, Norra puolesta EU-asetuksen mukaisen 250 euron vakiokorvauksen."
Are they really expecting people to claim with Norra? In their website it's forwarding all the customer service inquiries to Finnair CS. If it's a wet lease from DAT or GetJet etc. are they expecting people to contact them or is this just some mandatory lawyer jargon?
EU261 claim in Monday evening, reply today around 8AM offering 250€ in cash or 350€ gift voucher and now the voucher is already in my mailbox. Quite efficient should I say, was expecting hard struggle about this one after reading all the recent reviews (and also from my experience from ~4 years ago).
One thing that struck my eye:
"Lennon liikennöinyt lentoyhtiö on ollut Nordic Regional Airlines, Norra ja vastaamme palautteeseen heidän puolestaan. Finnair suorittaa poikkeuksellisesti liikennöivän lentoyhtiön Nordic Regional Airlines, Norra puolesta EU-asetuksen mukaisen 250 euron vakiokorvauksen."
Are they really expecting people to claim with Norra? In their website it's forwarding all the customer service inquiries to Finnair CS. If it's a wet lease from DAT or GetJet etc. are they expecting people to contact them or is this just some mandatory lawyer jargon?
Dec 11, 2018, 2:23 pm
#758
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: HEL
Programs: AY Plat Lumo, SK Gold
Posts: 954
My own interpretation of the judgement is:
1) if the flight has only one marketing code, the marketing carrier is always responsible for EU 261, even if they would inform the customer that the flight is operated by another airline
2) if the flight has multiple marketing codes (codeshare), the airline that has fixed the itinerary will be liable for EU 261
Last edited by r2d2; Dec 11, 2018 at 2:48 pm Reason: added own interpretation
Dec 11, 2018, 3:25 pm
#759
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: HEL
Programs: AY, SK, TK
Posts: 7,595
Domestic feeder flight delayed by ~40min at HEL and the connection didn't wait (only 35min connection time originally) - rebooked to next flight - 4h10min late from original arrival time at final destination.
EU261 claim in Monday evening, reply today around 8AM offering 250€ in cash or 350€ gift voucher and now the voucher is already in my mailbox. Quite efficient should I say, was expecting hard struggle about this one after reading all the recent reviews (and also from my experience from ~4 years ago).
One thing that struck my eye:
"Lennon liikennöinyt lentoyhtiö on ollut Nordic Regional Airlines, Norra ja vastaamme palautteeseen heidän puolestaan. Finnair suorittaa poikkeuksellisesti liikennöivän lentoyhtiön Nordic Regional Airlines, Norra puolesta EU-asetuksen mukaisen 250 euron vakiokorvauksen."
Are they really expecting people to claim with Norra? In their website it's forwarding all the customer service inquiries to Finnair CS. If it's a wet lease from DAT or GetJet etc. are they expecting people to contact them or is this just some mandatory lawyer jargon?
EU261 claim in Monday evening, reply today around 8AM offering 250€ in cash or 350€ gift voucher and now the voucher is already in my mailbox. Quite efficient should I say, was expecting hard struggle about this one after reading all the recent reviews (and also from my experience from ~4 years ago).
One thing that struck my eye:
"Lennon liikennöinyt lentoyhtiö on ollut Nordic Regional Airlines, Norra ja vastaamme palautteeseen heidän puolestaan. Finnair suorittaa poikkeuksellisesti liikennöivän lentoyhtiön Nordic Regional Airlines, Norra puolesta EU-asetuksen mukaisen 250 euron vakiokorvauksen."
Are they really expecting people to claim with Norra? In their website it's forwarding all the customer service inquiries to Finnair CS. If it's a wet lease from DAT or GetJet etc. are they expecting people to contact them or is this just some mandatory lawyer jargon?
U are lucky to get a speedy positive response. I get all that BS and boilerplates and fake-goodwills etc all tge time.
AY continues to be worth their fame in Finnish consumer media. I think their guy responsible for EC261 strategy (= deny-it-all strategy) is born in the hole of Pansio.
Dec 20, 2018, 10:35 am
#760
Join Date: Mar 2018
Programs: AY+ Platinum / FlyingBlue Gold
Posts: 835
Would ''DAMAGE DURING FLIGHT OPERATIONS" and thus resulting in ''AIRCRAFT ROTATION'' qualify for EU261?
This happened to flight AY1305. I'm scheduled to fly on AY1306 which is delayed by 3,5 hours because of the above. Resulting in a missed connection to Kuopio.
This happened to flight AY1305. I'm scheduled to fly on AY1306 which is delayed by 3,5 hours because of the above. Resulting in a missed connection to Kuopio.
Dec 20, 2018, 10:47 am
#761
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: HEL
Programs: AY Platinum, TK Elite, BT VIP, AA, BA, SK, DL, NT, WB + hotels
Posts: 8,747
What actually happened? I would assume third-party damage is out of the scope of EC261 (It's not AY's fault if a bus driver collides with the plane...)
Dec 20, 2018, 11:04 am
#762
Join Date: Mar 2018
Programs: AY+ Platinum / FlyingBlue Gold
Posts: 835
I truly have no idea. But the reason for the delay for MY flight (AY1306) shows ''Aircraft Rotation''. How to find out what actually happened?
Btw interesting article: https://www.independent.co.uk/travel...-a7716846.html
"Recent court decisions have extended the range of issues for which airlines must pay out. The “extraordinary circumstances” defence now excludes incidents in which a plane is damaged by ground equipment. or a flight returns to the airport of departure – as a British Airways jet did last week after a pressurisation issue on a Heathrow-Delhi flight. "
and: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites...judgements.pdf
"The Court clarifies that the collision of mobile boarding stairs with the aircraft cannot be considered as "extraordinary circumstances" which exempt the air carrier from the obligation of compensation. Mobile stairs or gangways can be regarded as indispensable to air passenger transport and, therefore, air carriers are regularly faced with situations arising from the use of such equipment. A collision between an aircraft and a set of mobile boarding stairs is, hence, an event inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier."
Btw interesting article: https://www.independent.co.uk/travel...-a7716846.html
"Recent court decisions have extended the range of issues for which airlines must pay out. The “extraordinary circumstances” defence now excludes incidents in which a plane is damaged by ground equipment. or a flight returns to the airport of departure – as a British Airways jet did last week after a pressurisation issue on a Heathrow-Delhi flight. "
and: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites...judgements.pdf
"The Court clarifies that the collision of mobile boarding stairs with the aircraft cannot be considered as "extraordinary circumstances" which exempt the air carrier from the obligation of compensation. Mobile stairs or gangways can be regarded as indispensable to air passenger transport and, therefore, air carriers are regularly faced with situations arising from the use of such equipment. A collision between an aircraft and a set of mobile boarding stairs is, hence, an event inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier."
Last edited by EuroFlash; Dec 20, 2018 at 11:09 am
Dec 20, 2018, 11:42 am
#763
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Helsinki
Programs: AY Platinum, IHG Gold, Diners
Posts: 1,276
Is it only me that feels a bit sorry for the airlines? Is it really fair that stairs hitting an aircraft are considered the airlines’ fault? Or that a sudden in-flight technical issue leads to large compensation?
I could be mistaken but in my thinking this directive should be about airlines not cancelling due to commercial reasons (be it low loads, too tight aircraft usage, poor maintenance etc). Now they are liable for almost everything.
I understand this is about protecting the consumers but I think this is going too far.
I could be mistaken but in my thinking this directive should be about airlines not cancelling due to commercial reasons (be it low loads, too tight aircraft usage, poor maintenance etc). Now they are liable for almost everything.
I understand this is about protecting the consumers but I think this is going too far.
Dec 20, 2018, 12:19 pm
#764
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: C2
Programs: AY ex-Lumo, TK Elite, BT VIP, ITA Executive
Posts: 1,157
Is it only me that feels a bit sorry for the airlines? Is it really fair that stairs hitting an aircraft are considered the airlines’ fault? Or that a sudden in-flight technical issue leads to large compensation?
I could be mistaken but in my thinking this directive should be about airlines not cancelling due to commercial reasons (be it low loads, too tight aircraft usage, poor maintenance etc). Now they are liable for almost everything.
I understand this is about protecting the consumers but I think this is going too far.
I could be mistaken but in my thinking this directive should be about airlines not cancelling due to commercial reasons (be it low loads, too tight aircraft usage, poor maintenance etc). Now they are liable for almost everything.
I understand this is about protecting the consumers but I think this is going too far.