Jan 19, 17, 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
Apr 8, 16, 4:42 am
#76
Join Date: Sep 2013
Programs: AY Platinum (OWE)
Posts: 76
Did you travel on business or leisure? If leisure, you can submit a complaint to the Consumer Disputes Board, www.kuluttajariita.fi.
Apr 8, 16, 6:01 am
#78
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Helsinki
Programs: AY Platinum
Posts: 303
I don't know what the procedure with Trafi is - i.e. will they give binding orders in respect of individual cases etc. but at least there shouldn't be any cost risk unlike in a court procedure. Also, perhaps an airline would rather pay a compensation to avoid all the extra (lawyer?) work in handling the case and also to avoid extra attention from the supervising authority.
Apr 8, 16, 6:16 am
#79
Join Date: Dec 2013
Programs: AY+ Plat, A3*G
Posts: 663
Based on this http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens...r/index_en.htm plus this http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes...ent_bodies.pdf it looks like you can also report the case to Trafi.
I don't know what the procedure with Trafi is - i.e. will they give binding orders in respect of individual cases etc. but at least there shouldn't be any cost risk unlike in a court procedure. Also, perhaps an airline would rather pay a compensation to avoid all the extra (lawyer?) work in handling the case and also to avoid extra attention from the supervising authority.
I don't know what the procedure with Trafi is - i.e. will they give binding orders in respect of individual cases etc. but at least there shouldn't be any cost risk unlike in a court procedure. Also, perhaps an airline would rather pay a compensation to avoid all the extra (lawyer?) work in handling the case and also to avoid extra attention from the supervising authority.
) based on that I had travelled under ticket bought by my employer and they are not authorized to present me -> KRIL closed the case and proposed that they can forward case to Trafi. Couple months from that Trafi sent me a reply that they have received the case but currently they can't do anything with it as they don't have any manpower to solve these claims. Maybe you can try now and see if the situation has changed? I was travelling with public fare and ticket was bought through SMT, so I'm guessing they just looked at the contact info in the reservation (company name and email is visible there) to determine..
By the way, has it been said somewhere that EU261 does not apply to business travel? I quickly browsed through the law, but it only states "passenger" in every paragraph?
Apr 8, 16, 7:12 am
#80
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Helsinki
Programs: AY Platinum
Posts: 303
I had a case about 1,5 years ago where I applied for EU261 compensation from Finnair -> they denied based on technical things etc. -> I escalated claim to KRIL -> KRIL contacted Finnair -> Finnair's lawyer sent a note (I got a copy from that letter) to KRIL that they deny the request (notice lawyer term, "ensisijaisesti" ) based on that I had travelled under ticket bought by my employer
...
By the way, has it been said somewhere that EU261 does not apply to business travel? I quickly browsed through the law, but it only states "passenger" in every paragraph?
) based on that I had travelled under ticket bought by my employer ...
By the way, has it been said somewhere that EU261 does not apply to business travel? I quickly browsed through the law, but it only states "passenger" in every paragraph?
I don't think it's that clear that just the fact that a flyer is travelling with a ticket paid by (or invoiced to) a company would make him/her a non-consumer. Perpahs it would have been appropriate from KRIL to investigate that question instead of just closing the case.
Apr 8, 16, 1:02 pm
#83
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: HEL
Programs: AY, SK, TK
Posts: 7,213
I'm not sure but I think the regulation should appy to all passengers, which is also fair in my opinion: after all it's always individual people and never companies that do the actual travelling. Also, the second link I posted above, regarding the regulatory bodies, suggests that business travellers should address their complaints to Trafi. In any case, I'm sorry to hear that they just categorically turn/turned back all EC261 related claims!
I don't think it's that clear that just the fact that a flyer is travelling with a ticket paid by (or invoiced to) a company would make him/her a non-consumer. Perpahs it would have been appropriate from KRIL to investigate that question instead of just closing the case.
I don't think it's that clear that just the fact that a flyer is travelling with a ticket paid by (or invoiced to) a company would make him/her a non-consumer. Perpahs it would have been appropriate from KRIL to investigate that question instead of just closing the case.
Apr 8, 16, 2:02 pm
#85
Moderator, Finnair
Join Date: May 2011
Location: MMX (CPH)
Programs: Eurobonus Diamond, QR Platinum, AY+ Platinum, A3*G, Nordic Choice Lifetime Platinum, SJ Prio Black
Posts: 13,453
Semi-OT. I don't know the source of this story, but now I've seen it twice and it might have some bearing.
After 4 unavailing years, Austrian courts had it with Thomas Cook owned airline Condor and was about to impound their plane at Salzburg airport when the airline finally paid the 600€.
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/trav...m_content=link
Also, Primera Air lost an EU261 case in Danish supreme court this week, where the Danes established the same principles as other EU member states' courts have done. This might open the floodgates in Denmark, as 4500 cases are on hold in Danish lower courts right now.
Despite court after court has laid down the rulings on EU261, that this is exactly how far EU261 goes, airlines are still in denial. In Denmark airlines claims this must now be addressed by EU and are putting pressure on politicians. They say that this ruling "will force us to fly unsafe planes, because we rather do that than pay"
http://www.thelocal.dk/20160404/dani...yed-passengers
I think these two reports goes to prove just how much is at stake. Airlines just won't accept EU261 since the use of delays is an integral part of their business model when handling unplanned tech issues.
This certainly is true for Finnair too. It is build around the "clever" operations model where only one aircraft is needed for each destination with a daily service. Leaving very little room to accommodate any tech issue and the only capacity sitting idle is the bird waiting at HKG to become AY70. Delaying AY69 is from operations point of view extremely smart and efficient. It has been 'free of charge' to do so for many years.
Consumer rights are usually very well protected and upheld in nordic countries but as far as EU261 goes they have failed. It is up to individuals to push cases through and to get some high profile results (ceasing tangible assets like an Airbus or two under heavy media coverage) before we will see a change, it seems.
After 4 unavailing years, Austrian courts had it with Thomas Cook owned airline Condor and was about to impound their plane at Salzburg airport when the airline finally paid the 600€.
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/trav...m_content=link
Also, Primera Air lost an EU261 case in Danish supreme court this week, where the Danes established the same principles as other EU member states' courts have done. This might open the floodgates in Denmark, as 4500 cases are on hold in Danish lower courts right now.
Despite court after court has laid down the rulings on EU261, that this is exactly how far EU261 goes, airlines are still in denial. In Denmark airlines claims this must now be addressed by EU and are putting pressure on politicians. They say that this ruling "will force us to fly unsafe planes, because we rather do that than pay"
http://www.thelocal.dk/20160404/dani...yed-passengers
I think these two reports goes to prove just how much is at stake. Airlines just won't accept EU261 since the use of delays is an integral part of their business model when handling unplanned tech issues.
This certainly is true for Finnair too. It is build around the "clever" operations model where only one aircraft is needed for each destination with a daily service. Leaving very little room to accommodate any tech issue and the only capacity sitting idle is the bird waiting at HKG to become AY70. Delaying AY69 is from operations point of view extremely smart and efficient. It has been 'free of charge' to do so for many years.
Consumer rights are usually very well protected and upheld in nordic countries but as far as EU261 goes they have failed. It is up to individuals to push cases through and to get some high profile results (ceasing tangible assets like an Airbus or two under heavy media coverage) before we will see a change, it seems.
Last edited by intuition; Apr 8, 16 at 2:34 pm Reason: Updated lnk, added stupid qoute
Apr 9, 16, 4:31 am
#86
Join Date: Jul 2014
Programs: AY Platinum
Posts: 287
When I can get 600 euros for a four hour delay, that makes me hope to be delayed. It's a completely disproportionate amount, like the EU is out to get the airline industry.
Is it any wonder airlines are dodging the law when a single delayed widebody flight can cost them 180 000 euros? It's preposterous.
To put things into perspective, it's completely legal for your employer to send you on a work trip that gets you home late in the evening without paying your normal salary for the hours of travel. The government evaluates this inconvenience to be worth 40 euros (täyspäiväraha).
Last edited by heatsink; Apr 9, 16 at 4:36 am
Apr 9, 16, 9:05 am
#87
Join Date: Aug 2006
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 355
Was very surprised to get a reply back from Finnair in about a week agreeing to pay 1200eur for 2 persons. This was for a 6 hour delay on HKG-HEL flight on the new A350.
I don't agree with the airlines not following the law but I also agree that the compensation is not in line with reality. Something like 5% of paid ticket price per hour starting at 4 hours would be much more fair. To be paid in every other case except weather / strike.
I don't agree with the airlines not following the law but I also agree that the compensation is not in line with reality. Something like 5% of paid ticket price per hour starting at 4 hours would be much more fair. To be paid in every other case except weather / strike.
Apr 9, 16, 12:55 pm
#88
Moderator, Finnair
Join Date: May 2011
Location: MMX (CPH)
Programs: Eurobonus Diamond, QR Platinum, AY+ Platinum, A3*G, Nordic Choice Lifetime Platinum, SJ Prio Black
Posts: 13,453
I agree that 180 000 € seems steep for "one single delayed plane", but let's not forget that delays are not a law of nature. It is not 180 000€ for every unforseen tech issue. In a worst case scenario an airline would have to pay such a sum, but there are a number of ways to avoid it. If you have a plane going tech, proactively rebooking passengers on other connections could save you a tonne. Keeping a better set of spare parts at a larger number of locations could too, as making special arrangements with your service partners and/or airlines partners could.
Actually, it is because delays used to hold a zero penalty, delays are the favourite choice of action. Because delays virtually costs nothing, Finnair chooses to delay AY69 8-9 hours on a regular basis and has done so for a number of years.
Infact, the 8 hour delay of AY69 is usually not entirely due to technical reasons. Usually, the tech issue is (or could be) solved much quicker and AY69 probably could take off with maybe only 2-3 hour delay in most cases. But Finnair chooses to delay it 8-9 hours, because that is the cheapest option. Passenger delay costs nothing while rush tech service, crew and staff outside their normal schedule cost a lot.
So, there really is a need for a steep penalty for delays, and there is a need for the penalty getting steeper and steeper the longer the delay is. It is not to be bad or unfair to the airlines. It is because the only language a company talks is money. If an item holds a pricetag, the use of it is properly evaluated. If an item is free, it will be used indefinitely.
Actually, it is because delays used to hold a zero penalty, delays are the favourite choice of action. Because delays virtually costs nothing, Finnair chooses to delay AY69 8-9 hours on a regular basis and has done so for a number of years.
Infact, the 8 hour delay of AY69 is usually not entirely due to technical reasons. Usually, the tech issue is (or could be) solved much quicker and AY69 probably could take off with maybe only 2-3 hour delay in most cases. But Finnair chooses to delay it 8-9 hours, because that is the cheapest option. Passenger delay costs nothing while rush tech service, crew and staff outside their normal schedule cost a lot.
So, there really is a need for a steep penalty for delays, and there is a need for the penalty getting steeper and steeper the longer the delay is. It is not to be bad or unfair to the airlines. It is because the only language a company talks is money. If an item holds a pricetag, the use of it is properly evaluated. If an item is free, it will be used indefinitely.
Apr 10, 16, 4:29 am
#89
Suspended
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PVG, FRA, SEA, HEL
Programs: UA Premier Gold
Posts: 4,782
Yes, it is because of this rationale that Pekka Vauramo is regarded by some people to be the most hated person in Finland.
At his time at Cargotec he was largely responsible for corporate customer. Delays would trigger penalties, thats why at Cargotec he was very much engaged in minimizing delays for customers. At Finnair he switched his rationale.
At his time at Cargotec he was largely responsible for corporate customer. Delays would trigger penalties, thats why at Cargotec he was very much engaged in minimizing delays for customers. At Finnair he switched his rationale.
Apr 10, 16, 6:45 am
#90
Join Date: May 2013
Location: HEL
Programs: AY+ Platinum (OWE), Accor Gold, Hilton Honors Gold
Posts: 2,626
Yes, it is because of this rationale that Pekka Vauramo is regarded by some people to be the most hated person in Finland.
At his time at Cargotec he was largely responsible for corporate customer. Delays would trigger penalties, thats why at Cargotec he was very much engaged in minimizing delays for customers. At Finnair he switched his rationale.
At his time at Cargotec he was largely responsible for corporate customer. Delays would trigger penalties, thats why at Cargotec he was very much engaged in minimizing delays for customers. At Finnair he switched his rationale.
