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
Mar 25, 2019, 5:09 am
#902
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: HEL
Programs: AY+Plat
Posts: 862
That arrival time on your screenshot is totally incorrect if the actual departure time was 13:16 Amsterdam time (14:16 HEL time). Two hour and ten minute of flight times makes it 16:26 in Helsinki.
Mar 25, 2019, 5:14 am
#903
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 30
Yeah it was 15.50 cet so 16.50 eet.
Flightradar must have glitch on mobile site if it has different time to normal site but other sites are pretty consistent and match with time frame I have with them being online. Bummed out for them that they had 24+ hours delay but very likely no compensation.
Flightradar must have glitch on mobile site if it has different time to normal site but other sites are pretty consistent and match with time frame I have with them being online. Bummed out for them that they had 24+ hours delay but very likely no compensation.
Mar 25, 2019, 5:15 am
#904
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: C2
Programs: AY ex-Lumo, TK Elite, BT VIP, ITA Executive
Posts: 1,157
@babarage, if they were on AY71, then there was no chance to make it, because the fact that flight departs late doesn't mean it also stays delayed at open gate. Landing at 16:26 would then mean they were correctly directed to the transfer desk. Your option would then be to have them prove there were no seats available on earlier connections to Tokyo (not just AY, though!). As I mentioned, this would be nearly unbelievable occurrence, so I think the delay caused by weather was much shorter. The rest goes after AY not complying with EC261 and not rebooking them on other airlines.
If they were on AY73, then I'd say there was a communication issue as somebody apparently thought they were late for AY71, directed them to the transfer desk, but did not at all consider there was also AY73 for which they were well on time.
Last edited by on22cz; Mar 25, 2019 at 5:26 am Reason: Added comment for babarage
Mar 25, 2019, 6:44 am
#905
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 30
They were on AY71, I have their booking details so I know for sure. I think your last suggestion is the best option. Make the claim stating there is no way they couldn't have found a faster way to get them to Tokyo. It's at least worth the try.
Mar 25, 2019, 7:30 am
#906
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 2,016
Your option would then be to have them prove there were no seats available on earlier connections to Tokyo (not just AY, though!). As I mentioned, this would be nearly unbelievable occurrence, so I think the delay caused by weather was much shorter. The rest goes after AY not complying with EC261 and not rebooking them on other airlines.
Mar 25, 2019, 8:38 am
#907
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: C2
Programs: AY ex-Lumo, TK Elite, BT VIP, ITA Executive
Posts: 1,157
To my knowledge, it has not been tested if an airline is required to rebook on other airlines or not. The regulation uses the unclear language "comparable transport conditions" and it is unclear if, say, JL HKG-NRT has "comparable transport conditions" to an AY flight, so there could be an issue if you state that the late evening flight to HKG still had seats left and JL/CX/NH had seats left on a HKG-NRT flight.
The fact it is not clearly specified is what airlines misuse. I have had some contacts with authorities about this and you sure can test it as well. The biggest problem is that hardly anybody will go firmly against the airline and fork out cash out of their pocket to sue them for the additional costs after the trip.
Here we can also discuss why did AY let them fly late into HEL and wait overnight, while it could have secure rerouting from AMS (unless the plane was held on taxiways - I would assume nobody would consider it reasonable to return to the gate and offload those passengers).
Mar 25, 2019, 8:52 am
#908
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: HEL
Programs: AY, SK, TK
Posts: 7,591
”Comparable transport conditions”, I have never succeeded in negotiating anything thereto. For airline they take this as ”any method to transport from A to B”. I once pushed this on the limit and they just said ”so you choose to jump the ship then, be prepared then to stay responsible for yourself” 
Mar 25, 2019, 2:19 pm
#909
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 2,016
Comparable transport conditions cover e.g., legacy carrier vs low-cost carrier, number of stops, class of travel, total travel time. This is meant to protect passengers from being rebooked onto some terrible routings. Whether JL or AY differ in the actual product quality doesn't matter as they are both legacy carriers, therefore, if the passenger accepts additional transfer (or even more significant decrease in travel comfort), then the airline is obliged to provide such a connection.
If your your explanation is correct, then:
- The airline has to reimburse a passenger who rebooks himself on the other airline if the first airline refuses to rebook the passenger on this airline.
- If the passenger doesn't rebooks himself but takes the later offered flight, then the airline can't blame the extra delay on extraordinary circumstances. The passenger can maybe also claim compensation for any actual loss due to the extra delay.
Mar 28, 2019, 1:41 am
#910
Join Date: Nov 2011
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 59
H,
My better half was due to fly LHR->HEL->TLL on 22/12/18, on AY1332/AY1023, booked in business on a single ticket via BA (all flights were AY though).
The incoming aircraft to LHR was delayed by 18 minutes which then seemed to translate to a 1h15m delay leaving London and subsequently a 37 minute late arrival into HEL. She was due to continue on the AY1023 to TLL, and the air crew on AY1332 told herself and at least one other pax that the "ground was aware" and that they needed to "run to the gate".
She arrived at the gate at 16:19 (6 mins before departure) to be told that a) they were not aware and b) that the gate was now closed.
On subsequently visiting the transfer desk the story changed again and that they were aware and apparently another pax heard someone saying that they didn't hold the TLL flight as it had "too many Asians".
As there was no space on any TLL flight later that evening, she was offered a connecting flight (with another short connection) via WAW (yes, seriously!) or to make her own way on the ferry. She obviously took the latter option and got to the airport in TLL (where she was meeting family) around 22:00 or approximately 5 hours later (I cannot work out a WAW flight that would have got her there any earlier so this time stands as her delay to the final destination).
I believe this is an obvious claim for EC261 compensation for arriving 5 hours late at her final destination as regardless of the reason for the delay on the outbound flight it appears that AY chose not to delay the AY1023 and hence that was entirely within their control and hence not "exceptional circumstances".
Finnair have turned down the claim, citing the delay to AY1332 was caused by bad weather and air traffic control restrictions in Helsinki on the outbound flight. As I say, whilst I continue to dispute the relevance of this (see above), I also dispute the poor weather claim in Helsinki as a cursory look at weather reports shows nothing unusual for that time of year (-8, a little bit of light snow, what seem to be average winds for all of December). The turnaround time for the plane in LHR was also extended beyond the initial delay in arrival.
Should she continue to fight this? She has been offered the price of her ferry ticket and transport to the port.
My better half was due to fly LHR->HEL->TLL on 22/12/18, on AY1332/AY1023, booked in business on a single ticket via BA (all flights were AY though).
The incoming aircraft to LHR was delayed by 18 minutes which then seemed to translate to a 1h15m delay leaving London and subsequently a 37 minute late arrival into HEL. She was due to continue on the AY1023 to TLL, and the air crew on AY1332 told herself and at least one other pax that the "ground was aware" and that they needed to "run to the gate".
She arrived at the gate at 16:19 (6 mins before departure) to be told that a) they were not aware and b) that the gate was now closed.
On subsequently visiting the transfer desk the story changed again and that they were aware and apparently another pax heard someone saying that they didn't hold the TLL flight as it had "too many Asians".
As there was no space on any TLL flight later that evening, she was offered a connecting flight (with another short connection) via WAW (yes, seriously!) or to make her own way on the ferry. She obviously took the latter option and got to the airport in TLL (where she was meeting family) around 22:00 or approximately 5 hours later (I cannot work out a WAW flight that would have got her there any earlier so this time stands as her delay to the final destination).
I believe this is an obvious claim for EC261 compensation for arriving 5 hours late at her final destination as regardless of the reason for the delay on the outbound flight it appears that AY chose not to delay the AY1023 and hence that was entirely within their control and hence not "exceptional circumstances".
Finnair have turned down the claim, citing the delay to AY1332 was caused by bad weather and air traffic control restrictions in Helsinki on the outbound flight. As I say, whilst I continue to dispute the relevance of this (see above), I also dispute the poor weather claim in Helsinki as a cursory look at weather reports shows nothing unusual for that time of year (-8, a little bit of light snow, what seem to be average winds for all of December). The turnaround time for the plane in LHR was also extended beyond the initial delay in arrival.
Should she continue to fight this? She has been offered the price of her ferry ticket and transport to the port.
Mar 28, 2019, 2:25 am
#911
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: try to stay home
Programs: AY, M&M, BAEC ...and don t care of status anymore
Posts: 2,041
H,
My better half was due to fly LHR->HEL->TLL on 22/12/18, on AY1332/AY1023, booked in business on a single ticket via BA (all flights were AY though).
The incoming aircraft to LHR was delayed by 18 minutes which then seemed to translate to a 1h15m delay leaving London and subsequently a 37 minute late arrival into HEL. She was due to continue on the AY1023 to TLL, .
My better half was due to fly LHR->HEL->TLL on 22/12/18, on AY1332/AY1023, booked in business on a single ticket via BA (all flights were AY though).
The incoming aircraft to LHR was delayed by 18 minutes which then seemed to translate to a 1h15m delay leaving London and subsequently a 37 minute late arrival into HEL. She was due to continue on the AY1023 to TLL, .
Mar 28, 2019, 2:53 am
#912
Join Date: Nov 2011
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 59
So you are saying it's irrelevant that the implication onboard was that the onward flight would be briefly held (it would have needed 5 minutes) and that discussions at the transfer desk suggested they had chosen not to do so? I would have said holding a plane for 5 minutes for 10% of its passengers was a "reasonable effort" surely?
Mar 28, 2019, 3:12 am
#913
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: try to stay home
Programs: AY, M&M, BAEC ...and don t care of status anymore
Posts: 2,041
So you are saying it's irrelevant that the implication onboard was that the onward flight would be briefly held (it would have needed 5 minutes) and that discussions at the transfer desk suggested they had chosen not to do so? I would have said holding a plane for 5 minutes for 10% of its passengers was a "reasonable effort" surely?
Mar 28, 2019, 4:57 am
#914
Join Date: Nov 2011
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 59
It is relevant why the flight was delayed, and it is relevant that you arrive on time for the MCT at the transfering airport. After being too late you can t force or expect the airline to wait for you. At this point the only reason you have for a claim is the reason for the delay. You should look into this, because most likely AY will claim that the delay was out of their control.
Presumably you are saying that the way case law has interpreted EC261 is that if the arriving aircraft is late and the MCT is therefore broken then the airline (who in this case is Finnair for both flights) can throw their hands in the air and deny any responsibility beyond care (ie paying for the ferry in this case)? So any flight with a connection close to MCT is at risk of a small delay causing a very late arrival at the final destination and the airline does not have to take reasonable measure to mitigate it or pay compensation?
I don't believe that is in the spirit of the legislation, but I wonder if anyone has tested it and won?
Mar 28, 2019, 6:11 am
#915
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: try to stay home
Programs: AY, M&M, BAEC ...and don t care of status anymore
Posts: 2,041
Presumably you are saying that the way case law has interpreted EC261 is that if the arriving aircraft is late and the MCT is therefore broken then the airline (who in this case is Finnair for both flights) can throw their hands in the air and deny any responsibility beyond care (ie paying for the ferry in this case)? So any flight with a connection close to MCT is at risk of a small delay causing a very late arrival at the final destination and the airline does not have to take reasonable measure to mitigate it or pay compensation?
Also if your wife had choose to go on the next day (as offered by AY) they of course had to take care about accomidation.