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
Aug 8, 2017, 5:02 am
#378
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 6
So I thought I'd share my somewhat long and complicated story with Finnair and trying to get compensation for delayed flight.
I was going on business-trip to Bangkok with the new Finnair A350 on 25th of march 2016 (AY089). The flight was due to technical problems with some fuel indicator delayed and postponed until the next day. Finnair offered passengers accommodation during the night and got a new plane, also a350, in the morning. We arrived at BKK about 20h late.
I did not know that I could get compensation for this until April, and I then wrote to Finnair how to get compensation. Then it started.
Finnair claimed extraordinary circumstances and told me the plane was new and that it probably was a manufacturing problem. Therefore they would not pay any standard compensation (600€) but offered me 200€ travel voucher. I declined the offer and referred to EU-court rulings and EU regulations. They still declined and in May 17th Finnair told me that I can contact KRIL, which I did. After about two months Finnair replied to KRIL that this was a business trip and that KRIL is not allowed to handle business passengers. KRIL told me to contact trafi, so I did. Another two months passed before Finnair replied to trafi and still called extraordinary circumstances. Trafi then did their magic and 10(!) months later I got reply that recommended Finnair to pay the standard compensation.
I contacted Finnair again with this information, and one month of trying to get contact with them they replied that trafi only recommends and that they have won a case in court in Germany with the same flight.
Long story short. Does anyone know about this decision from the German court? And any advise how to proceed?
Sorry for the long post.
I was going on business-trip to Bangkok with the new Finnair A350 on 25th of march 2016 (AY089). The flight was due to technical problems with some fuel indicator delayed and postponed until the next day. Finnair offered passengers accommodation during the night and got a new plane, also a350, in the morning. We arrived at BKK about 20h late.
I did not know that I could get compensation for this until April, and I then wrote to Finnair how to get compensation. Then it started.
Finnair claimed extraordinary circumstances and told me the plane was new and that it probably was a manufacturing problem. Therefore they would not pay any standard compensation (600€) but offered me 200€ travel voucher. I declined the offer and referred to EU-court rulings and EU regulations. They still declined and in May 17th Finnair told me that I can contact KRIL, which I did. After about two months Finnair replied to KRIL that this was a business trip and that KRIL is not allowed to handle business passengers. KRIL told me to contact trafi, so I did. Another two months passed before Finnair replied to trafi and still called extraordinary circumstances. Trafi then did their magic and 10(!) months later I got reply that recommended Finnair to pay the standard compensation.
I contacted Finnair again with this information, and one month of trying to get contact with them they replied that trafi only recommends and that they have won a case in court in Germany with the same flight.
Long story short. Does anyone know about this decision from the German court? And any advise how to proceed?
Sorry for the long post.
Aug 8, 2017, 6:30 am
#379
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Helsinki
Programs: AY Platinum
Posts: 303
I think it's inappropriate that AY referred you to KRIL and thereafter denied their compentence. Also, I think that the ruling of any German court is irrelevant in this case, while it shows (or may show, we don't know the contents of the ruling) that there may also be arguments supporting AY here.
Article 16 of the Regulation 261/2004 states: "1. Each Member State shall designate a body responsible for the enforcement of this Regulation as regards flights from airports situated on its territory and flights from a third country to such airports. Where appropriate, this body shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the rights of passengers are respected..." ... and "3. The sanctions laid down by Member States for infringements of this Regulation shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive."
How about approaching Trafi again, informing them about AY refusing to comply with Trafi's advice and asking them to ensure that your rights will be honoured. In Finnish the article says: "Sen on toteutettava tarvittavat toimenpiteet sen varmistamiseksi, että matkustajien oikeuksia kunnioitetaan." This looks quite binding towards Trafi in my opinion.
Article 16 of the Regulation 261/2004 states: "1. Each Member State shall designate a body responsible for the enforcement of this Regulation as regards flights from airports situated on its territory and flights from a third country to such airports. Where appropriate, this body shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the rights of passengers are respected..." ... and "3. The sanctions laid down by Member States for infringements of this Regulation shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive."
How about approaching Trafi again, informing them about AY refusing to comply with Trafi's advice and asking them to ensure that your rights will be honoured. In Finnish the article says: "Sen on toteutettava tarvittavat toimenpiteet sen varmistamiseksi, että matkustajien oikeuksia kunnioitetaan." This looks quite binding towards Trafi in my opinion.
Aug 8, 2017, 10:29 am
#380
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 812
@ce92: I agree with loimu. The German court judgment is not legally binding – only the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (see the wiki) are legally binding in Finland.
Trafi (the responsible NEB in your case) issued a decision in your favour – Finnair should respect this and compensate you in accordance with the Regulation. As loimu has said, it would be a good idea to get in touch with Trafi again to inform them about Finnair's failure to comply with its decision. In addition, perhaps you could consider contacting the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority (although it does not handle individual complaints, it can take action against companies in the collective interest of consumers, and so if they were made aware of your case, as well as other customers' cases who are in a similar situation as you, they may eventually decide to take action against Finnair).
Trafi (the responsible NEB in your case) issued a decision in your favour – Finnair should respect this and compensate you in accordance with the Regulation. As loimu has said, it would be a good idea to get in touch with Trafi again to inform them about Finnair's failure to comply with its decision. In addition, perhaps you could consider contacting the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority (although it does not handle individual complaints, it can take action against companies in the collective interest of consumers, and so if they were made aware of your case, as well as other customers' cases who are in a similar situation as you, they may eventually decide to take action against Finnair).
Aug 8, 2017, 3:44 pm
#381
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 6
Thanks for the advice. Will keep you updated.
Here is a extraction from the ruling of the German court.
https://ibb.co/c98Qga
https://ibb.co/dTrd1a
https://ibb.co/dYFhSF
Here is a extraction from the ruling of the German court.
https://ibb.co/c98Qga
https://ibb.co/dTrd1a
https://ibb.co/dYFhSF
Aug 8, 2017, 10:01 pm
#382
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 812
Thanks for the advice. Will keep you updated.
Here is a extraction from the ruling of the German court.
https://ibb.co/c98Qga
https://ibb.co/dTrd1a
https://ibb.co/dYFhSF
Here is a extraction from the ruling of the German court.
https://ibb.co/c98Qga
https://ibb.co/dTrd1a
https://ibb.co/dYFhSF
Having read the judgment, I do not think it is compatible with the CJEU's decision in van der Lans (which is not cited by the Amtsgericht Erding anywhere in its judgment).
In van der Lans, the CJEU stated the following at paragraphs 37 and 38:
37. Since the functioning of aircraft inevitably gives rise to technical problems, air carriers are confronted as a matter of course in the exercise of their activity with such problems. In that connection, technical problems which come to light during maintenance of aircraft or on account of failure to carry out such maintenance cannot constitute, in themselves, ‘extraordinary circumstances’ under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (see, to that effect, judgment in Wallentin-Hermann, C‑549/07, EU:C:2008:771, paragraphs 24 and 25).
38. Nevertheless, certain technical problems may constitute extraordinary circumstances. That would be the case in the situation where it was revealed by the manufacturer of the aircraft comprising the fleet of the air carrier concerned, or by a competent authority, that those aircraft, although already in service, are affected by a hidden manufacturing defect which impinges on flight safety. The same would hold for damage to aircraft caused by acts of sabotage or terrorism (see, to that effect, judgment in Wallentin-Hermann, C‑549/07, EU:C:2008:771, paragraph 26).
38. Nevertheless, certain technical problems may constitute extraordinary circumstances. That would be the case in the situation where it was revealed by the manufacturer of the aircraft comprising the fleet of the air carrier concerned, or by a competent authority, that those aircraft, although already in service, are affected by a hidden manufacturing defect which impinges on flight safety. The same would hold for damage to aircraft caused by acts of sabotage or terrorism (see, to that effect, judgment in Wallentin-Hermann, C‑549/07, EU:C:2008:771, paragraph 26).
First, the technical problem (the fault in the fuel gauge) was discovered by Finnair during the standard pre-flight maintentance and refuelling process, and was then reported to Airbus (which subsequently provided technical support to Finnair). It was not a technical problem that was revealed by Airbus or a competent authority.
Second, the technical problem was not a 'hidden manufacturing defect which impinges on flight safety'. As the Amtsgericht Erding itself noted in the last sentence of paragraph 3 on page 3 of its judgment, 'Given that this did not constitute a problem with safety implications, the aircraft was back in operation the following evening'.
In any case, however, as loimu has stated, the decision of the Amtsgericht Erding is not legally binding in Finland. In contrast, the decisions of the CJEU (including van der Lans) are authoritative and legally binding in Finland. In your case, Trafi has already issued a decision in your favour – Finnair should respect this decision and compensate you.
Aug 8, 2017, 10:24 pm
#383
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 812
I've also updated the wiki with the CJEU's latest decision relating to Regulation 261/2004 – Krijgsman v SLM (handed down on 11 May 2017).
Aug 9, 2017, 2:21 am
#384
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: HEL
Programs: AY+ Gold (OWS)
Posts: 528
Unfortunately paul00's advice regarding Trafi's decision is incorrect. Under Finnish law, Trafi does not have the power or jurisdiction to issue decisions regarding EU261 compensation that would be compelling on Finnair. Trafi can only issue recommendations. This also applies to KRIL.
If one wants to get an enforceable ruling, the only possibility is to sue Finnair before a the District Court of Vantaa (where Finnair's headquarters are) or Helsinki (where Finnair is domiciled). Other courts (even abroad) may also have jurisdiction as well depending on the case.
However, I agree with paul00 that the technical problem does not constitute a hidden manufacturing defect, i.e. the Amstgericht Erding has applied the directive erroneously. Regardless of the outcome of the German case, it is not legally binding in Finland. Similarly, a Finnish District Court judgment regarding another passenger flying on the same flight would not be binding.
If one wants to get an enforceable ruling, the only possibility is to sue Finnair before a the District Court of Vantaa (where Finnair's headquarters are) or Helsinki (where Finnair is domiciled). Other courts (even abroad) may also have jurisdiction as well depending on the case.
However, I agree with paul00 that the technical problem does not constitute a hidden manufacturing defect, i.e. the Amstgericht Erding has applied the directive erroneously. Regardless of the outcome of the German case, it is not legally binding in Finland. Similarly, a Finnish District Court judgment regarding another passenger flying on the same flight would not be binding.
Aug 9, 2017, 3:11 am
#385
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 6
Here is also the reply from Finnair to Trafi if you are interested (only in finnish):
"Kyseessä oli Finnairin ensimmäinen Airbus A350 OH-LWA. Lento AY089 Helsinki-Bangkok 25.3.2016 myöhästyi n. 20 tuntia tankkausjärjestelmän vian takia.
Lentokoneen ollessa lähtövalmiina lennonohjausjärjestelmä ilmoitti polttoaineen määrämittausjärjestelmän viasta. Konetta tankattaessa polttoainelisäys jäi liian alhaiseksi eikä polttoainejärjestelmä ottanut polttoainetta tankkeihin. Vika esti koneella operoinnin ja se oli heti korjattava.
Ensin näytti siltä, että vika pystyttäisiin korjaamaan nopeasti tekemällä polttoaineen määrämittausjärjestelmän uudelleen asetteluja ja testauksia. Vika ei kuitenkaan näillä toimin korjaantunut ja matkustajat siirrettiin takaisin terminaalirakennukseen.
Finnairin ollessa yhteydessä vianmäärityksen aikana lentokonevalmistaja Airbusiin ilmeni, että vikatilanne oli myös Airbusille uusi ja meni pitkään ennen kuin oikea toimenpide löydettiin vian korjaamiseksi. Vika korjaantui vasta kun polttoainetankit lopulta tyhjennettiin ja tankkaus aloitettiin uudestaan, jolloin polttoaineenmäärämittaus resetoitui. Kun oli selvää, että vian korjaaminen ei valmistu nopeasti, Finnair päätti operoida lennon Helsinki-Bangkok toisella A350-koneella OH-LWB heti, kun lentokone oli käytettävissä.
OH-LWA on otettu Finnairilla käyttöön uutena 6.10.2015. Kyseessä oli aivan uuden, vain n. 5 kuukauden ikäisen, lentokoneen piilevä suunnitteluvirhe.
Lentokonevalmistaja Airbusin tekemissä vian tarkemmissa tutkimuksissa on selvinnyt, että tämä erikoinen polttoaineen määrämittausjärjestelmän vika on johtunut järjestelmän sisäisestä heikkoudesta.
Lentokonevalmistaja on ilmenneiden ongelmien seurauksena suunnitellut muutoksia määrämittausjärjestelmään. Kysymyksessä on näin ollen ollut kyseisen polttoaineen määrämittausjärjestelmän suunnitteluvirhe.
Airbus on julkaissut 21.6.2016 A350-koneiden määrämittausjärjestelmän viasta luottamuksellisen vianseurantadokumentin TFU 28.25.00.034. Pyydämme pitämään alla olevan otteen luottamuksellisena Finnairin ja Trafin välillä.
[huom! kohta poistettu, ei käytetä myöskään Trafin suositusta laadittaessa ellei Finnair toimita asiakirjasta julkista versiota
Finnairin ohjeistuksen mukaan matkustajille annetaan Finnairin tiedote matkustajan oikeuksista ja pidetään huolta EU-asetuksen 261/2004 mukaisesti. Lennon viivästyminen on johtunut lentoyhtiön kannalta poikkeuksellisista olosuhteista. Kyseessä on lentokonevalmistajan ilmoittama piilevä valmistusvirhe. Finnair on ryhtynyt vallinneessa tilanteessa kaikkiin toimenpiteisiin, joita siltä voidaan edellyttää.”
"Kyseessä oli Finnairin ensimmäinen Airbus A350 OH-LWA. Lento AY089 Helsinki-Bangkok 25.3.2016 myöhästyi n. 20 tuntia tankkausjärjestelmän vian takia.
Lentokoneen ollessa lähtövalmiina lennonohjausjärjestelmä ilmoitti polttoaineen määrämittausjärjestelmän viasta. Konetta tankattaessa polttoainelisäys jäi liian alhaiseksi eikä polttoainejärjestelmä ottanut polttoainetta tankkeihin. Vika esti koneella operoinnin ja se oli heti korjattava.
Ensin näytti siltä, että vika pystyttäisiin korjaamaan nopeasti tekemällä polttoaineen määrämittausjärjestelmän uudelleen asetteluja ja testauksia. Vika ei kuitenkaan näillä toimin korjaantunut ja matkustajat siirrettiin takaisin terminaalirakennukseen.
Finnairin ollessa yhteydessä vianmäärityksen aikana lentokonevalmistaja Airbusiin ilmeni, että vikatilanne oli myös Airbusille uusi ja meni pitkään ennen kuin oikea toimenpide löydettiin vian korjaamiseksi. Vika korjaantui vasta kun polttoainetankit lopulta tyhjennettiin ja tankkaus aloitettiin uudestaan, jolloin polttoaineenmäärämittaus resetoitui. Kun oli selvää, että vian korjaaminen ei valmistu nopeasti, Finnair päätti operoida lennon Helsinki-Bangkok toisella A350-koneella OH-LWB heti, kun lentokone oli käytettävissä.
OH-LWA on otettu Finnairilla käyttöön uutena 6.10.2015. Kyseessä oli aivan uuden, vain n. 5 kuukauden ikäisen, lentokoneen piilevä suunnitteluvirhe.
Lentokonevalmistaja Airbusin tekemissä vian tarkemmissa tutkimuksissa on selvinnyt, että tämä erikoinen polttoaineen määrämittausjärjestelmän vika on johtunut järjestelmän sisäisestä heikkoudesta.
Lentokonevalmistaja on ilmenneiden ongelmien seurauksena suunnitellut muutoksia määrämittausjärjestelmään. Kysymyksessä on näin ollen ollut kyseisen polttoaineen määrämittausjärjestelmän suunnitteluvirhe.
Airbus on julkaissut 21.6.2016 A350-koneiden määrämittausjärjestelmän viasta luottamuksellisen vianseurantadokumentin TFU 28.25.00.034. Pyydämme pitämään alla olevan otteen luottamuksellisena Finnairin ja Trafin välillä.
[huom! kohta poistettu, ei käytetä myöskään Trafin suositusta laadittaessa ellei Finnair toimita asiakirjasta julkista versiota
Finnairin ohjeistuksen mukaan matkustajille annetaan Finnairin tiedote matkustajan oikeuksista ja pidetään huolta EU-asetuksen 261/2004 mukaisesti. Lennon viivästyminen on johtunut lentoyhtiön kannalta poikkeuksellisista olosuhteista. Kyseessä on lentokonevalmistajan ilmoittama piilevä valmistusvirhe. Finnair on ryhtynyt vallinneessa tilanteessa kaikkiin toimenpiteisiin, joita siltä voidaan edellyttää.”
Aug 9, 2017, 3:22 am
#386
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Helsinki
Programs: AY Platinum
Posts: 303
It looks like I was wrong. While the legislation -Aviation Act + the EU legislation- look promising, it looks like there's a ruling from the EU Court stating that the national administrative body is not obliged to take actions to enforce an individual passenger's right to a compensation. However, doing so doesn't seem to be forbidden either. http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documen...t=1&cid=820283
This doesn't mean that you couldn't still bring this to Trafi's attention and ask them to act. And even if Trafi wouldn't be legally obliged to take actions with an individual case, they should do so over time if there's a pattern of AY not following the (EU) legislation.
This doesn't mean that you couldn't still bring this to Trafi's attention and ask them to act. And even if Trafi wouldn't be legally obliged to take actions with an individual case, they should do so over time if there's a pattern of AY not following the (EU) legislation.
Aug 9, 2017, 4:45 am
#387
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 812
Unfortunately paul00's advice regarding Trafi's decision is incorrect. Under Finnish law, Trafi does not have the power or jurisdiction to issue decisions regarding EU261 compensation that would be compelling on Finnair. Trafi can only issue recommendations. This also applies to KRIL.
If one wants to get an enforceable ruling, the only possibility is to sue Finnair before a the District Court of Vantaa (where Finnair's headquarters are) or Helsinki (where Finnair is domiciled). Other courts (even abroad) may also have jurisdiction as well depending on the case.
If one wants to get an enforceable ruling, the only possibility is to sue Finnair before a the District Court of Vantaa (where Finnair's headquarters are) or Helsinki (where Finnair is domiciled). Other courts (even abroad) may also have jurisdiction as well depending on the case.
Yes, it would be a good idea to get in touch with Trafi again to inform them about Finnair's failure to comply with its decision. Perhaps they may follow-up on this with Finnair.
Aug 9, 2017, 7:40 am
#388
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: HEL
Programs: AY GOLD, HH GOLD
Posts: 411
Now that Finnair is all over the news, don't you think it would a perfect timing to inform the yellow media once again that AY is still neglecting the EU261 totally?
CEO gets 1 million a year in salary and extra pension bonuses, but Finnair totally neglects the passenger's rights for compensation
Who wants call in the tip
CEO gets 1 million a year in salary and extra pension bonuses, but Finnair totally neglects the passenger's rights for compensation
Who wants call in the tip
Aug 9, 2017, 10:44 pm
#389
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 231
My case is finished.
- Feb16 | ?? | HEL-PEK | 6h delay | 150€ voucher | manufacture fail of A350 | ??
Step 1 - contact Finnair, only 150 € voucher
Step 2 - contact KRIL, Finnair wrote letter that I wasn't a consumer but it was a B2B transaction.
Step 3 - Trafi, 9 months later recommended that Finnair should pay 600 €. forwarded the letter to Finnair and they payed.
Perhaps they were difficult in the beginning because then it was my first Finnair flight (no single tier point), and now platinum?
- Feb16 | ?? | HEL-PEK | 6h delay | 150€ voucher | manufacture fail of A350 | ??
Step 1 - contact Finnair, only 150 € voucher
Step 2 - contact KRIL, Finnair wrote letter that I wasn't a consumer but it was a B2B transaction.
Step 3 - Trafi, 9 months later recommended that Finnair should pay 600 €. forwarded the letter to Finnair and they payed.
Perhaps they were difficult in the beginning because then it was my first Finnair flight (no single tier point), and now platinum?
Aug 10, 2017, 4:04 am
#390
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 6
My case is finished.
- Feb16 | ?? | HEL-PEK | 6h delay | 150€ voucher | manufacture fail of A350 | ??
Step 1 - contact Finnair, only 150 € voucher
Step 2 - contact KRIL, Finnair wrote letter that I wasn't a consumer but it was a B2B transaction.
Step 3 - Trafi, 9 months later recommended that Finnair should pay 600 €. forwarded the letter to Finnair and they payed.
Perhaps they were difficult in the beginning because then it was my first Finnair flight (no single tier point), and now platinum?
- Feb16 | ?? | HEL-PEK | 6h delay | 150€ voucher | manufacture fail of A350 | ??
Step 1 - contact Finnair, only 150 € voucher
Step 2 - contact KRIL, Finnair wrote letter that I wasn't a consumer but it was a B2B transaction.
Step 3 - Trafi, 9 months later recommended that Finnair should pay 600 €. forwarded the letter to Finnair and they payed.
Perhaps they were difficult in the beginning because then it was my first Finnair flight (no single tier point), and now platinum?