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 23, 2017, 8:52 pm
#406
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 8
My experience is similar to many, Finnair refused to pay and uses the "extraordinary circumstance" excuse.
On Nov. 13, 2016, our flight from Helsinki to Kaohsiung via stopover in Hong Kong was delayed for 8 hrs. FINNAIR announced it at around 8pm, AY69 flight was supposed to depart at around 23pm. We were already at the airport because we just flew from Rome that afternoon. FINNAIR ground staff tried to reroute us through Singapore but we'd still miss the Hong Kong flight to Kaohsiung, so in the end they rebooked us to the 23pm flight the next day. We arrived in Kaohsiung 24 hrs later than our original time. We applied for 600EUR compensation, FINNAIR replied and said cause of delay is flap roller damage and considered as extraordinary circumstance, therefore no standard compensation will be paid. Instead, FINNAIR offered 125 EUR cash or 250 Eur voucher per person in our group. Finnair also mentioned Airbus has released a TFU regarding the defect. I messaged them asking for documentation from AIRBUS, FINNAIR says unfortunately they're unable to provide us any official documentation.
I want to pursue this until FINNAIR provides satisfactory proof that it is an "extraordinary circumstance". The problem is I live in Taiwan, I don't know where to pursue this. I haven't received a reply from FINNAIR for 3 days now after my last message repeating my request for solid proof. I've been thinking of messaging Consumers Dispute Board in Finland but I'm not sure if they'll help since I'm not from there. Any advice will be much appreciated, thanks!
On Nov. 13, 2016, our flight from Helsinki to Kaohsiung via stopover in Hong Kong was delayed for 8 hrs. FINNAIR announced it at around 8pm, AY69 flight was supposed to depart at around 23pm. We were already at the airport because we just flew from Rome that afternoon. FINNAIR ground staff tried to reroute us through Singapore but we'd still miss the Hong Kong flight to Kaohsiung, so in the end they rebooked us to the 23pm flight the next day. We arrived in Kaohsiung 24 hrs later than our original time. We applied for 600EUR compensation, FINNAIR replied and said cause of delay is flap roller damage and considered as extraordinary circumstance, therefore no standard compensation will be paid. Instead, FINNAIR offered 125 EUR cash or 250 Eur voucher per person in our group. Finnair also mentioned Airbus has released a TFU regarding the defect. I messaged them asking for documentation from AIRBUS, FINNAIR says unfortunately they're unable to provide us any official documentation.
I want to pursue this until FINNAIR provides satisfactory proof that it is an "extraordinary circumstance". The problem is I live in Taiwan, I don't know where to pursue this. I haven't received a reply from FINNAIR for 3 days now after my last message repeating my request for solid proof. I've been thinking of messaging Consumers Dispute Board in Finland but I'm not sure if they'll help since I'm not from there. Any advice will be much appreciated, thanks!
Summary:
1. flap cruise rollers and unicorn brackets were so severely worn out and have to be replaced. No spares available because according to Airbus it was not necessary to have spares as parts concerned are structural parts which should not be replaced at all during the entire operating lifetime of the aircraft. FINNAIR adds it's obviously a design defect.
2. FINNAIR contacted AIRBUS regarding this defect, problem was new to AIRBUS according to FINNAIR. Added that this the first time FINNAIR was made aware of the problem and after inspection of other aircraft of the FINNAIR fleet of AIRBUS A350, similar worn out parts has been found. Investigation still ongoing and final solution pending.
3. Our claim of 600 Euro denied, instead out of their goodwill, FINNAIR 1,600 EURO in cash or 2,100 Euro in vouchers for us 7 claimants. Amounting to 228 EURO in cash or 300 EURO in vouchers each. Rising from the original 125 EURO cash or 250 EURO voucher that the FINNAIR agent offered us through FINNAIR claims website.
We will refuse their offer and continue our complaint. Do we just mail KRIL about our refusal to the settlement or also mail FINNAIR directly? What good counter arguments can we give regarding the so-called "hidden defect"? I also plan to ask for any documentation from AIRBUS regarding the matter as I remember the agent I contacted before mentioned a TFU that AIRBUS released on the matter which the last letter haven't any mention of. Also, anyone has any idea if its possible to sue FINNAIR here in Taiwan? Anyone knows if FINNAIR has an office address here?
Any advice will be very much appreciated! Thanks in advance.
Aug 24, 2017, 12:40 am
#407
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: HEL
Programs: AY+ Gold (OWS)
Posts: 528
There is no Finnair Taiwan office. Whether you can sue is a matter of Taiwanese law, i.e. a question of whether Taiwanese courts have jurisdiction. However, as Finnair does not have assets in Taiwan, enforcing a Taiwanese judgment will in any case be difficult. You are better off with KRIL.
I don't think you have to separately notify KRIL that you turn down Finnair's settlement offer. I also would say you don't need any counterarguments, just refer to the ECJ van der Lans case in which it was stated that a technical defect does not constitute extraordinary circumstances.
I don't think you have to separately notify KRIL that you turn down Finnair's settlement offer. I also would say you don't need any counterarguments, just refer to the ECJ van der Lans case in which it was stated that a technical defect does not constitute extraordinary circumstances.
Aug 24, 2017, 3:07 am
#408
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 812
Submitted my claim today, along these lines:
In accordance with Regulation (EC) No261/2004, and its interpretation as per 'Sturgeon v Condor' case C-402/07 of ECJ on delays above 3 hours, I am making a claim for a statutory compensation of Euro 400 and associated court fees and interest.
Flight details: Tallinn, Estonia - London
Heathrow, UK (via Helsinki) - AY118 / AY331
(rebooked to AY837 due to delay on arrival of
flight AY118)
Date: Sunday 13 November 2016
Scheduled Arrival at LHR: 09:10 GMT
Actual Arrival at LHR: 12:18
This claim has been denied by Finnair on 1st Dec 2016, again on 13th Dec 2017, and a final rejection of the claim was issued by Finnair on 12th Jan 2017 (Finnair case xxxxxxx). As per above court case crew scheduling delays do not constitute extraordinary circumstances.
The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from 13/11/2016 to 23/08/2017 on £369.24 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.08.
In accordance with Regulation (EC) No261/2004, and its interpretation as per 'Sturgeon v Condor' case C-402/07 of ECJ on delays above 3 hours, I am making a claim for a statutory compensation of Euro 400 and associated court fees and interest.
Flight details: Tallinn, Estonia - London
Heathrow, UK (via Helsinki) - AY118 / AY331
(rebooked to AY837 due to delay on arrival of
flight AY118)
Date: Sunday 13 November 2016
Scheduled Arrival at LHR: 09:10 GMT
Actual Arrival at LHR: 12:18
This claim has been denied by Finnair on 1st Dec 2016, again on 13th Dec 2017, and a final rejection of the claim was issued by Finnair on 12th Jan 2017 (Finnair case xxxxxxx). As per above court case crew scheduling delays do not constitute extraordinary circumstances.
The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from 13/11/2016 to 23/08/2017 on £369.24 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.08.
(but I'm guessing you used MCOL to file a small claim in England, rather than filing a claim through the ESCP at the County Court in England, in which case you can only start a claim in GBP and not in EUR...)Do keep us updated on your case!
Aug 24, 2017, 3:46 am
#409
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 812
@Rosel Pe Chu: from the clear and consistent case-law of the CJEU (Wallentin-Hermann, van der Lans etc), it can only be concluded that the defect which was discovered in the Airbus 350 allocated to operate flight AY 069 on 13 Nov 2016 does not constitute 'extraordinary circumstances' releasing Finnair from its obligation to compensate you and your travel companions EUR 600 per person. In this light, it is frustrating to hear that Finnair has only offered to compensate your travel group partially (EUR 125 cash or EUR 250 voucher per person).
The CJEU very clearly stated at paragraphs 46-47 of its judgment in van der Lans:
The objective of Regulation 261/2004 is to ensure a 'high level of protection for passengers'. Passengers who are inconvenienced as a result of flight delays, cancellations or denied boarding should therefore be able to receive compensation from the airline without difficulty. The fact that passengers are entitled to seek compensation from the airline is simply to make it easy for passengers to know from whom they can claim. It does not mean that the airline actually has to bear the cost of such compensation, as the airline can seek recovery from the third party at fault that caused the delay/cancellation (in this case, Airbus).
I hope you hear back from Kril soon with a favourable decision!
The CJEU very clearly stated at paragraphs 46-47 of its judgment in van der Lans:
46. [...] it must be recalled that the discharge of obligations pursuant to Regulation No 261/2004 is without prejudice to air carriers’ rights to seek compensation from any person who caused the delay, including third parties, as Article 13 of the regulation provides. Such compensation may accordingly reduce or even remove the financial burden borne by carriers in consequence of those obligations [...]
47. It cannot be excluded at the outset that Article 13 of Regulation No 261/2004 may be relied on and applied with respect to a manufacturer which is at fault, in order to reduced or remove the financial burden born by the air carrier as a result of its obligations arising from that regulation.
47. It cannot be excluded at the outset that Article 13 of Regulation No 261/2004 may be relied on and applied with respect to a manufacturer which is at fault, in order to reduced or remove the financial burden born by the air carrier as a result of its obligations arising from that regulation.
I hope you hear back from Kril soon with a favourable decision!
Aug 24, 2017, 9:26 am
#410
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 8
Aug 28, 2017, 11:11 am
#411
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 6
So it seems like finnair still refuses me any kind of compensation, even though TRAFI recommended them to do so. This is because of the German court ruling that I posted in an earlier post.
I informed Trafi about this, but they responded that they can't do anything more. I have to go to a court myself, and they cannot help me with that.
At this point I want to give up, because I really don't want to start a legal process, that could end up very costly for me.
I was thinking of contacting Airhelp, but I have heard that finnair doesn't even talk to them.
I informed Trafi about this, but they responded that they can't do anything more. I have to go to a court myself, and they cannot help me with that.
At this point I want to give up, because I really don't want to start a legal process, that could end up very costly for me.
I was thinking of contacting Airhelp, but I have heard that finnair doesn't even talk to them.
Aug 28, 2017, 3:26 pm
#412
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: HEL
Programs: AY Platinum, TK Elite, BT VIP, AA, BA, SK, DL, NT, WB + hotels
Posts: 8,749
There are other similar companies, too. If you aren't going to pursue the case any further, there's no harm in sending your case to one of them.
Aug 29, 2017, 7:40 am
#413
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: HEL
Programs: AY, SK, TK
Posts: 7,598
But so is very baffling too, that KRIL redirects a consumer to Trafi. KRIL should understand that a consumer is the one who flies and is affected by any irrops, irrespective who has bought the ticket.
Aug 29, 2017, 11:33 pm
#414
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Ether
Programs: Some, not all.
Posts: 1,595
Looking for a little advice on who I should be making my 261 claim to.
My flights were booked through Finnair as SGN-HKG (AY codeshare on CX metal), HKG-HEL-MAN (AY metal). We ended up flying a day later SGN-HKG (AY codeshare on CX metal), HKG-MAN (CX metal).
The reason for the 24 delay was that the SGN-HKG was cancelled due to weather at HKG, although there were only around 20 flights cancelled that day. No assistance was given either by CX or AY other than an email to say the flight was cancelled and the new flight details.
Should my claim go to the AY as I bought my ticket from them and was on AY coded flights, or to CX as they were the operating carrier that cancelled the flight?
My flights were booked through Finnair as SGN-HKG (AY codeshare on CX metal), HKG-HEL-MAN (AY metal). We ended up flying a day later SGN-HKG (AY codeshare on CX metal), HKG-MAN (CX metal).
The reason for the 24 delay was that the SGN-HKG was cancelled due to weather at HKG, although there were only around 20 flights cancelled that day. No assistance was given either by CX or AY other than an email to say the flight was cancelled and the new flight details.
Should my claim go to the AY as I bought my ticket from them and was on AY coded flights, or to CX as they were the operating carrier that cancelled the flight?
Aug 29, 2017, 11:36 pm
#415
Join Date: Dec 2013
Programs: AY+ Plat, A3*G
Posts: 672
Is Finnair responsible for EU261 if I fly HEL-JFK-LAX-HNL and I miss the AA legs? Or am I on my own with US's less consumer friendly policy?
Let's say
case A) flight is late and that is reason
case B) immigration takes 3 hours
Let's say
case A) flight is late and that is reason
case B) immigration takes 3 hours
Aug 30, 2017, 12:57 am
#416
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: HEL
Programs: AY+ Gold (OWS)
Posts: 528
It really isn't very baffling, they are just following the law. They lack the jurisdiction to hear a case where the underlying contract (= air ticket) has been concluded between two business entities.
Aug 30, 2017, 1:30 pm
#417
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: ±38,000 feet
Programs: LH HON, BA GGL, AF Plat, EK Plat
Posts: 6,428
Looking for a little advice on who I should be making my 261 claim to.
My flights were booked through Finnair as SGN-HKG (AY codeshare on CX metal), HKG-HEL-MAN (AY metal). We ended up flying a day later SGN-HKG (AY codeshare on CX metal), HKG-MAN (CX metal).
The reason for the 24 delay was that the SGN-HKG was cancelled due to weather at HKG, although there were only around 20 flights cancelled that day. No assistance was given either by CX or AY other than an email to say the flight was cancelled and the new flight details.
Should my claim go to the AY as I bought my ticket from them and was on AY coded flights, or to CX as they were the operating carrier that cancelled the flight?
My flights were booked through Finnair as SGN-HKG (AY codeshare on CX metal), HKG-HEL-MAN (AY metal). We ended up flying a day later SGN-HKG (AY codeshare on CX metal), HKG-MAN (CX metal).
The reason for the 24 delay was that the SGN-HKG was cancelled due to weather at HKG, although there were only around 20 flights cancelled that day. No assistance was given either by CX or AY other than an email to say the flight was cancelled and the new flight details.
Should my claim go to the AY as I bought my ticket from them and was on AY coded flights, or to CX as they were the operating carrier that cancelled the flight?
In this case SGN-HKG is out of scope. No statutory compensation based on EU261 is due, regardless of codeshare agreements.
Aug 30, 2017, 1:33 pm
#418
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: ±38,000 feet
Programs: LH HON, BA GGL, AF Plat, EK Plat
Posts: 6,428
Take an example where HEL-JFK (90 MIN layover) - LAX-HNL. HEL-JFK is delayed 45 mins meaning you misconnect, get on next flight and arrive at HNL 5 hours later. AY owes you Euro 600, even though AY was only delayed 45 mins.
Example 2 HEL-JFK-LAX (AA delay on JFK-LAX) - HNL. You arrive 5 hours late. No compensation as delay occurred on flight not within the scope of the regulation.
Aug 30, 2017, 1:34 pm
#419
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: ±38,000 feet
Programs: LH HON, BA GGL, AF Plat, EK Plat
Posts: 6,428
@nufnuf77: with the strengthening EUR and weakening GBP, EUR 400 will probably be worth more than GBP 369.24 at the time of the judgment! (but I'm guessing you used MCOL to file a small claim in England, rather than filing a claim through the ESCP at the County Court in England, in which case you can only start a claim in GBP and not in EUR...)
Do keep us updated on your case!
(but I'm guessing you used MCOL to file a small claim in England, rather than filing a claim through the ESCP at the County Court in England, in which case you can only start a claim in GBP and not in EUR...)Do keep us updated on your case!
Aug 31, 2017, 5:42 am
#420
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: HEL
Programs: AY+ Gold (OWS)
Posts: 528
tl;dr: captain decided to wait for connecting pax; they didn't show; further delay to offload bags. Finnair denied claim saying "...delayed due mandatory security reason: offloading passenger and their baggage when they were checked in for the flight, but did not show up to the gate. Because this is considered an extraordinary circumstance, no compensation will be paid." Wondering whether to try again on my own (how?) or engage an intermediary (which one?).
More details: flying EU to US. First (intra-EU) segment on Finnair delayed as above. Told we were waiting for ~8 pax, so captain's decision to wait seems sane. We were told that one pax was in danger of misconnecting. Sadly, that was me. I arrived at HEL only 15 minutes before scheduled departure of segment 2, so if bags had been offloaded immediately (v. waiting for connecting pax), I might have made the connection. Finnair rerouted me off of my planned other carrier for segments 2 and 3 and onto Finnair+a third carrier. Ultimately, I arrived at my destination 5+ hours late.
I think I'm due 600€. Are there cases saying that offloading bags is not extraordinary? Is making the argument that it was a judgement call to wait for the pax likely to get me anywhere? Would it help to use an intermediary? If so, which one(s)?
More details: flying EU to US. First (intra-EU) segment on Finnair delayed as above. Told we were waiting for ~8 pax, so captain's decision to wait seems sane. We were told that one pax was in danger of misconnecting. Sadly, that was me. I arrived at HEL only 15 minutes before scheduled departure of segment 2, so if bags had been offloaded immediately (v. waiting for connecting pax), I might have made the connection. Finnair rerouted me off of my planned other carrier for segments 2 and 3 and onto Finnair+a third carrier. Ultimately, I arrived at my destination 5+ hours late.
I think I'm due 600€. Are there cases saying that offloading bags is not extraordinary? Is making the argument that it was a judgement call to wait for the pax likely to get me anywhere? Would it help to use an intermediary? If so, which one(s)?