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
Apr 9, 2019, 10:54 am
#946
Join Date: Mar 2018
Programs: AY+ Platinum / FlyingBlue Gold
Posts: 835
I have the Dutch nationality and I'm based in The Netherlands. So I am considering submitting it in The Netherlands. 
Not sure yet if it's worth the hassle, but I do still think I have a fairly strong case here. I don't want to be a pain in the *ss for them, I really would like to settle it in a gentle way.
However this is not just about me, it's about lots of people that keep getting the ''overtime-ban/extraordinary circumstance'' argument from Finnair/NoRRA.
1. Cancellation 2 days in advance
2. Cancellations because of pilot ilness
3. Finnair couldn't find replacement pilot and blames it on an extraordinary circumstance because of overtime ban
4. This overtime ban has been in place for months, so by now they should be prepared for this
5. This seems clearly more of a crew shortage issue than anything else
Not sure yet if it's worth the hassle, but I do still think I have a fairly strong case here. I don't want to be a pain in the *ss for them, I really would like to settle it in a gentle way.
However this is not just about me, it's about lots of people that keep getting the ''overtime-ban/extraordinary circumstance'' argument from Finnair/NoRRA.
1. Cancellation 2 days in advance
2. Cancellations because of pilot ilness
3. Finnair couldn't find replacement pilot and blames it on an extraordinary circumstance because of overtime ban
4. This overtime ban has been in place for months, so by now they should be prepared for this
5. This seems clearly more of a crew shortage issue than anything else
Would you guys guess I have a high chance of winning this case? And what would you do? I know that the Finnish Consumer Dispute Board has spoken about a similar case a few months (!) ago and advised Finnair to not payout compensation (although not everyone in the board was fully convinced...). But this has been months ago, and they cannot keep hiding behind the ''overtime-ban'' / ''strike'' argument forever. What do you think?
Apr 9, 2019, 1:51 pm
#947
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: C2
Programs: AY ex-Lumo, TK Elite, BT VIP, ITA Executive
Posts: 1,157
Alright, Finnair has responded to me that they are not willing to compensate the full amount of €400 cash. They offer a €200 gift voucher instead. Which leaves me to the option: dragging them to the EU small claims court for €79 (in case I lose), or taking the gift voucher.
Would you guys guess I have a high chance of winning this case? And what would you do? I know that the Finnish Consumer Dispute Board has spoken about a similar case a few months (!) ago and advised Finnair to not payout compensation (although not everyone in the board was fully convinced...). But this has been months ago, and they cannot keep hiding behind the ''overtime-ban'' / ''strike'' argument forever. What do you think?
Would you guys guess I have a high chance of winning this case? And what would you do? I know that the Finnish Consumer Dispute Board has spoken about a similar case a few months (!) ago and advised Finnair to not payout compensation (although not everyone in the board was fully convinced...). But this has been months ago, and they cannot keep hiding behind the ''overtime-ban'' / ''strike'' argument forever. What do you think?
Of course, if they fulfilled conditions for 50% cut in compensation, then the voucher is much closer to what you would be entitled to.
Apr 12, 2019, 2:42 am
#948
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Somewhere in the Air
Programs: BA GGL, *A Silver, OW Emerald, HH Diamond, Karahi Express
Posts: 554
However, under 261/2004 rules, AY needs to rebook you at no additional cost. It doesn't sound as if it is at no additional cost if, as a result of the reroute, you earn fewer points in the FFP of your choice, so I think that the European Court of Justice likely would award ORC, at least as long as you don't attempt to double dip to a Star Alliance programme.
Apr 12, 2019, 3:33 am
#949
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: HEL
Programs: AY Platinum, TK Elite, BT VIP, AA, BA, SK, DL, NT, WB + hotels
Posts: 8,735
As for ORC, don’t hold your breath.
Apr 18, 2019, 10:53 am
#950
Join Date: May 2013
Location: HEL
Programs: AY Plat (OWE), SK EBG (*A Gold), KQ Plat (STE+), Accor Plat
Posts: 3,156
I was on AY1332 today that got delayed from LHR. First it was supposed to be just a few minutes, then the delay went on and on ranging from technical issues to offloading passengers' baggage and finally we landed 3 h and 12 minutes late at HEL. We'll see if the claim will be smooth, should be a clear case.
Apr 18, 2019, 12:22 pm
#951
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 12
I was on AY 1331 on Tuesday 16th, we left the stand at HEL at about 13:45 (scheduled at 08:00), landed LHR at 14:19, more than five hours late. The incoming plane from Singapore was two hours late, and then there were repeated announcements of further delay, including at one point being sent out of the departure lounge where we had been waiting for some time. Groundstaff, and the pilot, when we eventually were ready to depart, blamed 'techical problems', said by one member of the groundstaff to be with the brakes on the landing gear.
My claim for Euro 400 has been 'acknowledged'.
My claim for Euro 400 has been 'acknowledged'.
Apr 18, 2019, 9:49 pm
#952
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA GGL
Posts: 1,577
Mod note: this post was originally made in the BA forum EC261 thread and has been moved here for further advice
Non-BA but relevant anecdote from yesterday; a friend of mine was booked in J on the delayed AY1332 LHR-HEL yesterday, connecting on to HEL-NRT. The first flight was delayed for technical reasons on the ground at LHR for 3h40m, meaning the Tokyo pax misconnected. Finnair rerouted them on the two later flights to KIX, which would be fine except they were all told to make their own way from there to Tokyo (!). Friend is definitely claiming €600 delay compensation, but I'm wondering what else she should be saying given that Finnair abandoned their pax in Osaka, failing to fulfil their obligation under the regulation (...and the terms of the sale of their own ticket...) to get people to Tokyo.
Non-BA but relevant anecdote from yesterday; a friend of mine was booked in J on the delayed AY1332 LHR-HEL yesterday, connecting on to HEL-NRT. The first flight was delayed for technical reasons on the ground at LHR for 3h40m, meaning the Tokyo pax misconnected. Finnair rerouted them on the two later flights to KIX, which would be fine except they were all told to make their own way from there to Tokyo (!). Friend is definitely claiming €600 delay compensation, but I'm wondering what else she should be saying given that Finnair abandoned their pax in Osaka, failing to fulfil their obligation under the regulation (...and the terms of the sale of their own ticket...) to get people to Tokyo.
Last edited by NWIFlyer; Apr 19, 2019 at 2:17 am
Apr 19, 2019, 6:59 am
#953
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 2,016
Finnair rerouted them on the two later flights to KIX, which would be fine except they were all told to make their own way from there to Tokyo (!). Friend is definitely claiming €600 delay compensation, but I'm wondering what else she should be saying given that Finnair abandoned their pax in Osaka, failing to fulfil their obligation under the regulation (...and the terms of the sale of their own ticket...) to get people to Tokyo.
Reminds me of something I recently read on the SAS forum. SAS could only offer the rerouting option proposed by the computer, which was rerouting to LHR, although the original booking was to MAN. https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/29930254-post7.html
Apr 21, 2019, 3:01 pm
#954
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Programs: None any more
Posts: 11,017
So my gf is currently at HEL where AY099 to HKG has been delayed from 23:55 to 11:10 tomorrow. They are offering hotel, shuttle bus transfer, and food vouchers only.
First time looking at EU261 for me, but if I understand it correctly she is entitled to that, plus compensation of 300 (or is it 600?) Euros. Plus since the rescheduled flight will arrive at about 2am HK time when the only reasonable transport is by taxi then reimbursement of the taxi fare in HKG.
Is my understanding correct?
The excuse is that the A350 went tech, if that makes any difference.
First time looking at EU261 for me, but if I understand it correctly she is entitled to that, plus compensation of 300 (or is it 600?) Euros. Plus since the rescheduled flight will arrive at about 2am HK time when the only reasonable transport is by taxi then reimbursement of the taxi fare in HKG.
Is my understanding correct?
The excuse is that the A350 went tech, if that makes any difference.
Last edited by christep; Apr 21, 2019 at 3:22 pm
Apr 21, 2019, 3:28 pm
#955
Join Date: May 2017
Programs: AY Plat (OWE), TK Elite (*G), BT VIP, HH D, BW DS
Posts: 484
So my gf is currently at HEL where AY099 to HKG has been delayed from 23:55 to 11:10 tomorrow. They are offering hotel, shuttle bus transfer, and food vouchers only.
First time looking at EU261 for me, but if I understand it correctly she is entitled to that, plus compensation of 300 (or is it 600?) Euros. Plus since the rescheduled flight will arrive at about 2am HK time when the only reasonable transport is by taxi then reimbursement of the taxi fare in HKG.
Is my understanding correct?
The excuse is that the A350 went tech, if that makes any difference.
First time looking at EU261 for me, but if I understand it correctly she is entitled to that, plus compensation of 300 (or is it 600?) Euros. Plus since the rescheduled flight will arrive at about 2am HK time when the only reasonable transport is by taxi then reimbursement of the taxi fare in HKG.
Is my understanding correct?
The excuse is that the A350 went tech, if that makes any difference.
Edit: Here's the thread Delay problems with AY99
Last edited by SuloL; Apr 21, 2019 at 3:35 pm
Apr 21, 2019, 3:41 pm
#956
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Programs: None any more
Posts: 11,017
Thanks very much for that. I guess we should have done more research. If it goes as now advertised she's going to be landing at 2am HK time and needs to be in work at 9am.
Last edited by christep; Apr 21, 2019 at 4:18 pm
Apr 23, 2019, 7:22 am
#957
Join Date: May 2013
Location: HEL
Programs: AY Plat (OWE), SK EBG (*A Gold), KQ Plat (STE+), Accor Plat
Posts: 3,156
I was on AY1332 today that got delayed from LHR. First it was supposed to be just a few minutes, then the delay went on and on ranging from technical issues to offloading passengers' baggage and finally we landed 3 h and 12 minutes late at HEL. We'll see if the claim will be smooth, should be a clear case.
AY now says that they can’t be liable to any compensation since it was CX who rerouted me onto the flight ”and therefore accepted liability”. Obviously CX has no liability here as EC261 is not enforced on non-EU airlines in this direction.
In my opinion AY’s refusal doesn’t make any sense. I held a valid ticket and booking on the AY flight that arrived in HEL over three hours late. Operating carrier should be held liable.
Any ideas on how to proceed with this?
Apr 23, 2019, 7:55 am
#958
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: try to stay home
Programs: AY, M&M, BAEC ...and don t care of status anymore
Posts: 2,041
Apr 23, 2019, 9:09 am
#959
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Somewhere in the Air
Programs: BA GGL, *A Silver, OW Emerald, HH Diamond, Karahi Express
Posts: 554
The booking was made on Finnair Site and my BA Executive club membership number was added. The TP and Avios for the outbound flight have posted to my BA EC account. So why should the inbound ORC TP and Avios not be credited to my BA account? When i spoke to BA GGL they didn't have a problem registering my claim for ORC.
Today I received an email from BAEC to say that my claim has now been accepted. ORC TP and Avios have already posted onto my BA Account.
Apr 23, 2019, 10:23 am
#960
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Somewhere in the Air
Programs: BA GGL, *A Silver, OW Emerald, HH Diamond, Karahi Express
Posts: 554
Okay so my claim was denied already. I had a CX ticket and was supposed to fly CX HKT-HKG-BRU and then to HEL arriving at 15.10. Since the first flight was delayed, I was rerouted with MI and SQ to HKT-SIN-LHR and AY1332 to HEL, arriving around the same time at 15.15. At LHR the flight was delayed and arrived in HEL at 18.27.
AY now says that they can’t be liable to any compensation since it was CX who rerouted me onto the flight ”and therefore accepted liability”. Obviously CX has no liability here as EC261 is not enforced on non-EU airlines in this direction.
In my opinion AY’s refusal doesn’t make any sense. I held a valid ticket and booking on the AY flight that arrived in HEL over three hours late. Operating carrier should be held liable.
Any ideas on how to proceed with this?
If you had your AY+ membership against the CX Ticket, then you should get your ORC ... here you would have to apply to AY.
