LH439 DFW-FRA 5 hour delay
 

Just arrived back from lengthy delayed LH439. Award booking in C.
The delay started with a medical emergency on inbound; then aircon apparently failed- we got put on the flight, but seemed that apu had failed. Air temp outside was 106 deg F.
Captain stated he would fire up the main engines but then came back saying he couldn't. After a while we decamped back to gate, and 5 hours late we did take off.
The info seemed a bit bizarre- anyone heard anything about this, please?
No compensation was offered- I think I'm going to try for some miles!

Things happen, usually SOP permit using just one APU in case of failure of the other. If the other doesn't perform well, the decision is taken to get it fixed before starting a long trip. Hardly a reason to complain about... what would you have expected instead?


The aircraft is still flying around:

Hi ethelman,

I am sorry for the long delay.

FB automatically credits a few thousand miles when there is a long delay, but I guess it depends in the reason of the delay, and very likely some do not qualify.
Also I do not know if they also do it on Award tickets.

I have never heart this happening automatically in M&M.

I am always irritated reading posts about compensation requests for delays caused by technical issues. Would you guys prefer to start on time but risk. :confused:

No. I'd prefer to get home safely of course.

I'd also prefer to have got on another flight to get me home nearer to time- not something that award tickets can expect, of course.

Or I'd at least like an airline that adheres to 261/2004, rather than one that merely says "it's beyond our control so you can't have a form". As a lawyer I know that's garbage.

I am always irritated by airlines who don't obey the law- guess like you, I'm too easily irritated.


However I'm grateful for info on the reason for the issue, as well.

Fully agree. And even more so for delays caused by an medical emergency......
S

Did you asked to be rebooked after you left the plane?

I thought that award tickets were to be treated exactly the same, so you should have the same expectations.

Also, in what way was the delay handled against EU261/2004? I cannot see that the decision to divert the inbound medical and subsequent technical problems was a commercial decision.

However, I am sure 100% that it wasn't pleasant being delayed for 5 hours, especially in the heat. I am also 95% sure that LH didn't handle the delay very well from a customer service point of view, for reasons as simple as they didn't know how long the delay would be, so couldn't tell passengers and things like that.

Maybe I'm in a minority here, but I think that 261/2004 is a big mistake at all. It puts airlines under pressure which by design increases potential risk to operation safety.

I've been flying around a lot in the last 15+ years and while approx. 95% of the flights were on time or almost on time, I like most of us experienced delays as well, a few times even a full day. Not very nice, when in the situation and I must admit that the treatment was not always the best. However I negotiated my extra expenses I had due to this delay to be compensated by the airline (only didn't work with UA twice) but never asked for any compensation. If the airline decides to ground an aircraft I fully trust them they do this for very good reasons. Not talking about LCCs here, who indeed operate with a different business model.

The spirit of EU261/04 was to prevent customers being cheated by airlines overselling and in general adjusting their schedules to meet their profit needs at the expense of customers.

It does help by creating a framework wherein the airlines now think thrice before making any commercial decisions.

Sadly it has not helped to educate airlines like Easyjet and Ryanair but instead it drains money out of the pocket of legacy carriers who care about their public image and hence have to hide behind paperwork and lengthy processes.

What a coincidence- I get irritated by the notion that this is even presented as a simple choice.

If an aircraft is unserviceable for an intended flight then that aircraft has no business leaving the ground.

A law designed to alleviate trouble and inconvenience suffered by air passengers cannot cause an unsafe aircraft to leave the ground. Only a decision made by an air carrier can cause this to happen.

If an air carrier is looking for an excuse to operate an unsafe aircraft-and is that desperate to do so-then I dare say it will look for any excuse it can find.

Actually, the EU261 regulations do not incentivise any airline to operate a flight with an unservicable aircraft, or in bad weather, as no compensation is payable (though airlines still have the 'duty of care' costs).

http://www.businessandfinance.ie/new...sp?itemID=1605

http://iftta.org/content/german-supr...er-condidtions

Of course, airlines may still offer compensation from a customer service point of view, such as Air France automatic mileage credits when a flight is delayed.

Yes.

Clearly a medical emergency is no-one's fault. I have no issue with that. And I don't want to be on a dodgy plane.

I have no quibble with the crews actions in getting the plane right, but I don't really see why the additional costs that I had to incur don't merit a compensation of a couple of thousand miles.

Actually no compensation is payable in Germany. ECJ Case C-549/07refers to "extraordinary circumstances" and excludes technical faults from this loophole, except for a narrowly defined window.