The pilots were doing what they get paid and trained to do: flying the aircraft safely.

You fail to see the integrity of pilots. If they moved on by company directive the policy would eventually leak, taking LH out of business. Imagine if something had happened.

Are you basing your view on the EU regulation, or is it just your personal rant?

Mod has warned about this kind of bashing. A big :td: to this poster.

I started this thread. I have some comments to make.

I asked a SIMPLE question. I did not say I "wanted" compensation, nor that I would be "seeking" compensation or that I was "entitled" to be given compensation. I just wanted to know the protocol for delayed/cancelled/aborted flights and whether LH had, in fact, followed that protocol.

Personally, I was quite happy to be given a hotel, a meal and reaccommodated the next day.

I was inconvenienced. I missed my connecting flight to Portland, OR. Fortunately, Continental was kind enough to reaccommodate me on a later flight. So, I was happy enough. Timewise, I lost a "few hours". So, while, technically, I was inconvenienced, it was no big problem for me on that occasion.

Had I had a business meeting that I had to attend, or a wedding, or if I was trying to get to Portland because of a serious family issue, then I may well have been more perturbed or distressed.

However, as it was, I was not particulary inconvenienced by this mishap.

So, please, everyone, give it a rest. I am not "demanding" compensation. I am not saying I am "entitled" to compensation. I was asking a SIMPLE question.

As Oliver said, there is no need for personal attacks, sarcasm, rudeness. It does not help the cause. Yes, this is an internet forum and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but please, let us offer those opinions with courtesy. We are all within our rights to differ in our opinions, but we do not need to do so with vitriol.

Moderator, perhaps you might want to close this thread now?

+1, Brituchenite. As you could see from this experience, the LH forum attracts otiose posts. A suggestion for the next time you wish to post here: laugh off the venomous posts and see them for the Central-Casting, self-exposing outbursts they are.

Reasons for enacting law may be moral or ethical, punitive or directive, steeped in tradition or steeped in ignorance. However, once enacted the law is amoral.

Based on the decisions cited above, I would say that you can, in good faith, make a claim for compensation pursuant to EU law.

Whether or not you are entitled to that compensation legally would depend on a court's determination of this particular case, the facts and circumstances of your flight, and the court's own interpretation of Germany's implementation of the EU directive. Whether you pursue that claim in a court system at all is up to you, but I think there's nothing wrong with requesting relief directly from the airline first, seeing if they are willing to first provide compensation per their interpretation of the law.

If a contractual provision provided that you needed to pay an airline compensation when you missed a flight, would an airline choose not to collect on "moral grounds"? Even if it was able to resell the seat it had reserved for you?

Corporations act amorally, evaluate contracts and the law at arm's length, and act accordingly to their benefit. As consumers dealing with corporations, I see no reason why you should do otherwise.

It depends. Does the absence or presence of a fuel gauge really have a safety impact on the plane? Unless there is a feedback loop where the plane's flight parameters are actually governed in part by the fuel gauge, and it was impossible to disable this auto-pilot feature, I would want to pilot to chance it.

Of course I am not a pilot, but if I fill up my car's gas tank, cover up my fuel gauge with duct tape, and start on a road trip, I still have a very clear understanding of where I would need to stop for gas to be 100% safe that I would not run out. I would hope that a pilot is equally well-equipped to make such a decision, given the weight of his plane, the winds he is facing, and typical fuel usage under those conditions. It is his job, after all.

If the fuel gauge fails, one option is for the pilot to simply decide that he will make a mid-route re-fueling stop on this flight (at one of the normal stops he would use if he knew he was running low on fuel). This would result in a few hours delay as opposed to an overnight delay. Of course, there is probably added cost to the airline for this decision.

The only way this could truly be a safety concern is if the airline is regularly reducing the fuel level to a margin that is so thin that the performance of a single fuel gauge is significant or critical, or if they are choosing to fly the route with planes that have marginal range for the route and typical weather conditions. But those are economic decisions. If the airline feels that the money saved by reducing fuel levels, or by using a plane with sub-optimal range, is more important than a generous safety margin, it does not strike me as absurd that the airline should have to pay compensation when their decision to reduce these expenses results in an overnight delay for a plane full of passengers. <shrug>

Actually its a requirement that you pursue with the carrier first.

You can ask... But in a very similar situation (complicated by the replacement aircraft having to turn back) Lufthansa invoked the "technical" trump card, claiming that as they maintain their aircraft to a standard even higher than that required, the technical problems experienced were truly in "Acts of God" territory :D

Could the 'claiming' suffice?

I'd file the claim in non-DE territory of course and then the onus is on LH to prove both claims that i) the failure could not have been prevented and ii) that all steps have been take to secure the passengers onward journey.

And what if the pipe from your petrol tank to the engine started leaking, so that say, 50% of the fuel was being lost? Would you still have a clear understanding then?

+1

When the bottom line is at stake most (not all, but most) Businesses will take the action that is in the best interests of the Business. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I'm weak. I couldn't be arsed. But the arrogant, self-righteous twaddle used by the LH script-writers gave us a giggle on a grey day in Manchester :D

I thought maybe I'd discovered German irony.

Lufthansa offers many great and several not all that subtle jokes. Exempli gratia the exiguous soda cans ... that must be sarcasm, right ... it could not be sadism alone .. they are too pretty for that.

Or the selling arguments for NEK. That shows a very a grim sense of humour the kind young people like to wrap politically incorrect topics in.

To be honest, all the bashing and emotions are due to transatlantic differences between what's the "right thing to do" in such a situation. Some prefer to go after the company, others are quite happy with the safe outcome. Here is my take on it:

File the claim for compensation, and consider the proceeds compensation for future LH failures! It will all balance out in the future.

I remember the LH cabin crew strike 3-4(?) years ago, where I was stranded for 24 hours and rerouted to a different airport and both LH and the German Authority ruled against me as it was "beyond" LH's control. Yeah, right! You may be in a similar situation sometime in the future. Then you'll be happy to have filed for compensation today.

Yes. German law is outright customer and employee-hostile in that respect by regarding strikes as force-majeure.

I got trapped in the strike too some 2 years ago and had to remind the supervisor sternly that I bought the fare in CH and that no such legal excuses would hold over there.
He had the temerity to check first (on the phone) to verify my claim ;) .
Disgusting if people offer an interpretation that dares to deviate from your N commandments.

Maybe you ought to publish them early in the thread to avoid such open and injurious blasphemy :p .