hugolover

My flight was delayed during the Altea debacle a few weeks ago, result was I misconnected and arrived the next day.

LH say its not eligible because it was a third party (hmm considering pretty much everything in aviation these days is outsourced is CL a third party too? ), blah blah, Manilla have offered to use exact words "150 EUR goodwill gesture to have dinner".

I believe LH are absolutely culpable in this matter and I don't consider the goodwill gesture for dinner a downpayment for the Regulation compensation requirements. Altea CI failure is not an extraordinary circumstance.

I have accepted this goodwill gesture for dinner and I intend to pursue them for the required full compensation I am entitled to via MCOL (England & Wales online lawsuit claim system). It was very nice to be offered dinner given my delay, but now is the time to submit payment of my required statutory compensation.

I shall keep this updated.

SK AAR

Good luck! (I think you are going to need for this one). In my view it is clearly EC when third party IT breaks down. LH has no influence on this. But just my two cents.

warakorn

It was the commercial decision by Lufthansa to choose Altea. LH Systems (own corporation) had an alternative system on offer.
Moreover, that systems breaks down pretty often.
Lufthansa may claim the paid out EC261/2004 compensation back from Amadeus.

hugolover

There’s so much which has been unbundled it’s a nonsense excuse, if LH used their own in-house software would that be OK? It’s only OK if one of their own catering trucks hits the plane but not a third party? Etc.

Altea goes down a lot, I’ve been affected by this when flying BA. Altea’s downtime is not an extraordinary criteria anymore .

Hazar clarified that really only some kind of severe AWD would be enough to trigger the EC criteria for technical causes. That cuts away of all this and avoids the need for the pax to need to know the nitty gritty of this.

whiskey_sk

This will be definitely interesting.
Personally I think LH should be paying as they are responsible for their 3rd party contracts/outsourcing. And of course I suppose they've asked Amadeus for service credits already

cfischer

what is next ... the aircraft maintenance issue is due to Airbus manufacturing? What a joke. Take them to court and claim your money ... it won't go that far I am sure because not even LH wants to be laughed at by a judge.

shady

As a side note, all 261/2004 claims I have mafe with LH ended up with the credit I was entitled for "as a goodwill gesture". IMO the stratrgy is never admit the validity of the claim in order there will be no precedent for further claims.

dj_jay_smith

Exactly.

OP has a contract with Lufthansa. Lufthansa are responsible for ensuring that this is fulfilled and putting in place fail safes, backups, and redundancy as required.

Lufthansa are as always just trying to get out of paying.
They just need to be told to stop messing around and pay up. And that such an excuse is not listed as extraordinary circumstances as defined by the EU courts.

Flying Lawyer

"always just trying to get out of paying"? Sure, that is what we all do if it comes to our own money. Wonderful examples are to be found in this forum every day. I fully agree that there is no excuse, would however certainly advise my clients in a similar way: Reject all claims with boiler plate language and you will most likely see 80% of them never again.

LonLH

I was due to fly BA during the BA systems meltdown in May. Civil Aviation Authority in the UK forced BA to pay compensation as per EC261 to all customers affected even though BA claimed that it was fault caused by a third party and beyond their control.
I see the logic in refusing to pay- 80% of affected customers will neither have will nor energy to follow up so overall payout can be minimised.

hugolover

After routine filing that LH would defend the claim, I received notice from the law firm acting for LH that they would accept the claim and pay in full.

No NDA/ out of court settlement rubbish (like BA).

The money is on my account and the Case shows as settled.

Often1

Exactly.

Estimates are that less than 2% of valid EC 261/2004 claims are even filed. If even 1/2 of those claimed can be made to go away just by denying them in the first instance, that is both several million EUR to LH and brings the claims rate to around 1%.

N1120A

"The plane broke down. Was the engine. IAE/RR/GE is at fault, not Lufthansa."

"The plane broke down. Was the avionics. Honeywell is at fault, not Lufthansa."

"The gear were flat. Was the tires. Dunlop is at fault, not Lufthansa."

"The plane broke down. It is leased. ILFC is at fault, not Lufthansa."

See how stupid that is? Go get your compensation.

James91

I've made a claim about a delayed flight in the last few days - hopefully LH are compliant with my case as they were with this one!

Grog

Maybe you enjoy the water, but you've tried to drag me and others into your pool, and I refuse to swim in it.

It is untrue that we all try to get out of paying when a validated bill is presented to us. The reason that your suggested 80% are never seen again is not because their complaint is invalid. It's because 80% were cheated out of what was due to them due to administrative hurdles. And you're right, there is NO excuse for cheating anyone out of it, all the while bathing in the comfort of a hurdle which is imposed by the cheater themselves. But I'm not denying your realities, I'm only correcting your statement in saying they are not everyone's.