EU 261 query - LH delay caused misconnectuon to UA flight
Apr 16, 2018, 11:16 am
#16
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Capetown
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Plat, IHG and Hilton Diamond, LH SEN, BA Gold
Posts: 10,167
Apr 16, 2018, 12:20 pm
#17
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: HAG
Programs: Der 5* FTL
Posts: 8,031
The problem is the sloppy drafting of the law itself. The text reads "if it can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken". Some court decisions assume that the "which could not have been avoided" only refer to "extraordinary" circumstances. If the "circumstances" do happen more than once in a blue moon, then they are no longer "extraordinary" and the airline cannot be excused. We saw cases like this when it came to technicals: The court held that a technical is not "extraordinary" but is the constant risk of airlines business so the airline cannot excuse itself. The same logic applied to ATC issues, an airline could never excuse itself for any ATC issues. This would however result in a liability regardless of negligence or fault. Coming from a jurisdiction that rarely imposes liability without negligence, I personally never understood the statute like this but understood the "which could not have been avoided" as a definition of "extraordinary circumstances". This can however be wrong.
On the other hand, things like weather can't be avoided even at the high cost, nor can ATC delays.
Apr 17, 2018, 1:22 am
#18
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Usually seat 1A, home:Tallinn
Programs: LH -- HON Circle **, IHG Spire Elite, Hilton Diamond, 1865 Voyager
Posts: 470
My case and explanation was: IF there was on same time at least 1 plane departing from the airport of departure and at least 1 plane landing on the destination airport, it is not "act of god" and I should get compensation. As it is normal risk for airline business that ATC will not allow to fly on required time.
What I got? 400€ as asked, wtihin 2 weeks.
My wife is lawyer and she once made a nice letter to airlines.
Specially nice is it with LO -- by my calculations I got from them within last 2 years more money than paid them.
Plus hotel, plus food.
Apr 17, 2018, 1:24 am
#19
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Usually seat 1A, home:Tallinn
Programs: LH -- HON Circle **, IHG Spire Elite, Hilton Diamond, 1865 Voyager
Posts: 470
If the "circumstances" do happen more than once in a blue moon, then they are no longer "extraordinary" and the airline cannot be excused.
I think, that IS the point.
At least was in my cases.
I think, that IS the point.
At least was in my cases.
Apr 17, 2018, 6:25 am
#20
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Capetown
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Plat, IHG and Hilton Diamond, LH SEN, BA Gold
Posts: 10,167
you have the same issues I had. The courts hold that technicals are not extraordinary but „ordinary“, meaning that they occur in the normal course of business. If so, however, it is not relevant whether it could be avoided. The same logic applied to ATC would also result in the assessment that ATC issues are not extraordinary, but appear to happen every day. I am not saying I like this but it’s at least arguable
May 1, 2018, 9:11 am
#21
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2012
Location: ORF, RIC
Programs: UA LT 1K, 3 MM; Marriott Titanium; IHG Platinum
Posts: 6,954
Just to update the final resolution on this ATC-induced misconnection at MUC.
LH Customer Support called and offered me the "duty of care" portion of EC261, which included the one-night hotel at an MUC airport hotel and transportation to and from airport. The CS agent said that he would provide feedback to airport agents regarding the rebooking issue.
Frankly, if the MUC SEN lounge agent (supervisor) was not stingy on rebooking my UA-business seat (upgraded with GPU on full Y fare) on the original booking class, LH would save this 200+ Euro compensation (in cash). My point is that LH did have business seats available on its own metal at that moment and should grab UA's GPU on my reservation to rebook me on business class on LH metal. Supposed that I originally booked on the same LH flight (full Y fare) with GPU, I should be eligible for a businss seat (provided upgrade space was available). LH agent should be able to open an upgrade space after irregular operation (due to the ATC delay of VIE-MUC flight).
In conclusion, I do not question the LH policy on rebooking on orignal booking class, but LH agents should have had exercised a little bit of flexibility on the execution of this policy. LH would save money and customer would be happier.
LH Customer Support called and offered me the "duty of care" portion of EC261, which included the one-night hotel at an MUC airport hotel and transportation to and from airport. The CS agent said that he would provide feedback to airport agents regarding the rebooking issue.
Frankly, if the MUC SEN lounge agent (supervisor) was not stingy on rebooking my UA-business seat (upgraded with GPU on full Y fare) on the original booking class, LH would save this 200+ Euro compensation (in cash). My point is that LH did have business seats available on its own metal at that moment and should grab UA's GPU on my reservation to rebook me on business class on LH metal. Supposed that I originally booked on the same LH flight (full Y fare) with GPU, I should be eligible for a businss seat (provided upgrade space was available). LH agent should be able to open an upgrade space after irregular operation (due to the ATC delay of VIE-MUC flight).
In conclusion, I do not question the LH policy on rebooking on orignal booking class, but LH agents should have had exercised a little bit of flexibility on the execution of this policy. LH would save money and customer would be happier.