craz

Im posting in this thread since it involves 1 of the carriers

I had a flight over a month ago that was CXed to due hydraulic problems. I was rebooked onto a non *A carrier and that carrier wanted to charge me for my 2nd bag which due to my status is free on any *A carrier. I was told they wouldnt refund me for the bag if I chose to fly with X, so I didnt and ended up on that carriers afternoon flight. as tkted

Net result arriving at my final destination apx 24 hours late as all connecting flights to The US already left by the time my flight arrived into its destination.

Now there are 2 different Laws that apply EU 261 which in USD is $687 or the countrys law I was departng from that would be apx $817 in USD. I wrote in the 1st thing I wanted and expected $817, after several back and forths the carrier admitted its obligated to pay me and will do so under EU261 since its a EU carrier. I told them its not up to them but the passenger to decide under which Law they want to be compensated, who is correct?

Now its not so much the extra $128 but what they put me thru, 1- since they refused to call UA and have my tkt reissued A- my bags werent able to be checked all the way thru so I had to drag them onto a shuttle to a hotel that they finally agreed to supply me with, (some hotel they put voucher folks on the top floor only 2 floors including the ground floor w/o an elevator and no one but me to carry all 3 bags by myself, was told by the hotel the carrier was fully aware of this situation). Of cause I had to get back to the airport earlier then I would have had my bags been checked all the way thru the next morn

Their email of yesterday:

Dear Mr. craz





Thank you for your feedback.



I wish to inform you that EU regulation applies in Europe or for flight of European carrier coming out of/landing in Europe.



Since this is an EU airline, Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 applies here.
In line with Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, the eligible compensation to the amount of EUR600 (equivalent to USD687.20) has already been processed to your account.

I apologize again for any inconvenience caused, and hope we can retain your confidence in us.

This was in reply to my reply telling them they dont get to chose which Law and amount of compensation applys the passenger does.. Funny nothing has come into my bank acct as of yet

fassy

If the flight was EU to US, EU 261 applies, i.E. EUR 600 compensation.

What other law do you have in mind for the $817 compensation? Did you arrive ex-EU and miss-connected in the EU? A bit more details on where you departed, which carriers were involved etc, would help.

Often1

OP - What are the exact details? This includes carriers, routing, (origin and destination) nd anything else relevant.

Why is the entire luggage issue relevant at all as to which compensation scheme, if any, applies?

What you have posted is very confusing and sufficiently lacking in detail that there is no great answer to your question.

athome

Dar OP your question can be answered very quickly.

Assuming the reason of the cancelation of your original flight falls under 261/2004 and assuming the distance and the delayed arrival at your destination with alternative itinerary proposed by the *A-airline is above the allowable limit, the *A-airline owes you 600 EUR. Nothing more, nothing less.

Assuming you had a ticket allowing one free bag and this ticket being reissued on a different (non-*A) carrier, the *A-airline does not owe additional compensation.

Assuming you refused the itinerary proposed by the *A-airline and this proposed itinerary would have brought you to your destination within the allowable delay, but you insisted to be rebooked on a *A-airline itinerary (in order to get your second free bag) and this itinerary arrived at the destination above the allowable delay, the *A-airline would not owe you any compensation.

There is no alternate law from where one can choose from.

craz

OK I was booked XYZ-EUR(Europe)-EWR the XYZ-EUR was on a *A European carrier, I was then connecting from EUR-EWR on UA. Due to the MX the flight was outright CXed which was an early morn flight, the next flight was some 12 hrs later which I was on and had to overnight @ EUR , result arriving into EWR some 24 hrs late

Now XYZ happens to have their own set of laws that says if a passenger arrives 8 hrs or more late they are owed on my date of travel converted into USD $827 todays rate $817

So yes EU261 applys but since travel originated at XYZ their policy also applys which happens to offer more in compensation, and why teh carrier doesnt want to pay it, Im sure they would have claimed XYZs law had the amount been less then EU261

In my case there are 2 different policys that apply EU261 and the Countrys policy from where the flight originated.

My question still stands who gets to determine which policy will apply the carrier or passenger, doesnt the carrier have to uphold the policy of the Country it was flying out of? I was given to understand where there are more then 1 policy tha applys the passenger can decide which they want to apply, which will be the one that pays the most

For those wanting to know where XYZ is and EUR is, sorry in due time, not for now but it doesnt matter since the carrier was a EU carrier and as I said 2 different policys for compensation apply

Raul_R

Sorry, but I think, as it was EU carrier, they just do not care about XYZ law and will follow EU261 regulation.

8420PR

I'm no expert on international law, but I guess if it isn't stated in the legislation then jurisdiction could only be determined by a court.

Only example I know about is El Al, where if a flight from Europe to Israel was delayed by more than 3 hours and less than 8 hours, they paid EU261 compensation only to non Israeli nationals. If an Israeli was on the same flight, they got no compensation, with the argument that Israelis were only subject to Israeli law. Of course a court in Germany ruled that illegal, as it is certainly against German law (EU261).

https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/e...li-passengers/

fassy

Well, not sure why you are being that secretive. Just name the country you departed from? That could matter on how to read and understand applicable laws. The only thing we know for sure is that the EU-US flight was delayed/cancelled resulting in late arrival in the US from Europe. Which falls under EU261. If the XZY to EU segment was on a EU carrier, EU261 would also apply. So, I don't see any reason to assume anything different.

As long as you avoid to put down hard facts (which departure country, which carrier) nobody will be able to give you a better answer.

craz

My case is the opposite, the flight was departing from TLV, Im not an Israeli. and as I said just above I was connecting onto a UA flight. Carrier was SN my itin was TLV-BRU-EWR-BWI. problem was I had to be in BWI by 5pm that day once that wasnt gonna happen BWI became a Trip in Vain and SN and UA agreed to remove it from the itin. Also that flight to BWI was the last day UA was flying there from EWR.

From what I understood under Israeli law since I arrived at EWR 24 hours late Im entitled to 3000 sheks, since my TLV-BRU-EWR-BWI now w/o BWI was all on 1 tkt, in essence a TLV-EWR tkt SN had 2 flights a 5am and 5pm I was booked on the 5am and the plane was boarded after apx an hour they told us it cant be repaired as the parts needed are not on site (they came in on the flight I left on that afternoon).

I was given to understand that then passenger can decide which policy they wish to be compensated under. SN told me on Mon via email that the compensation was already sent to my bank under EU261, its yet to arrive

SK AAR

SN is not subject to Israeli law and will refuse to compensate you according to local law when the EU Reg. 261/04 is applicable (and to which SN will adhere). If you want to get compensation according to Israeli law you need to sue SN in Israel - good luck!. Move on - you were more than generously compensated for this delay.

To understand you correctly: You refused a better/more fast connection (presumably the direct LY flight to NYC) because you would have to pay for a second bag? Sometimes I'm amazed…(and you should be very lucky that apparently SN is not aware of this because if you turned down alternative flight that would have gotten you into NYC in time to exempt SN from paying compensation, you wouldn't have/shouldn't have received a dime in comp. according to EC Reg. 261/04 ). Do yourself a favor and move on...

Often1

Thank you for providing the simple details. It is really hard to provide good information in a vacuum.

It is utter rubbish that Israeli law does not apply to SN. SN has agreed to abide by Israeli law as a condition of a grant of landing rights in Israel.

SK may make an initial decision to pay out under EC 261/2004 and you may choose to challenge that. If you wish to enforce Israeli law against SK, you will need to file an appropriate case against SN seeking an award against SN for the appropriate compensation under Israeli law. Arguing with SN will not change the outcome. So, you must make a decision as to whether you can live with the EUR 600 and be done with it or spend the next year fighting SN in Israel.

For what it is worth, EC 261/2004 has a comity provision in it which would exempt SN from being required to pay under both the Israeli and EU schemes.

craz

It was not only the bag fee but due to the lack of leg room and being put into a middle seat I would have had to stand the whole way other then takeoff and landing. I was also told that I was booked by SN into a Premium Coach seat which ElAl said was not true an din fact I was in a reg coach seat in the middle seat. So what SN promised ended up not being the case.

That said although I was on a SN flight it was a UA tkt and UA never reissued the tkt till I was airborne to BRU. They were numbers of passengers rebooked on AC and TK that were turned away in the end they too were on UA tkts as was a couple also rebooked onto that same LY flight. Seems if a person had a SN tkt stock they were OK anyone else were turned away since the agents for SN Never called and refused to call (saying they didnt have the ability or permission) UA. So its a moot point about LY

then went I went back to SN to see if they will pay for the extra bag I was told by SN that they will put me onto their afternoon flight instead, so SN giveth and taketh, they rebooked me and then decided to unbook me w/o me asking them to

SK AAR

I see. It appears that the SN agents failed to rebook the new flights on SN/082-ticket stock (and left it to UA or other carriers to reissue the ticket). This is a very common issue during IRROPS as most agents are reluctant to deal with tickets of other carriers and would much prefer the other carriers to reissue their tickets rather than to take over the ticket and issue it on the ticket stock of the defaulting carrier - maybe something to do with billing, but I don't have enough knowledge of this to understand if it makes a difference for the defaulting airline if the ticket is reissued by the original carrier or if the defaulting carrier issue tickets on their own ticket stock.

craz

I know everyone loves the details but I had my reasons for holding back. Besides it was exactly as I posted 2 different policys apply and whom gets to choise which one to go by had nothing to do with the details. SNs arrogance just leaves me dumbfounded
Dear Mr. craz

Please allow me to inform you that Brussels Airlines is registered as a Belgian company in the Belgian Register of Commerce and is subject to Belgian law as expressly confirmed into the general conditions of carriage applicable for Brussels Airlines.

If you don’t agree with our opinion, you can contact official organizations.
Sorry for the disappointment.

The above was their response to my email asking that they contact their legal dept, guess they wont be doing that

craz

I also have no idea but AC,TK and LY did refuse to allow those rebooked onto them to fly and all had UA tkts. I didnt hear anyone bring turned away if they had a SN tkt stock, but that isnt saying that also didnt happen. The day of flight was like the Sun after .Thanksgiving and those on Biz tkts heading back to The US were told they had a choice either overnight and fly Biz the next day or go coach and contact the carrier of issue for a refund

Also @ TLV its rent a crew so that too may have had some affect