[LO claims RR issues are] EC 261 "extraordinary circumstances" ?
Dec 1, 2019, 8:12 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Places
Programs: All of Them
Posts: 242
[LO claims RR issues are] EC 261 "extraordinary circumstances" ?
Wise & Great FTers!
Merry Christmas Happy Holidays! I need some help with an EC 261 claim.
My flight cancelled on LO33 on 9/19/19 from BUD-JFK was cancelled and I was rebooked on another Star Alliance carrier and arrived in New York much later than anticipated. After submitting an EC 261 claim, I received the following response:
I feel that this defect has been widespread / known since late 2016, and should be considered akin to regular maintenance. It's not like RR sent a directive on 9/18/19 grounding all jets for immediate inspection! 
Does anybody have any experience challenging this excuse as it seems like LOT is trying to get out of this one.
My flight cancelled on LO33 on 9/19/19 from BUD-JFK was cancelled and I was rebooked on another Star Alliance carrier and arrived in New York much later than anticipated. After submitting an EC 261 claim, I received the following response:
With reference to your letter, please accept our sincere apologies for all the inconvenience due to the cancellation of flight LO033 on September 19th, 2019.
We recognize that our customers expect their flights to operate as scheduled and we make every effort to prevent any irregularity. Unfortunately, however, factors such as mechanical malfunctions, adverse weather, air traffic congestion, etc., can and do interfere with the operation of all airlines at times.
In response to your complaint, kindly be informed that the cancellation was caused by circumstances beyond the carrier’s control.
At the same time, please be advised that due to the disclosure of a design flaw in the engines of the aircraft planned to operate the flight, the carrier had to follow the manufacturer's (i.e. Rolls-Royce) instructions.
It was necessary to send the engine to the manufacturer to replace the defective part.
Rest assured that the carrier undertook all measures to minimize disruption to our services , but unfortunately there was no spare plane available to operate the flight.
The carrier also made numerous attempts to lease an aircraft, but unfortunately failed to acquire a replacement aircraft.
We would also like to emphasize that the design flaw revealed in the Rolls-Royce engines is a global problem. Due to the lack of spare parts, at present there are several dozen aircraft of various carriers grounded.
As the engine manufacturer is a monopolist in this respect, there is also no possibility to use services of another manufacturer.
In accordance with the Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 such factors are treated as extraordinary circumstances which exempt the carrier from the obligation to pay compensation.
We hope that future air travels are satisfactory in every respect.
We recognize that our customers expect their flights to operate as scheduled and we make every effort to prevent any irregularity. Unfortunately, however, factors such as mechanical malfunctions, adverse weather, air traffic congestion, etc., can and do interfere with the operation of all airlines at times.
In response to your complaint, kindly be informed that the cancellation was caused by circumstances beyond the carrier’s control.
At the same time, please be advised that due to the disclosure of a design flaw in the engines of the aircraft planned to operate the flight, the carrier had to follow the manufacturer's (i.e. Rolls-Royce) instructions.
It was necessary to send the engine to the manufacturer to replace the defective part.
Rest assured that the carrier undertook all measures to minimize disruption to our services , but unfortunately there was no spare plane available to operate the flight.
The carrier also made numerous attempts to lease an aircraft, but unfortunately failed to acquire a replacement aircraft.
We would also like to emphasize that the design flaw revealed in the Rolls-Royce engines is a global problem. Due to the lack of spare parts, at present there are several dozen aircraft of various carriers grounded.
As the engine manufacturer is a monopolist in this respect, there is also no possibility to use services of another manufacturer.
In accordance with the Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 such factors are treated as extraordinary circumstances which exempt the carrier from the obligation to pay compensation.
We hope that future air travels are satisfactory in every respect.
Does anybody have any experience challenging this excuse as it seems like LOT is trying to get out of this one.
Dec 1, 2019, 8:42 am
#2
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: The part of NC where we have electricity, paved roads, and high school diplomas.
Programs: AA Platinum
Posts: 3,132
I saw a recent thread where Norwegian tried to refuse EC261 compensation and they used a similar excuse for the same type of issue: "This disruption was caused by mandatory checks from aviation authorities on a specific type of Rolls Royce engine, forcing us to take the scheduled aircraft out of service"
Seems like since one airline tries that excuse, others will follow.
Seems like since one airline tries that excuse, others will follow.
Dec 1, 2019, 10:53 am
#3
Moderator, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges, and Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold; Flying Blue Life Platinum; LH Sen.; Hilton Diamond; Kemal Kebabs Prized Customer
Posts: 63,763
Have a look at the BA Forum Dashboard, and work down to the EC261 thread. BA has the same Trent engine blade issue for 787s as LOT, and has also denied EC261 claims . However both the small claims courts and the Alternative Dispute Resolution service have generally found in favour of the passenger when cases are brought to them (not in 100% of cases). In essence both the courts and the ADR body (CEDR) have agreed that this is "extraordinary circumstances", but that BA has not taken all reasonable measures to mitigate the issue from a passenger perspective.
Dec 1, 2019, 8:28 pm
#4
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Places
Programs: All of Them
Posts: 242
Have a look at the BA Forum Dashboard, and work down to the EC261 thread. BA has the same Trent engine blade issue for 787s as LOT, and has also denied EC261 claims . However both the small claims courts and the Alternative Dispute Resolution service have generally found in favour of the passenger when cases are brought to them (not in 100% of cases). In essence both the courts and the ADR body (CEDR) have agreed that this is "extraordinary circumstances", but that BA has not taken all reasonable measures to mitigate the issue from a passenger perspective.
Dec 2, 2019, 5:24 am
#6
Join Date: Jun 2008
Programs: TK*G (E+), IHG Plat Ambassador
Posts: 7,884
The Alitalia case:
CURIA - Documents
Bottom line - maintenance is not considered force majeure:
CURIA - Documents
Bottom line - maintenance is not considered force majeure:
The fact that an air carrier has complied with the minimum rules on maintenance of an aircraft cannot in itself suffice to establish that that carrier has taken ‘all reasonable measures’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 and, therefore, to relieve that carrier of its obligation to pay compensation provided for by Articles 5(1)(c) and 7(1) of that regulation.
Dec 3, 2019, 10:48 am
#7
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: YYZ
Posts: 1,674
Dec 20, 2019, 9:56 am
#8
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 1
Wise & Great FTers!
Merry Christmas Happy Holidays! I need some help with an EC 261 claim.
My flight cancelled on LO33 on 9/19/19 from BUD-JFK was cancelled and I was rebooked on another Star Alliance carrier and arrived in New York much later than anticipated. After submitting an EC 261 claim, I received the following response:
I feel that this defect has been widespread / known since late 2016, and should be considered akin to regular maintenance. It's not like RR sent a directive on 9/18/19 grounding all jets for immediate inspection! Does anybody have any experience challenging this excuse as it seems like LOT is trying to get out of this one.
My flight cancelled on LO33 on 9/19/19 from BUD-JFK was cancelled and I was rebooked on another Star Alliance carrier and arrived in New York much later than anticipated. After submitting an EC 261 claim, I received the following response:
Does anybody have any experience challenging this excuse as it seems like LOT is trying to get out of this one.Wise & Great FTers!
Merry Christmas Happy Holidays! I need some help with an EC 261 claim.
My flight cancelled on LO33 on 9/19/19 from BUD-JFK was cancelled and I was rebooked on another Star Alliance carrier and arrived in New York much later than anticipated. After submitting an EC 261 claim, I received the following response:
I feel that this defect has been widespread / known since late 2016, and should be considered akin to regular maintenance. It's not like RR sent a directive on 9/18/19 grounding all jets for immediate inspection! Does anybody have any experience challenging this excuse as it seems like LOT is trying to get out of this one.
My flight cancelled on LO33 on 9/19/19 from BUD-JFK was cancelled and I was rebooked on another Star Alliance carrier and arrived in New York much later than anticipated. After submitting an EC 261 claim, I received the following response:
I feel that this defect has been widespread / known since late 2016, and should be considered akin to regular maintenance. It's not like RR sent a directive on 9/18/19 grounding all jets for immediate inspection!
Does anybody have any experience challenging this excuse as it seems like LOT is trying to get out of this one.Hi there!
Did you get any positive response?
I am looking for passengers traveling on the flight from Chicago ORD to Warsaw WAW on November 20th with LOT (LO4). After boarding, the passengers were informed some maintenance had to be performed and they were kept in a plane for 5hrs before departing. My husband had a connecting flight to Cracow, and because of the delay, he missed it. He was rebooked to another flight and arrived to Cracow (the final destination) 8 hrs later than originally expected. We have made a claim and, after 3 weeks, got a denying (of course...) response from LOT:
“We are sorry to learn about the inconvenience that you experienced due to the irregularity of flight LO 004 from Chicago to Warsaw on 20 November 2019.
Kindly be informed that the irregularity of flight was caused by circumstances beyond the carrier’s control.
At the same time, please be advised that due to the disclosure of a design flaw in the engines of the aircraft planned to operate the flight, the carrier had to follow instructions and take actions according to obligatory procedures. It was necessary to provide immediate unexpected checks and rewievs. As the passengers’ and crew’s safety is always top priority, a plane will not fly until it is declared airworthy.
We would also like to emphasize that the design flaw revealed in the Rolls-Royce engines is a global problem.
In accordance with the Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 such factors are treated as extraordinary circumstances which exempt the carrier from the obligation to pay compensation.
Therefore, there is no ground to accept your compensation request.
We regret very much that you were inconvenienced and we would appreciate the opportunity to serve you under more favourable conditions.”
Is anyone here in the same situation? How can they state the issue with Rolls-Royce engines is “extraordinary circumstances” if, at the same time, they state it’s “the global problem?”. My understanding is that if it’s a known issue, there is an obvious chance to avoid it. I feel like LOT is trying to get away with it again and will say anything not to pay the passengers back. Should I use some company’s help (like airhelp?) to appeal? I’d like to avoid appealing to the aviation agency - last time I contacted them, I waited for a couple of months for a response. Any advice?
Dec 20, 2019, 10:19 am
#9
Join Date: Dec 2019
Programs: Air Canada - Super Elite, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 606
I am looking for passengers traveling on the flight from Chicago ORD to Warsaw WAW on November 20th with LOT (LO4). After boarding, the passengers were informed some maintenance had to be performed and they were kept in a plane for 5hrs before departing. My husband had a connecting flight to Cracow, and because of the delay, he missed it. He was rebooked to another flight and arrived to Cracow (the final destination) 8 hrs later than originally expected. We have made a claim and, after 3 weeks, got a denying (of course...) response from LOT:
“We are sorry to learn about the inconvenience that you experienced due to the irregularity of flight LO 004 from Chicago to Warsaw on 20 November 2019.
Kindly be informed that the irregularity of flight was caused by circumstances beyond the carrier’s control.
...
In accordance with the Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 such factors are treated as extraordinary circumstances which exempt the carrier from the obligation to pay compensation.
Therefore, there is no ground to accept your compensation request.
“We are sorry to learn about the inconvenience that you experienced due to the irregularity of flight LO 004 from Chicago to Warsaw on 20 November 2019.
Kindly be informed that the irregularity of flight was caused by circumstances beyond the carrier’s control.
...
In accordance with the Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 such factors are treated as extraordinary circumstances which exempt the carrier from the obligation to pay compensation.
Therefore, there is no ground to accept your compensation request.
The difference with mine, perhaps, is that it was already swapped out on the schedule with a leased Air Belgium plane and apparently the crew didn't show up. They then said that they would be swapping out back to a LO Dreamliner but it never happened. We'll see what happens....
Dec 21, 2019, 3:48 am
#10
Join Date: Jun 2008
Programs: TK*G (E+), IHG Plat Ambassador
Posts: 7,884
Wow yours has come quickly - I wonder if a claim taking a long time is a good sign then? I was on LO45 WAW-YYZ that was cancelled October 28. I was put up for the night in hotel and rebooked on LH for the flights home.Submitted my claim October 30 and still haven't heard back. I do have a case number and call them every week to ask for updates.
The difference with mine, perhaps, is that it was already swapped out on the schedule with a leased Air Belgium plane and apparently the crew didn't show up. They then said that they would be swapping out back to a LO Dreamliner but it never happened. We'll see what happens....
The difference with mine, perhaps, is that it was already swapped out on the schedule with a leased Air Belgium plane and apparently the crew didn't show up. They then said that they would be swapping out back to a LO Dreamliner but it never happened. We'll see what happens....
Step 2 - read my post about the AZ case verdict
Step 3 - chase LO or go straight to the claim/litigation agency like Air Help
Dec 21, 2019, 10:04 am
#11
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Places
Programs: All of Them
Posts: 242
Kindly be informed the case has been thoroughly investigated again, yet we find no grounds to change our decision communicated to you in our previous correspondence.
Although we endeavour to resolve all matters amicably, we also realize that this may not always be possible, and a review of the situation has not changed our response.
I realize that this may not be the response that you would have preferred, but I hope nonetheless to have your understanding of our position in this matter.
I guess, I'll just have to be a bit more persistent then! Although we endeavour to resolve all matters amicably, we also realize that this may not always be possible, and a review of the situation has not changed our response.
I realize that this may not be the response that you would have preferred, but I hope nonetheless to have your understanding of our position in this matter.
Dec 21, 2019, 2:06 pm
#12
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,481
Be aware, that the Alitalia case has nothing to do with your case.
If I had to bet, I would bet on LO's side in this case. But - as always at court - there is still a chance of getting compensation.
So my advice is, to do all actions without a personal financial risk. I.e. blue2002's link or a claim agency.
If I had to bet, I would bet on LO's side in this case. But - as always at court - there is still a chance of getting compensation.
So my advice is, to do all actions without a personal financial risk. I.e. blue2002's link or a claim agency.
Last edited by thbe; Dec 21, 2019 at 2:16 pm
Dec 22, 2019, 9:37 pm
#13
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Places
Programs: All of Them
Posts: 242
Just want to preface this by saying I'm not a lawyer, from my understanding, there are basically two issues at play that pertains to this case: (i) whether the alleged engine defect constitutes, an "extraordinary circumstance"; and (ii) whether the airline in question, took all reasonable measures necessary to prevent the cancellation of the flight.
With regard to (i), I do agree with their assessment that the alleged engine defect was an extraordinary circumstance, but with regard to (ii) I would dispute their characterization that they took all reasonable measures to prevent the cancellation of the flight, bearing in mind that the official EASA Safety Directive for this engine defect went out in April 2018, and the cancellation occurred nearly 17 months after the EASA Safety Directive was released
With regard to (i), I do agree with their assessment that the alleged engine defect was an extraordinary circumstance, but with regard to (ii) I would dispute their characterization that they took all reasonable measures to prevent the cancellation of the flight, bearing in mind that the official EASA Safety Directive for this engine defect went out in April 2018, and the cancellation occurred nearly 17 months after the EASA Safety Directive was released
Be aware, that the Alitalia case has nothing to do with your case.
If I had to bet, I would bet on LO's side in this case. But - as always at court - there is still a chance of getting compensation.
So my advice is, to do all actions without a personal financial risk. I.e. blue2002's link or a claim agency.
If I had to bet, I would bet on LO's side in this case. But - as always at court - there is still a chance of getting compensation.
So my advice is, to do all actions without a personal financial risk. I.e. blue2002's link or a claim agency.
Dec 23, 2019, 6:50 am
#14
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,481
With regard to (i), I do agree with their assessment that the alleged engine defect was an extraordinary circumstance, but with regard to (ii) I would dispute their characterization that they took all reasonable measures to prevent the cancellation of the flight, bearing in mind that the official EASA Safety Directive for this engine defect went out in April 2018, and the cancellation occurred nearly 17 months after the EASA Safety Directive was released
It's a good idea to get legal support for free or with a payment in case of success only.
Dec 23, 2019, 9:45 am
#15
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
It is not worth the cost of the bandwidth to send messages citing cases to LO. Their people know those cases better than you and have made a decision based on the law as it applies to LO on these facts.
Either sue LO in Poland or Hungary or forget about it. You may seek assistance from a claims agency and expect to pay 25-40% of the claim. On the other hand, the claims agencies only take cases they believe they can win as they only get paid if they win. Thus, a good barometer.
The fact that a UK small claims court or its ADR program, CEDR, or Italian courts have different views will not likely make much difference in Poland or Hungary.
Either sue LO in Poland or Hungary or forget about it. You may seek assistance from a claims agency and expect to pay 25-40% of the claim. On the other hand, the claims agencies only take cases they believe they can win as they only get paid if they win. Thus, a good barometer.
The fact that a UK small claims court or its ADR program, CEDR, or Italian courts have different views will not likely make much difference in Poland or Hungary.