36 Hour Delay on Norwegian
Nov 7, 2017, 2:56 pm
#17
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,746
Was it the A340 with no airline livery that looked like it might be used for a CIA rendition flight?
Nov 7, 2017, 3:22 pm
#18
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,639
Nov 7, 2017, 8:18 pm
#19
Suspended
Join Date: May 2017
Location: In the Swiss amoeba's head
Programs: Lowest level possible
Posts: 2,829
Nov 9, 2017, 9:51 am
#20
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,935
The OPs wife has full right to (one) compensation according to EU rules. A previous lightning strike is no excuse. Several rulings on this (in different countries).
The trick is that Nrowegian will deny this flat out. They will await that every single case is taken to court - and let the court rule in every singe case. The best advice is to let the no cure no pay firms take care of this one.
Unfortunately the massive delays with Norwegian is not rare - and when they occur on their long haul routes delays are often massive - with little or no service and information.
http://www.newsinenglish.no/2017/08/...elays-in-july/
For that reason I do avoid Norwegian. And have to say that if you do book with them - it is unfortunate if you are delayed and are left in the dark. But you should not be surprised. It should be considered as part of the deal.
The trick is that Nrowegian will deny this flat out. They will await that every single case is taken to court - and let the court rule in every singe case. The best advice is to let the no cure no pay firms take care of this one.
Unfortunately the massive delays with Norwegian is not rare - and when they occur on their long haul routes delays are often massive - with little or no service and information.
http://www.newsinenglish.no/2017/08/...elays-in-july/
For that reason I do avoid Norwegian. And have to say that if you do book with them - it is unfortunate if you are delayed and are left in the dark. But you should not be surprised. It should be considered as part of the deal.
Nov 9, 2017, 10:56 am
#22
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,746
I think the calculus is different from the West Coast destinations where DY has non-stop flights that other carriers do not have.
E.G., from the Bay Area DY flies non-stop to Stockholm, Barcelona, Oslo, and soon to Rome - there are no other non-stop flights to those destinations. The referenced article says there were 170 cancellations out of 9,986 flights. That's 1.7%. Of course, I don't know what they are counting as a cancellation - is a 50-hour delay a delay or a cancellation?
In my wife's case, you can argue either way whether she was better off taking the flight 24 hours later - as she did - or whether she would have been better on a legacy carrier making some sort of alternative connection leaving Europe in the mid-afternoon connecting god knows where and arriving home late. Luckily she was OK being away an additional day.
On the other hand, the people on the return flight from OAK to BCN who were delayed over 48 hours clearly would have been better off with a legacy carrier.
So assuming the chance of major disruption is less than 2% based on the cancellation figure above (and that number could be deceptively low because of how they may define cancellation), there is a good argument to take the cheaper non-stop flight on Norwegian, which 98 times out of 100 will get you there faster than a legacy carrier.
E.G., from the Bay Area DY flies non-stop to Stockholm, Barcelona, Oslo, and soon to Rome - there are no other non-stop flights to those destinations. The referenced article says there were 170 cancellations out of 9,986 flights. That's 1.7%. Of course, I don't know what they are counting as a cancellation - is a 50-hour delay a delay or a cancellation?
In my wife's case, you can argue either way whether she was better off taking the flight 24 hours later - as she did - or whether she would have been better on a legacy carrier making some sort of alternative connection leaving Europe in the mid-afternoon connecting god knows where and arriving home late. Luckily she was OK being away an additional day.
On the other hand, the people on the return flight from OAK to BCN who were delayed over 48 hours clearly would have been better off with a legacy carrier.
So assuming the chance of major disruption is less than 2% based on the cancellation figure above (and that number could be deceptively low because of how they may define cancellation), there is a good argument to take the cheaper non-stop flight on Norwegian, which 98 times out of 100 will get you there faster than a legacy carrier.
The OPs wife has full right to (one) compensation according to EU rules. A previous lightning strike is no excuse. Several rulings on this (in different countries).
The trick is that Nrowegian will deny this flat out. They will await that every single case is taken to court - and let the court rule in every singe case. The best advice is to let the no cure no pay firms take care of this one.
Unfortunately the massive delays with Norwegian is not rare - and when they occur on their long haul routes delays are often massive - with little or no service and information.
http://www.newsinenglish.no/2017/08/...elays-in-july/
For that reason I do avoid Norwegian. And have to say that if you do book with them - it is unfortunate if you are delayed and are left in the dark. But you should not be surprised. It should be considered as part of the deal.
The trick is that Nrowegian will deny this flat out. They will await that every single case is taken to court - and let the court rule in every singe case. The best advice is to let the no cure no pay firms take care of this one.
Unfortunately the massive delays with Norwegian is not rare - and when they occur on their long haul routes delays are often massive - with little or no service and information.
http://www.newsinenglish.no/2017/08/...elays-in-july/
For that reason I do avoid Norwegian. And have to say that if you do book with them - it is unfortunate if you are delayed and are left in the dark. But you should not be surprised. It should be considered as part of the deal.
Nov 9, 2017, 11:32 pm
#23
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,935
I think the calculus is different from the West Coast destinations where DY has non-stop flights that other carriers do not have.
E.G., from the Bay Area DY flies non-stop to Stockholm, Barcelona, Oslo, and soon to Rome - there are no other non-stop flights to those destinations. The referenced article says there were 170 cancellations out of 9,986 flights. That's 1.7%. Of course, I don't know what they are counting as a cancellation - is a 50-hour delay a delay or a cancellation?
In my wife's case, you can argue either way whether she was better off taking the flight 24 hours later - as she did - or whether she would have been better on a legacy carrier making some sort of alternative connection leaving Europe in the mid-afternoon connecting god knows where and arriving home late. Luckily she was OK being away an additional day.
On the other hand, the people on the return flight from OAK to BCN who were delayed over 48 hours clearly would have been better off with a legacy carrier.
So assuming the chance of major disruption is less than 2% based on the cancellation figure above (and that number could be deceptively low because of how they may define cancellation), there is a good argument to take the cheaper non-stop flight on Norwegian, which 98 times out of 100 will get you there faster than a legacy carrier.
E.G., from the Bay Area DY flies non-stop to Stockholm, Barcelona, Oslo, and soon to Rome - there are no other non-stop flights to those destinations. The referenced article says there were 170 cancellations out of 9,986 flights. That's 1.7%. Of course, I don't know what they are counting as a cancellation - is a 50-hour delay a delay or a cancellation?
In my wife's case, you can argue either way whether she was better off taking the flight 24 hours later - as she did - or whether she would have been better on a legacy carrier making some sort of alternative connection leaving Europe in the mid-afternoon connecting god knows where and arriving home late. Luckily she was OK being away an additional day.
On the other hand, the people on the return flight from OAK to BCN who were delayed over 48 hours clearly would have been better off with a legacy carrier.
So assuming the chance of major disruption is less than 2% based on the cancellation figure above (and that number could be deceptively low because of how they may define cancellation), there is a good argument to take the cheaper non-stop flight on Norwegian, which 98 times out of 100 will get you there faster than a legacy carrier.
Nov 10, 2017, 8:13 am
#24
Join Date: Jun 2008
Programs: TK*G (E+), IHG Plat Ambassador
Posts: 7,884
Just another data point. Yesterday's ARN-FLL was about delayed by some 5.5 hours.
Link: https://www.flightstats.com/go/Fligh...ate=2017-11-09
PS. I was not on that flight, just spotted it on ARN Departure board.
Link: https://www.flightstats.com/go/Fligh...ate=2017-11-09
PS. I was not on that flight, just spotted it on ARN Departure board.
Nov 14, 2017, 12:24 pm
#26
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,746
Just looked that flight up - was scheduled to depart on the 11th at 21:00, departed on the 12th at 1:20, arrived at Oslo at 20:35 - presumably too late to make any connections.
I don't know if the result would have been different on a legacy carrier with the same delay - given you had a 787 with presumably a fair number of passengers, and limited rerouting options at 8:30 PM.
I don't know if the result would have been different on a legacy carrier with the same delay - given you had a 787 with presumably a fair number of passengers, and limited rerouting options at 8:30 PM.
Nov 14, 2017, 12:36 pm
#27
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: CPT,AMS
Posts: 4,412
A legacy carrier could have rerouted pax on other carriers and avoid stranding them in OSL all together, either on a direct flight or connecting through the east coast/european hubs
Jan 8, 2018, 12:54 pm
#28
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 592
"If at any time after the Booking has been made, we cancel, re-route or delay your flight, we will provide assistance in accordance with Regulation (EC) 261/2004. For flights to or from the United States, we will also provide assistance in accordance with our Customer Service Plan where applicable."
I am not an attorney, but I believe that this would allow a U.S. court to assert jurisdiction over the contractual obligation to pay compensation.
Jan 8, 2018, 1:24 pm
#29
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,746
Excellent point.
Interesting question. I looked at one federal case (7th Circuit, IIRC) that said exactly this. However, the decision was based in part on the fact that the carrier (Delta) had not included the EU 261 requirements in their contract of carriage, so there was no contractual obligation to pay. The court decided that, without a contractual obligation, the U.S. courts could not enforce EU 261. However, Norwegian, unlike Delta, has explicitly included their obligation to pay in their contract of carriage. Section 11.2.2 says:
"If at any time after the Booking has been made, we cancel, re-route or delay your flight, we will provide assistance in accordance with Regulation (EC) 261/2004. For flights to or from the United States, we will also provide assistance in accordance with our Customer Service Plan where applicable."
I am not an attorney, but I believe that this would allow a U.S. court to assert jurisdiction over the contractual obligation to pay compensation.
"If at any time after the Booking has been made, we cancel, re-route or delay your flight, we will provide assistance in accordance with Regulation (EC) 261/2004. For flights to or from the United States, we will also provide assistance in accordance with our Customer Service Plan where applicable."
I am not an attorney, but I believe that this would allow a U.S. court to assert jurisdiction over the contractual obligation to pay compensation.
Jan 8, 2018, 10:36 pm
#30
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: SFO
Posts: 9
Not true. We had an 8 hour delay ARN-OAK two years ago and they paid out without contesting the claim. Took them a while (maybe 2 months) to do it, but they paid EUR 600 x 4 + reimbursed food expenses. Have to admit I was a little surprised as I did expect some push back.