EU261 Claim help
Feb 9, 2018, 3:51 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2015
Programs: Eurobonus Diamond
Posts: 60
EU261 Claim help
Seeking assistance regarding an EU261 claim against SAS for a delay at Copenhagen airport on the 26th of January. We where originally booked as follows:
SK419 07:40 - 08:50 Arlanda (ARN) - Copenhagen CPH)
SK1245 09:50 - 10:30 Copenhagen (CPH) - Aarhus (AAR)
SK1245 was cancelled and the reason for the cancellation given at the time (Which is also confirmed by SAS in a later response, see below) was due to lack of staff due to fog at Copenhagen airport. We where rebooked to a later flight and arrived at Aarhus airport at 15:35.
I emailed SAS and first got a very generic answer:
The reason for the cancelation was due to the weather conditions (fog), and flight safety is always, and will always be, our first priority.
I responded that as I understand this delay IS due for EU261 compensation and I have now recieved this response (as well as SAS has closed my case):
Again, as I've tried to read compensation should be due according to several circumstances; Staff shortages and light fog is not extraordinary circumstances, but the response from SAS seems to indicate otherwise.
Can anyone offer guidelines what is really the case here? Is compensation due? And if it is, how to proceed against SAS who have closed the case?
As additional information there were some fog that day but we landed with SK419 without any issues and most flight that day arrived and departed without any issues (arrivals/departure displays inside airport). According to my own research there were also ATR aircrafts (same as was scheduled for the cancelled flight) departing at 12:15 that day with SK1647.
Any help is deeply appreciated!
SK419 07:40 - 08:50 Arlanda (ARN) - Copenhagen CPH)
SK1245 09:50 - 10:30 Copenhagen (CPH) - Aarhus (AAR)
SK1245 was cancelled and the reason for the cancellation given at the time (Which is also confirmed by SAS in a later response, see below) was due to lack of staff due to fog at Copenhagen airport. We where rebooked to a later flight and arrived at Aarhus airport at 15:35.
I emailed SAS and first got a very generic answer:
The reason for the cancelation was due to the weather conditions (fog), and flight safety is always, and will always be, our first priority.
I responded that as I understand this delay IS due for EU261 compensation and I have now recieved this response (as well as SAS has closed my case):
Spoiler
Can anyone offer guidelines what is really the case here? Is compensation due? And if it is, how to proceed against SAS who have closed the case?
As additional information there were some fog that day but we landed with SK419 without any issues and most flight that day arrived and departed without any issues (arrivals/departure displays inside airport). According to my own research there were also ATR aircrafts (same as was scheduled for the cancelled flight) departing at 12:15 that day with SK1647.
Any help is deeply appreciated!
Feb 11, 2018, 6:33 am
#2
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Rhineland-Palatinate
Programs: *A Gold (A3), HHonor Gold
Posts: 5,699
Weather is indeed exempt of compensation under EC261, while duty of care applies.
Staff shortage due to weather is something more borderline, and I do not know if there are any past judgement dwelling on this. If you can prove that only your flight was affected and all other flights were in time then you are in a good position to show this was not extraordinary and that SAS did not do anything they could have done to prevent the delay.
Staff shortage due to weather is something more borderline, and I do not know if there are any past judgement dwelling on this. If you can prove that only your flight was affected and all other flights were in time then you are in a good position to show this was not extraordinary and that SAS did not do anything they could have done to prevent the delay.
Feb 11, 2018, 7:03 am
#3
Join Date: Oct 2011
Programs: EuroBonus Diamond, Delta Skymiles 360, BAEC LTG, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Ambassador
Posts: 2,827
If SK can get out of paying compensation under EC261 over a weather argument they will and they will fight it hard. I find fog to be a very poor argument for weather interruption, specifically in locations that get it frequently and simply don't prepare for it good enough. You won't get a dime.
Feb 11, 2018, 7:48 am
#4
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
Others in this thread appear to have great competence in determining the safety impact of the particular weather conditions at ARN. My general view is that safety comes before schedule and I am pleased that SK puts the lives of its passengers and crew ahead of punctuality. Others may well differ.
While ARN is SK's hub and therefore one would expect it to have reserve crew available, there are only so many reserve crews available and weather, unlike other impacts, can be pervasive and likely affects many, if not all flights. For Type 1 flights, having reserve crews to call in is still a problem because even a well-oiled machine won't roll out a new aircraft and crew before the short EC 261/2004 time deadline is hit.
The lack of crew may or may not be an "extraordinary circumstance" under EC 261/2004, but it will be for SK to prove this, e.g.," we had 20 delayed flights and we keep 10 reserve crews because it is extraordinarily rate to require more." SK will almost certainly fight a claim such as this because to simply pay out is not about a few EUR, but rather that times thousands as the weather issue at ARN is persistent and the prospect of having a backup aircraft and crew for every flight is neither physically nor commercially possible.
While ARN is SK's hub and therefore one would expect it to have reserve crew available, there are only so many reserve crews available and weather, unlike other impacts, can be pervasive and likely affects many, if not all flights. For Type 1 flights, having reserve crews to call in is still a problem because even a well-oiled machine won't roll out a new aircraft and crew before the short EC 261/2004 time deadline is hit.
The lack of crew may or may not be an "extraordinary circumstance" under EC 261/2004, but it will be for SK to prove this, e.g.," we had 20 delayed flights and we keep 10 reserve crews because it is extraordinarily rate to require more." SK will almost certainly fight a claim such as this because to simply pay out is not about a few EUR, but rather that times thousands as the weather issue at ARN is persistent and the prospect of having a backup aircraft and crew for every flight is neither physically nor commercially possible.
Feb 12, 2018, 2:05 am
#5
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Tampere
Programs: BA EC Gold, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 3,237
Feb 12, 2018, 5:00 am
#6
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2015
Programs: Eurobonus Diamond
Posts: 60
Thanks all for the responses!
Do you have any tips of how to go about checking all flights arriving/departing that day? I agree that if I could get such details it might help my case.
So should I use a website to get the assistance to drive the case? I'm also having trouble finding exactly similar cases but from what I have learned you cannot blame earlier flights, even though bad weather exists. If they are to blame it on weather the actual flight must have been prevented by the weather, which is as far as I understand not the case.
Weather is indeed exempt of compensation under EC261, while duty of care applies.
Staff shortage due to weather is something more borderline, and I do not know if there are any past judgement dwelling on this. If you can prove that only your flight was affected and all other flights were in time then you are in a good position to show this was not extraordinary and that SAS did not do anything they could have done to prevent the delay.
Staff shortage due to weather is something more borderline, and I do not know if there are any past judgement dwelling on this. If you can prove that only your flight was affected and all other flights were in time then you are in a good position to show this was not extraordinary and that SAS did not do anything they could have done to prevent the delay.
Others in this thread appear to have great competence in determining the safety impact of the particular weather conditions at ARN. My general view is that safety comes before schedule and I am pleased that SK puts the lives of its passengers and crew ahead of punctuality. Others may well differ.
While ARN is SK's hub and therefore one would expect it to have reserve crew available, there are only so many reserve crews available and weather, unlike other impacts, can be pervasive and likely affects many, if not all flights. For Type 1 flights, having reserve crews to call in is still a problem because even a well-oiled machine won't roll out a new aircraft and crew before the short EC 261/2004 time deadline is hit.
The lack of crew may or may not be an "extraordinary circumstance" under EC 261/2004, but it will be for SK to prove this, e.g.," we had 20 delayed flights and we keep 10 reserve crews because it is extraordinarily rate to require more." SK will almost certainly fight a claim such as this because to simply pay out is not about a few EUR, but rather that times thousands as the weather issue at ARN is persistent and the prospect of having a backup aircraft and crew for every flight is neither physically nor commercially possible.
While ARN is SK's hub and therefore one would expect it to have reserve crew available, there are only so many reserve crews available and weather, unlike other impacts, can be pervasive and likely affects many, if not all flights. For Type 1 flights, having reserve crews to call in is still a problem because even a well-oiled machine won't roll out a new aircraft and crew before the short EC 261/2004 time deadline is hit.
The lack of crew may or may not be an "extraordinary circumstance" under EC 261/2004, but it will be for SK to prove this, e.g.," we had 20 delayed flights and we keep 10 reserve crews because it is extraordinarily rate to require more." SK will almost certainly fight a claim such as this because to simply pay out is not about a few EUR, but rather that times thousands as the weather issue at ARN is persistent and the prospect of having a backup aircraft and crew for every flight is neither physically nor commercially possible.
Feb 12, 2018, 5:06 am
#7
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Rhineland-Palatinate
Programs: *A Gold (A3), HHonor Gold
Posts: 5,699
A website with historical information should help you. Flightradar24 can but you need to subscribe.
I recommend you read this: The 2018 BA compensation thread: Your guide to Regulation EC261/2004
It is destined for UK flyers / BA flyers but should contains helpful information. You might want to contact via PM the author of the thread, he is a very nice guy and a real expert on the subject.
I recommend you read this: The 2018 BA compensation thread: Your guide to Regulation EC261/2004
It is destined for UK flyers / BA flyers but should contains helpful information. You might want to contact via PM the author of the thread, he is a very nice guy and a real expert on the subject.
Feb 12, 2018, 5:33 am
#8
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2015
Programs: Eurobonus Diamond
Posts: 60
A website with historical information should help you. Flightradar24 can but you need to subscribe.
I recommend you read this: The 2018 BA compensation thread: Your guide to Regulation EC261/2004
It is destined for UK flyers / BA flyers but should contains helpful information. You might want to contact via PM the author of the thread, he is a very nice guy and a real expert on the subject.
I recommend you read this: The 2018 BA compensation thread: Your guide to Regulation EC261/2004
It is destined for UK flyers / BA flyers but should contains helpful information. You might want to contact via PM the author of the thread, he is a very nice guy and a real expert on the subject.
26 Jan 2018 Copenhagen (CPH) Billund (BLL) SK1281 0:35 10:00 AM 11:09 AM 10:50 AM Landed 11:43 AM
26 Jan 2018 Copenhagen (CPH) Aarhus (AAR) SK1245 - 9:50 AM - 10:30 AM Canceled
Feb 12, 2018, 9:01 pm
#9
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denmark
Programs: TK Elite
Posts: 11,848
As you will notice there were severe delays due to fog at CPH that day. Knock-on effects of weather cancellations or delays exempt the carrier from liability. The argument that SK should have available crews at CPH will not get you far. Good luck!
Feb 13, 2018, 5:46 am
#10
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2015
Programs: Eurobonus Diamond
Posts: 60
26 Jan 2018 Aarhus (AAR) Copenhagen (CPH) AT76 (ES-ATE) 1:05 8:50 AM 8:51 AM 9:30 AM Landed 9:56 AM
I'll update when I get a response from SK!
Feb 15, 2018, 3:30 am
#11
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Tokyo
Programs: JAL Metal Card (OWE), SAS Eurobonus Gold (*G), Marriott Titanium (LTP), Tokyu Hotels Platinum
Posts: 21,169
I've submitted my response again to them, let's see what they answer. I did find that other ATR aircrafts landed in the middle of the "extraordinary weather", so I don't really buy that it excempts them from responsibility. SK1245 landed successfully at CPH at 09:56, 26 minutes late.
26 Jan 2018 Aarhus (AAR) Copenhagen (CPH) AT76 (ES-ATE) 1:05 8:50 AM 8:51 AM 9:30 AM Landed 9:56 AM
I'll update when I get a response from SK!
26 Jan 2018 Aarhus (AAR) Copenhagen (CPH) AT76 (ES-ATE) 1:05 8:50 AM 8:51 AM 9:30 AM Landed 9:56 AM
I'll update when I get a response from SK!
Feb 15, 2018, 10:51 am
#13
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Koala Lemur
Programs: SK EBD LTG (*G)
Posts: 2,447
I am also skeptical. But it was fine to try again. Perhaps another case handler would look at it differently. I would give up if I get a negative response though. There are better things to do in life than chasing compensations in dubious cases.
Feb 21, 2018, 8:37 am
#14
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2015
Programs: Eurobonus Diamond
Posts: 60
if the number of slots available at CPH that day was reduced due to weather, SK would not be able to operate their full traffic program and would be forced to cancel or delay a number of departures. The fact that some departures operated is not an argument that there were no weather problems.
Feb 21, 2018, 8:40 am
#15
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2015
Programs: Eurobonus Diamond
Posts: 60
To clarify, I did not submit a new claim but responded to my existing case.