Double claim under EC 261/2004?
Oct 31, 2018, 7:18 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 2
Double claim under EC 261/2004?
I recently traveled from Athens to Birminham on SAS with a connection through Copenhagen.
Day 1. ATH-CPH flight cancelled due to mechanical reasons. Then rebooked on same flight the following day.
Day 2. ATH-CPH flight delayed by six hours due to mechanical reasons again (vehicle scraped aircraft, had to be repaired) I arrived at BHX 48 hours late
I was advised to file two seperate claims under EC 261/2004.
I filed a claim for compensation for the delayed flight on day 2. SAS have accepted the claim and paid up. 400 Euros.
I have now filed a seperate claim for the cancelled flight on day 1. SAS are refusing the claim on the grounds that it's a "duplicate claim" and has already been resolved.
Do I have any chance of winning this on the grounds that they are seperate incidents? Thoughts please?
Thank you.
Day 1. ATH-CPH flight cancelled due to mechanical reasons. Then rebooked on same flight the following day.
Day 2. ATH-CPH flight delayed by six hours due to mechanical reasons again (vehicle scraped aircraft, had to be repaired) I arrived at BHX 48 hours late
I was advised to file two seperate claims under EC 261/2004.
I filed a claim for compensation for the delayed flight on day 2. SAS have accepted the claim and paid up. 400 Euros.
I have now filed a seperate claim for the cancelled flight on day 1. SAS are refusing the claim on the grounds that it's a "duplicate claim" and has already been resolved.
Do I have any chance of winning this on the grounds that they are seperate incidents? Thoughts please?
Thank you.
Oct 31, 2018, 7:30 am
#2
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
SK is correct. Whoever advised you to file two claims was entirely wrong and simply did not look at EC 261/2004. The correct analysis is:
1. You held a ticket from ATH-CPH.
2. You were delayed in your arrival at CPH by more than 3 hours.
3. You are accordingly due compensation of EUR 400 because that delay was not for an extraordinary circumstance.
Once the delay clock ticked past 3 hours, the compensation does not change, no matter whether you had arrived when your rescheduled flight was scheduled to arrive or if that flight were itself late (which it was).
One minor note is that SK, of course, had a duty of care to include hotel and meals. Given that your delay was extended, I presume that SK one way or another covered whatever the meal appropriate to that 6-hour delay was.
1. You held a ticket from ATH-CPH.
2. You were delayed in your arrival at CPH by more than 3 hours.
3. You are accordingly due compensation of EUR 400 because that delay was not for an extraordinary circumstance.
Once the delay clock ticked past 3 hours, the compensation does not change, no matter whether you had arrived when your rescheduled flight was scheduled to arrive or if that flight were itself late (which it was).
One minor note is that SK, of course, had a duty of care to include hotel and meals. Given that your delay was extended, I presume that SK one way or another covered whatever the meal appropriate to that 6-hour delay was.
Oct 31, 2018, 7:32 am
#3
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
I recently traveled from Athens to Birminham on SAS with a connection through Copenhagen.
Day 1. ATH-CPH flight cancelled due to mechanical reasons. Then rebooked on same flight the following day.
Day 2. ATH-CPH flight delayed by six hours due to mechanical reasons again (vehicle scraped aircraft, had to be repaired) I arrived at BHX 48 hours late
I was advised to file two seperate claims under EC 261/2004.
I filed a claim for compensation for the delayed flight on day 2. SAS have accepted the claim and paid up. 400 Euros.
I have now filed a seperate claim for the cancelled flight on day 1. SAS are refusing the claim on the grounds that it's a "duplicate claim" and has already been resolved.
Do I have any chance of winning this on the grounds that they are seperate incidents? Thoughts please?
Thank you.
Day 1. ATH-CPH flight cancelled due to mechanical reasons. Then rebooked on same flight the following day.
Day 2. ATH-CPH flight delayed by six hours due to mechanical reasons again (vehicle scraped aircraft, had to be repaired) I arrived at BHX 48 hours late
I was advised to file two seperate claims under EC 261/2004.
I filed a claim for compensation for the delayed flight on day 2. SAS have accepted the claim and paid up. 400 Euros.
I have now filed a seperate claim for the cancelled flight on day 1. SAS are refusing the claim on the grounds that it's a "duplicate claim" and has already been resolved.
Do I have any chance of winning this on the grounds that they are seperate incidents? Thoughts please?
Thank you.
Assuming now that they are incidents on the same ticket number and ticket coupon, can’t say I’m surprised that they flagged it as a duplicate claim for an incident.
Oct 31, 2018, 7:37 am
#4
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
SK is correct. Whoever advised you to file two claims was entirely wrong and simply did not look at EC 261/2004. The correct analysis is:
1. You held a ticket from ATH-CPH.
2. You were delayed in your arrival at CPH by more than 3 hours.
3. You are accordingly due compensation of EUR 400 because that delay was not for an extraordinary circumstance.
1. You held a ticket from ATH-CPH.
2. You were delayed in your arrival at CPH by more than 3 hours.
3. You are accordingly due compensation of EUR 400 because that delay was not for an extraordinary circumstance.
The applicability is per flight ticketed even if the same flight number and flight coupon is being used for multiple confirmed and ticketed flights in a given PNR.
Oct 31, 2018, 8:38 am
#5
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
Ticket reissue vs. change is a red herring (or herring of some color).
Oct 31, 2018, 9:07 am
#6
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Carriers subject to the Regulation, particularly intra-EU short-haul uniformly will not pay and nobody has yet been able to surface a precedential decision of any Member State or the NCEU suggesting otherwise. Either nobody has litigated this issue in 15 years roughly or the FT research machine which seems able to unearth the most obscure of obscure writings, would have found something.
Ticket reissue vs. change is a red herring (or herring of some color).
Ticket reissue vs. change is a red herring (or herring of some color).
SK has paid out on EC261/2004 claims where a given SK flight number between the same airport pairs have been cancelled two days in a row for passengers on the same ticketed PNR holding boarding passes for the same flight number on different days.
I have had this happen on SK short haul and SK long haul. And some can even say that for those inclined and positioned well enough, this could be done as a due income generating exercise at some SK outstations beyond Europe since SK has a fleet reliability issue and such little room for recovery when something goes wrong at some of its outstations beyond Europe. But also in Europe.
Last edited by GUWonder; Oct 31, 2018 at 9:13 am
Oct 31, 2018, 9:27 am
#7
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 2
I'll try and escalate it on the claim that it's considered two seperate incidents which is what I was advised in the first place. Although I'm not particulalry optimistic
Yes to their credit SK did provide hotel accomodation/food in both Athens and Copenhagen. However, not for the six hours delay hanging in the Athens airport on Day 2 before departure.
Yes to their credit SK did provide hotel accomodation/food in both Athens and Copenhagen. However, not for the six hours delay hanging in the Athens airport on Day 2 before departure.
Nov 26, 2018, 9:19 am
#8
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: GIB BCN LUX MLA GOT LCA ATH
Programs: Miles and More FTL; Miles and Bonus *G; Emirates
Posts: 94
I recently traveled from Athens to Birminham on SAS with a connection through Copenhagen.
Day 1. ATH-CPH flight cancelled due to mechanical reasons. Then rebooked on same flight the following day.
Day 2. ATH-CPH flight delayed by six hours due to mechanical reasons again (vehicle scraped aircraft, had to be repaired) I arrived at BHX 48 hours late
I was advised to file two seperate claims under EC 261/2004.
I filed a claim for compensation for the delayed flight on day 2. SAS have accepted the claim and paid up. 400 Euros.
I have now filed a seperate claim for the cancelled flight on day 1. SAS are refusing the claim on the grounds that it's a "duplicate claim" and has already been resolved.
Do I have any chance of winning this on the grounds that they are seperate incidents? Thoughts please?
Thank you.
Day 1. ATH-CPH flight cancelled due to mechanical reasons. Then rebooked on same flight the following day.
Day 2. ATH-CPH flight delayed by six hours due to mechanical reasons again (vehicle scraped aircraft, had to be repaired) I arrived at BHX 48 hours late
I was advised to file two seperate claims under EC 261/2004.
I filed a claim for compensation for the delayed flight on day 2. SAS have accepted the claim and paid up. 400 Euros.
I have now filed a seperate claim for the cancelled flight on day 1. SAS are refusing the claim on the grounds that it's a "duplicate claim" and has already been resolved.
Do I have any chance of winning this on the grounds that they are seperate incidents? Thoughts please?
Thank you.
A little story from my side to try to illustrate the lengths companies will go to to avoid paying compensation:
04.10.2015 I had a flight from GOT to LUX via ARN and CPH. At CPH there was an issue with the plane leading to passengers being ejected. I volunteered my seat for a pregnant woman who was denied boarding and who was crying. I was so furious that I told the check-in manager off after which he went on a power trip and told me to apologise immediately as he would otherwise write that I had been offloaded for being "unruly". I refused to and duly had to pay my own alternative flights / hotels etc. SAS support , after escalation to their CS Manager a certain Alison, refused to make any payment referring to "my behaviour" without further specifications. September this year I was reconciling my emails and noticed that this 261/2004/EC complaint was not resolved to my satisfaction so commenced a lawsuit against SAS. Today I received the response from the Court in my country of residence: SAS is sentenced to pay 250 EUR compensation, for my alternative flight, for my hotel and legal interests, altogether amounting to close to 600 EUR. Moral of the story: If the airline thinks it can get away with not paying you, chances is that it will use that so be prepared to take the airline to court.
Side note: I have happily flown SAS ever since and consider it to be a great airline, I just had this one bad experience.
Nov 27, 2018, 7:16 pm
#9
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: BKK
Programs: Mucci Chevalier de la Brosse a Cheveux Dore, SK *GfL, BA Gold, WY G, HH DIA, IC Plat Amb., Hertz PC
Posts: 3,686
Is this not as simple as this:
The OP held a ticket ATH--BHX via CPH and was delayed in arriving at the final destination (BHX) by more than three hours; hence the 400 EUR payout which has already been made by SAS.
Given that the EU regulated compensation scheme focuses on the entire journey (in this case from ATH to BHX), it should not matter how many times you get delayed on the way. Similarly if the OP was delayed by more than three hours into CPH and still made it into BHX less than three hours late, there would be no compensation at all as the CPH portion is just an intermediate. The entire journey counts, and only counts once.
The OP held a ticket ATH--BHX via CPH and was delayed in arriving at the final destination (BHX) by more than three hours; hence the 400 EUR payout which has already been made by SAS.
Given that the EU regulated compensation scheme focuses on the entire journey (in this case from ATH to BHX), it should not matter how many times you get delayed on the way. Similarly if the OP was delayed by more than three hours into CPH and still made it into BHX less than three hours late, there would be no compensation at all as the CPH portion is just an intermediate. The entire journey counts, and only counts once.
Dec 5, 2018, 6:11 pm
#10
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 2,016
This Regulation shall not apply to passengers travelling free of charge or at a reduced fare not available directly or indirectly to the public. However, it shall apply to passengers having tickets issued under a frequent flyer programme or other commercial programme by an air carrier or tour operator.
Dec 6, 2018, 2:20 am
#11
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
From article 2:I think that the OP was travelling "free of charge" on the second flight (the OP only paid for the first flight) and so the regulation doesn't cover the second flight. The compensation only applies to the first flight (and the airline operating the first flight can't escape from the duty of care by blaming delays on the second flight).
