Swiss denies compensation
Feb 13, 2018, 2:59 pm
#46
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 5
A newsworthy post would be on where SWISS gracefully paid up. Sadly, refusing is by now ingrained behaviour.
Please do go ahead and sue!
As YuropFlyer suggests, the simplest way to assess your chances of success is through one of the agencies that handle these things: if they judge success is likely they can take on your case, relieving you of hassle, but taking a substantial part of the compensation if they're successful.
Please do go ahead and sue!
As YuropFlyer suggests, the simplest way to assess your chances of success is through one of the agencies that handle these things: if they judge success is likely they can take on your case, relieving you of hassle, but taking a substantial part of the compensation if they're successful.
thanks, I did as you suggested with Air-help, hopefully they are reliable.
Feb 13, 2018, 3:20 pm
#47
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 5
You're aware this is standard practice, right? You can get a lawyer to help you claiming your 600€ (your risk) or using one of various EU Claim agencies (Google up, not suggesting a particular one) who are usually taking 25-30% of the compensation but no risk for you.
Jul 9, 2018, 10:47 am
#48
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,533
JFKZRHVCE award ticket in J.
JFKZRH operated 3 hours late due engine issue. Missed connection in ZRH. Protected flight (C-Series aircraft), ultimately went tech and was cancelled. Overnighted in ZRH, successfully protected the next a.m.
So, was subjected to a cancellation, and arrived VCE 19 hours after original expected time.
Submitted claim via LX website. Will report back.
Any guesses as to their reply?
Jamie
JFKZRH operated 3 hours late due engine issue. Missed connection in ZRH. Protected flight (C-Series aircraft), ultimately went tech and was cancelled. Overnighted in ZRH, successfully protected the next a.m.
So, was subjected to a cancellation, and arrived VCE 19 hours after original expected time.
Submitted claim via LX website. Will report back.
Any guesses as to their reply?
Jamie
Jul 9, 2018, 2:13 pm
#50
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SIN (with a bit of ZRH sprinkled in)
Posts: 9,448
They'll deny your claim with some made-up reason.. anyone bets against me?
BUT since your flight was cancelled and not simply delayed, your case has strong grounds even on the very bad interpretation of law by LX ("law says only to pay if flight is cancelled, not delayed.." even if EU clarified this very early in the stage..) if you persuade it further.. of course they might claim that your original flight was delayed less than EU261 needs to be, bla bla - so prepare for lenghty discussions - or simply hand it to an EU261 agency and let them deal with LX.
BUT since your flight was cancelled and not simply delayed, your case has strong grounds even on the very bad interpretation of law by LX ("law says only to pay if flight is cancelled, not delayed.." even if EU clarified this very early in the stage..) if you persuade it further.. of course they might claim that your original flight was delayed less than EU261 needs to be, bla bla - so prepare for lenghty discussions - or simply hand it to an EU261 agency and let them deal with LX.
Jul 9, 2018, 2:55 pm
#51
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,533
They'll deny your claim with some made-up reason.. anyone bets against me?
BUT since your flight was cancelled and not simply delayed, your case has strong grounds even on the very bad interpretation of law by LX ("law says only to pay if flight is cancelled, not delayed.." even if EU clarified this very early in the stage..) if you persuade it further.. of course they might claim that your original flight was delayed less than EU261 needs to be, bla bla - so prepare for lenghty discussions - or simply hand it to an EU261 agency and let them deal with LX.
BUT since your flight was cancelled and not simply delayed, your case has strong grounds even on the very bad interpretation of law by LX ("law says only to pay if flight is cancelled, not delayed.." even if EU clarified this very early in the stage..) if you persuade it further.. of course they might claim that your original flight was delayed less than EU261 needs to be, bla bla - so prepare for lenghty discussions - or simply hand it to an EU261 agency and let them deal with LX.
Jamie
Jul 18, 2018, 12:20 pm
#52
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,533
JFKZRHVCE award ticket in J.
JFKZRH operated 3 hours late due engine issue. Missed connection in ZRH. Protected flight (C-Series aircraft), ultimately went tech and was cancelled. Overnighted in ZRH, successfully protected the next a.m.
So, was subjected to a cancellation, and arrived VCE 19 hours after original expected time.
Submitted claim via LX website. Will report back.
Any guesses as to their reply?
Jamie
JFKZRH operated 3 hours late due engine issue. Missed connection in ZRH. Protected flight (C-Series aircraft), ultimately went tech and was cancelled. Overnighted in ZRH, successfully protected the next a.m.
So, was subjected to a cancellation, and arrived VCE 19 hours after original expected time.
Submitted claim via LX website. Will report back.
Any guesses as to their reply?
Jamie
Jamie
Jul 18, 2018, 12:51 pm
#53
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Stoke on Trent, UK (MAN ), BUE, BKK, DBV
Programs: LH HON***,UA,BA.EK Gold,AV.
Posts: 11,576
Jul 19, 2018, 9:53 pm
#54
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: DCA, IAD (not BWI if I can help it)
Programs: UA 1MM 1K, Marriott Gold, Hyatt Explorist, status-free on AA, AS, B6, DL, WN, Amtrak, etc.
Posts: 1,480
Asking for a friend--no, really, as the gory details should make clear. Said friend booked LX to fly TXL-ZRH to meet a ZRH-BOS flight booked separately as a UA codeshare.
(I know, I know. He didn't consult me before booking any of this.)
LX canceled the TXL-ZRH flight and flew my friend and his wife out the next day, at which point they had to shell out a large sum of money to UA to get rebooked on that days's flight to BOS. At least UA waived the rebooking fee and instead only charged the fare difference, which was nice considering he has zero status.
I was pretty sure before skimming over this thread that he'd be out of luck for any compensation beyond the minimum for the TXL-ZRH cancel, and now that seems even more certain. Right? Or is this a case where a service like AirHelp might be worth the 25% commission?
(I know, I know. He didn't consult me before booking any of this.)
LX canceled the TXL-ZRH flight and flew my friend and his wife out the next day, at which point they had to shell out a large sum of money to UA to get rebooked on that days's flight to BOS. At least UA waived the rebooking fee and instead only charged the fare difference, which was nice considering he has zero status.
I was pretty sure before skimming over this thread that he'd be out of luck for any compensation beyond the minimum for the TXL-ZRH cancel, and now that seems even more certain. Right? Or is this a case where a service like AirHelp might be worth the 25% commission?
Jul 20, 2018, 4:34 am
#55
Moderator: SAS
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: BLL & CPH & ZRH
Programs: LX, SK EBD (*G)
Posts: 3,146
Asking for a friend--no, really, as the gory details should make clear. Said friend booked LX to fly TXL-ZRH to meet a ZRH-BOS flight booked separately as a UA codeshare.
(I know, I know. He didn't consult me before booking any of this.)
LX canceled the TXL-ZRH flight and flew my friend and his wife out the next day, at which point they had to shell out a large sum of money to UA to get rebooked on that days's flight to BOS. At least UA waived the rebooking fee and instead only charged the fare difference, which was nice considering he has zero status.
I was pretty sure before skimming over this thread that he'd be out of luck for any compensation beyond the minimum for the TXL-ZRH cancel, and now that seems even more certain. Right? Or is this a case where a service like AirHelp might be worth the 25% commission?
(I know, I know. He didn't consult me before booking any of this.)
LX canceled the TXL-ZRH flight and flew my friend and his wife out the next day, at which point they had to shell out a large sum of money to UA to get rebooked on that days's flight to BOS. At least UA waived the rebooking fee and instead only charged the fare difference, which was nice considering he has zero status.
I was pretty sure before skimming over this thread that he'd be out of luck for any compensation beyond the minimum for the TXL-ZRH cancel, and now that seems even more certain. Right? Or is this a case where a service like AirHelp might be worth the 25% commission?
I personally do not like those AirHelp Services at all and send all the requests for compensation myself. I suggest they do that as well and, even though I guarantee they won't receive more than the minimum compensation for the cancelation, they should write the whole story including the missed LX/UA connection and maybe they will be lucky, you never know. (While with those services your are guaranteed to only receive the minimum.)
Jul 20, 2018, 8:10 am
#56
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: DCA, IAD (not BWI if I can help it)
Programs: UA 1MM 1K, Marriott Gold, Hyatt Explorist, status-free on AA, AS, B6, DL, WN, Amtrak, etc.
Posts: 1,480
Ouch. Especially since I'm pretty sure TXL-BOS would have been cheaper booekd as one ticket on LX directly...
I personally do not like those AirHelp Services at all and send all the requests for compensation myself. I suggest they do that as well and, even though I guarantee they won't receive more than the minimum compensation for the cancelation, they should write the whole story including the missed LX/UA connection and maybe they will be lucky, you never know. (While with those services your are guaranteed to only receive the minimum.)
I personally do not like those AirHelp Services at all and send all the requests for compensation myself. I suggest they do that as well and, even though I guarantee they won't receive more than the minimum compensation for the cancelation, they should write the whole story including the missed LX/UA connection and maybe they will be lucky, you never know. (While with those services your are guaranteed to only receive the minimum.)
Aug 2, 2018, 2:41 am
#57
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 6
Hi everyone,
Could I please ask for your advice on how to proceed? We flew back from Geneva to London Heathrow on 28th July, and the flight was delayed by 4 hours and 10 minutes. Swiss gave us meal vouchers soon after the delay was announced which was good. On departing, the captain said that the delay was due to a plane with a technical problem earlier in the day and that they had no spare plane in either Geneva or Zurich and so we had to wait for our particular plane to fly to Catania and back before we could use it.
I emailed Swiss in order to try and claim EC261 but my claim was refused:
"I regret to inform you that you are not eligible for financial compensation and that SWISS is not liable for indirect expenses (e.g. lost reserved services upon arrival). These are not directly linked with the contract of carriage between a passenger and SWISS. Accordingly, we can only advise that you discuss your losses with your travel insurance provider, or the credit card company that you used to pay for your journey. They might offer coverage.
Furthermore, I would like to bring to your attention that Article 6 (Delays) of the Official Journal of the European Union does not at any instance refer to Article 7 (Financial compensation).
It is unfortunately not possible for me to erase this negative experience. However, as a token of our appreciation and a gesture of goodwill, please find attached four (4) SWISS travel vouchers each to the value of GBP 40.00. These vouchers are redeemable for future bookings on SWISS.com."
If I'm not entitled to claim then fair enough, but I'm very confused by the wording - are they basically saying that they don't have to pay EC261 for delays??? We didn't have any consequential expenses so I'm not trying to claim anything else. I'm just not sure whether I have any grounds to argue for payment for the delay or not. What do you think?
Many thanks for your help!
Could I please ask for your advice on how to proceed? We flew back from Geneva to London Heathrow on 28th July, and the flight was delayed by 4 hours and 10 minutes. Swiss gave us meal vouchers soon after the delay was announced which was good. On departing, the captain said that the delay was due to a plane with a technical problem earlier in the day and that they had no spare plane in either Geneva or Zurich and so we had to wait for our particular plane to fly to Catania and back before we could use it.
I emailed Swiss in order to try and claim EC261 but my claim was refused:
"I regret to inform you that you are not eligible for financial compensation and that SWISS is not liable for indirect expenses (e.g. lost reserved services upon arrival). These are not directly linked with the contract of carriage between a passenger and SWISS. Accordingly, we can only advise that you discuss your losses with your travel insurance provider, or the credit card company that you used to pay for your journey. They might offer coverage.
Furthermore, I would like to bring to your attention that Article 6 (Delays) of the Official Journal of the European Union does not at any instance refer to Article 7 (Financial compensation).
It is unfortunately not possible for me to erase this negative experience. However, as a token of our appreciation and a gesture of goodwill, please find attached four (4) SWISS travel vouchers each to the value of GBP 40.00. These vouchers are redeemable for future bookings on SWISS.com."
If I'm not entitled to claim then fair enough, but I'm very confused by the wording - are they basically saying that they don't have to pay EC261 for delays??? We didn't have any consequential expenses so I'm not trying to claim anything else. I'm just not sure whether I have any grounds to argue for payment for the delay or not. What do you think?
Many thanks for your help!
Aug 2, 2018, 4:06 am
#58
Moderator: SAS
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: BLL & CPH & ZRH
Programs: LX, SK EBD (*G)
Posts: 3,146
Hi everyone,
Could I please ask for your advice on how to proceed? We flew back from Geneva to London Heathrow on 28th July, and the flight was delayed by 4 hours and 10 minutes. Swiss gave us meal vouchers soon after the delay was announced which was good. On departing, the captain said that the delay was due to a plane with a technical problem earlier in the day and that they had no spare plane in either Geneva or Zurich and so we had to wait for our particular plane to fly to Catania and back before we could use it.
I emailed Swiss in order to try and claim EC261 but my claim was refused:
"I regret to inform you that you are not eligible for financial compensation and that SWISS is not liable for indirect expenses (e.g. lost reserved services upon arrival). These are not directly linked with the contract of carriage between a passenger and SWISS. Accordingly, we can only advise that you discuss your losses with your travel insurance provider, or the credit card company that you used to pay for your journey. They might offer coverage.
Furthermore, I would like to bring to your attention that Article 6 (Delays) of the Official Journal of the European Union does not at any instance refer to Article 7 (Financial compensation).
It is unfortunately not possible for me to erase this negative experience. However, as a token of our appreciation and a gesture of goodwill, please find attached four (4) SWISS travel vouchers each to the value of GBP 40.00. These vouchers are redeemable for future bookings on SWISS.com."
If I'm not entitled to claim then fair enough, but I'm very confused by the wording - are they basically saying that they don't have to pay EC261 for delays??? We didn't have any consequential expenses so I'm not trying to claim anything else. I'm just not sure whether I have any grounds to argue for payment for the delay or not. What do you think?
Many thanks for your help!
Could I please ask for your advice on how to proceed? We flew back from Geneva to London Heathrow on 28th July, and the flight was delayed by 4 hours and 10 minutes. Swiss gave us meal vouchers soon after the delay was announced which was good. On departing, the captain said that the delay was due to a plane with a technical problem earlier in the day and that they had no spare plane in either Geneva or Zurich and so we had to wait for our particular plane to fly to Catania and back before we could use it.
I emailed Swiss in order to try and claim EC261 but my claim was refused:
"I regret to inform you that you are not eligible for financial compensation and that SWISS is not liable for indirect expenses (e.g. lost reserved services upon arrival). These are not directly linked with the contract of carriage between a passenger and SWISS. Accordingly, we can only advise that you discuss your losses with your travel insurance provider, or the credit card company that you used to pay for your journey. They might offer coverage.
Furthermore, I would like to bring to your attention that Article 6 (Delays) of the Official Journal of the European Union does not at any instance refer to Article 7 (Financial compensation).
It is unfortunately not possible for me to erase this negative experience. However, as a token of our appreciation and a gesture of goodwill, please find attached four (4) SWISS travel vouchers each to the value of GBP 40.00. These vouchers are redeemable for future bookings on SWISS.com."
If I'm not entitled to claim then fair enough, but I'm very confused by the wording - are they basically saying that they don't have to pay EC261 for delays??? We didn't have any consequential expenses so I'm not trying to claim anything else. I'm just not sure whether I have any grounds to argue for payment for the delay or not. What do you think?
Many thanks for your help!
The original release EC261/2004 (I will refer to this as Base EC261, without all the rulings that came to clarify it after 2006) does not state that there is compensation due for delay.
Article 6
Delay
1.
When an operating air carrier reasonably expects a flight
to be delayed beyond its scheduled time of departure:
(a) for two hours or more in the case of flights of 1 500 kilo-
metres or less; or
(b) for three hours or more in the case of all intra-Community
flights of more than 1 500 kilometres and of all other
flights between 1 500 and 3 500 kilometres; or
(c) for four hours or more in the case of all flights not falling
under (a) or (b),
passengers shall be offered by the operating air carrier:
(i) the assistance specified in Article 9(1)(a) and 9(2); and
(ii) when the reasonably expected time of departure is at least
the day after the time of departure previously announced,
the assistance specified in Article 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(c); and
(iii) when the delay is at least five hours, the assistance speci-
fied in Article 8(1)(a).
2.
In any event, the assistance shall be offered within the
time limits set out above with respect to each distance bracket.
17.2.2004
L 46/4
Official Journal of the European Union
EN
Delay
1.
When an operating air carrier reasonably expects a flight
to be delayed beyond its scheduled time of departure:
(a) for two hours or more in the case of flights of 1 500 kilo-
metres or less; or
(b) for three hours or more in the case of all intra-Community
flights of more than 1 500 kilometres and of all other
flights between 1 500 and 3 500 kilometres; or
(c) for four hours or more in the case of all flights not falling
under (a) or (b),
passengers shall be offered by the operating air carrier:
(i) the assistance specified in Article 9(1)(a) and 9(2); and
(ii) when the reasonably expected time of departure is at least
the day after the time of departure previously announced,
the assistance specified in Article 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(c); and
(iii) when the delay is at least five hours, the assistance speci-
fied in Article 8(1)(a).
2.
In any event, the assistance shall be offered within the
time limits set out above with respect to each distance bracket.
17.2.2004
L 46/4
Official Journal of the European Union
EN
By its judgment today, the Court confirms its interpretation of EU law in the judgment in Sturgeon and Others. It reiterates that the principle of equal treatment requires that passengers whose flights are delayed and those whose flights are cancelled ‘at the very last moment’ must be regarded as being in comparable situations as regards the application of their right to compensation, because those passengers suffer sim ilar inconvenience, namely, a loss of time. Since passengers whose flights are cancelled are entitled to compensation where their loss of time is equal to or in excess of three hours, the Court finds that passengers whose flights are
delayed may also rely on that right where, on account of a delay to their flight, they suffer the same loss of time, that is, where they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier.
Nevertheless, in adopting Regulation No 261/2004, the EU legislature was seeking to strike a balance between the interests of air passengers and those of air carriers. Accordingly, such a delay does not entitle passengers to compensation if the air carrier can prove that the long delay is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken, namely circumstances beyond the actual control of the air carrier.
delayed may also rely on that right where, on account of a delay to their flight, they suffer the same loss of time, that is, where they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier.
Nevertheless, in adopting Regulation No 261/2004, the EU legislature was seeking to strike a balance between the interests of air passengers and those of air carriers. Accordingly, such a delay does not entitle passengers to compensation if the air carrier can prove that the long delay is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken, namely circumstances beyond the actual control of the air carrier.
However, Switzerland does not automatically recognize EU court decisions. In 2016 a court in Bülach ruled that Swiss courts are not obliged to follow this EU ruling regarding EC261, that were made after 2006 (the date the law was taken over into Swiss law), because those court decision by the EU was not taken over into Swiss law, as the Swiss - EU board have not decided to take it over. So since a ruling that a delay of a certain amount is equal to cancellation is missing in Switzerland, no compensation is due for delay.
Furthermore the ruling that mechanical faults are not unforseen events is also not applicable in Swiss jurisdiction.
If you would, however, sue them in the UK, you have a much higher chance for success, since EU courts are bound by the 2009 ruling that delay equals to cancellation after a certain amount of time (which was met in your situation) in contrary to Swiss courts, which, as stated above, are only bound to the Base EC261.
So my suggestion to you would be that you answer them telling them you will legally go forth in the UK (since your flight arrived in the UK, the UK has jurisdiction just as much as Switzerland) and hence the EU court decision of 2009 regarding seeing delay equal as cancellation is applicable.
Swiss law (including the ruling of Bülach from 2016) has no jurisdiction for a court case in the UK and can therefore be disregarded.
Maybe also include that technical faults are not regarded as per the court decision of the EU.
Last edited by Nick Art; Aug 2, 2018 at 4:26 am
Aug 2, 2018, 4:58 pm
#60
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 12
So my suggestion to you would be that you answer them telling them you will legally go forth in the UK (since your flight arrived in the UK, the UK has jurisdiction just as much as Switzerland) and hence the EU court decision of 2009 regarding seeing delay equal as cancellation is applicable.
Swiss law (including the ruling of Bülach from 2016) has no jurisdiction for a court case in the UK and can therefore be disregarded.
Maybe also include that technical faults are not regarded as per the court decision of the EU.
Swiss law (including the ruling of Bülach from 2016) has no jurisdiction for a court case in the UK and can therefore be disregarded.
Maybe also include that technical faults are not regarded as per the court decision of the EU.
For this purpose, the provisions laid down in this Agreement as well as in the regulations and directives specified in the Annex shall apply under the condition set out hereafter. Insofar as they are identical in substance to corresponding rules of the EC Treaty and to acts adopted in application of that Treaty, those provisions shall, in their implementation and application, be interpreted in conformity with the relevant rulings and decisions of the Court of Justice and the Commission of the European Communities given prior to the date of signature of this Agreement.