MultiFlyer

Because Swiss and Swiss justice say so. ;-)
They don't care about EUGH judgement.

Fabo.sk

Potentially if ZRH was not the final destination it could still be a feasible battle. Otherwise not.

Blumie

My girlfriend was scheduled to fly EWR-ZRH-BUD on Sunday. The EWR-ZRH leg was cancelled due to a mechanical issue, and she was reaccommodated the next day on LH through FRA. She submitted a claim for compensation, which has been rejected. From this thread it seems like a lost cause. What do you think?

Here is the response she received:

Thank you for your message of 10 June 2020.

You have completed a form on SWISS.com to check your eligibility for compensation in case of flight cancellation or long delays in application of Regulation EC261/2004.

Your flight LX19 on 7 June 2020 unfortunately had to be cancelled due to an unexpected flight safety shortcoming. On behalf of SWISS and its cooperation partners, I apologize for the inconvenience you had as a result.

The aircraft scheduled to operate the rotation had problems with the weather radar system.

Furthermore, considering the fact that, this situation did not develop in our hub in Zurich but abroad, where a replacement aircraft was not available in a timely manner. I must deny your claim for compensation in application of regulation EC261/2004.

Although I realize the inconvenience you had, I count on your understanding that I am unable to give you a different answer.

flybie

It’s very unlikely your gf case will be approved. I got mine rejected quoting the same thing. So after that I decided to use some online EU claim service as my last resort. It’s been pending for months now but the case is still there with the service. If approved, I pay them commission. If not, I lose nothing.

warakorn

Are there corresponding court verdicts in Switzerland?

MichaelA380

Given the explanation she received - "had to be cancelled due to an unexpected flight safety shortcoming" - I do not see her having recourse against LX, unless she pursues this with the designated body responsible for the enforcement of Regulation 261/2004 in Switzerland (she needs to find which one is that) or in a Swiss court of law and is able to prove that the explanation provided by LX is false und thus does not allow LX to waive her entitlement to receive compensation - however this will be an academic discussion, where the burden of proof will lie on her, and therefore I do not see material chances of success, I am afraid. To that end, she may need to hire an attorney as well ...

According to Regulation 261/2004, Article 5(3), LX can waive the obligation to provide compensation under Article 7 (in the current case EUR 600), "if it can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken". According to Paragraph 14 of the Preamble, which also refers to the Montreal Convention, such circumstances may occur in case of, among other things, "unexpected flight safety shortcomings" (which accidentally (or not) is exactly what she was told).

As suggested in the prior post, it may be worth trying with a third party specialising in such compensation matters. My only experience is with AirHelp, which managed to get me the full legal compensation for a cancelled OS VIE MXP flight due to a mechanical issue with the aircraft (which is not necessarily the same issue here) - if memory serves me well, their success fee is 25% of the amount they manage to get you (which obviously means you pay nothing if they are unsuccessful with the claim).

Blumie

I'm curious under what circumstances LX actually does pay. My only EU261 experiences have been with BA, and they've been very good about paying when the cause of the delay has been a mechanical issue.

MichielR

Flying EWR-ZRH-BUD the application of EU261 is a result of Switzerland following the EU legislation. Problem in this case is that the jurisprudence from the ECJ does not apply. That means that LX can more easily invoke extraordinary curcumstances like they did, even if they added in their response that there was no spare airframe at an outstation like EWR (which addresses some if the ECJ jurisprudence). Had the flight been the other way, ex-BUD, then you would have had recourse through the Hungarian process, BUD being a departure from the EU and all jurisprudence would have applied.

Blumie

Does it help her case that my girlfriend is a Hungarian citizen?

airoli

No. That makes no difference.

Nick Art

In the EU mechanical issues are not deemed unforeseeable circumstances based on a court ruling.

This ruling does not apply to Switzerland. You therefore stand no chance.

If your flight routing would have continued and touched EU soil in any way (like EWR-ZRH-FRA) you do have a case as you can base your claim on the law of the country of your final airport.

Fabo.sk

She was supposed to fly to BUD, which is, indeed, in the EU. She might try to sue in Hungary.

MichielR

BUD is in the EU like FRA. The regulation makes a distinction between departures from and arrivals into the EU. Here the routing is arriving in BUD ie into the EU and hence EU 261 does not apply with ECJ jurisprudence. Departing LX ex-EU it would have applied.

Nick Art

I think differently. Since Swiss is a carrier under the EU261 jurisdisction one can proceed on any country that the flight has touched.

MichielR

If LX is considered a Community carrier under Regulation 261/400 then one would have to claim in Hungary where the ECJ Jurisprudence would apply. I’m not sure though whether LX is a Community Carrier, would have to check further.