Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > United Airlines | MileagePlus
Reload this Page >

Best Practices for Filing EU 261 Claims Against United?

Best Practices for Filing EU 261 Claims Against United?

Old Feb 18, 18, 5:06 am
  #166  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: MAN / PTY
Programs: Mileage Plus IK, IHG Platinum
Posts: 194
UA 81 / UA 80 European Flight Compensation

This mornings flight February 18 From MAN to EWR was cancelled due to the flight from Newark last night not arriving.
Can anyone advise on whether this cancelled flight is eligible for compensation under European legislation .
The airline blames the cancellation of the incoming flight and this mornings flight on bad weather ..however I took a screen shot of the weather on a weather app and it appears to be cold but sunny nothing that appears to have prevented other flights arriving or departing
Does anyone have more information regarding this ?
Antonio007 is offline  
Old Feb 18, 18, 5:49 am
  #167  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 216
EWR had snow and pretty low visibilities (by EWR standards) last night beginning about 5pm and continuing until about midnight.
Wayside is offline  
Old Feb 18, 18, 7:13 am
  #168  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 2,926
Weather is not an excuse as far as European flight compensation is concerned. But you may have to put up quite a fight to get United to pay.
StuMcIlwain is offline  
Old Feb 18, 18, 7:29 am
  #169  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX/SFO
Programs: AA EXP; AS 75K; WN A List; UA 1K 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott AMB; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 52,304
Originally Posted by StuMcIlwain View Post
Weather is not an excuse as far as European flight compensation is concerned. But you may have to put up quite a fight to get United to pay.
Yeah, especially when it's weather somewhere else. This is a 600 euro comp under EU261 situation.
Kacee is offline  
Old Feb 18, 18, 7:39 am
  #170  
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: In the Swiss amoeba's head
Programs: Lowest level possible
Posts: 2,829
Originally Posted by StuMcIlwain View Post
Weather is not an excuse as far as European flight compensation is concerned.
In general, air passengers are not entitled to compensation for bad weather conditions if the following types of bad weather occur:

[...]

Bad weather: If the weather is exceptionally bad, flights are often grounded or have to take off later. Extreme weather conditions like snow, storms, sleet and fog release the airlines from their obligation to pay compensation.

https://www.flightright.com/your-rights/bad-weather
With cancelled flights, you won’t receive compensation if:

the cancellation was due to extraordinary circumstances for example due to bad weather

https://thepointsguy.com/2014/02/how...layed-flights/
chermorg likes this.
DoTheBartMan is offline  
Old Feb 18, 18, 7:48 am
  #171  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: KEWR
Programs: Marriott Platinum
Posts: 702
EWR was pretty nasty last night. Snow started coming down heavy right around 6pm.
clubord is offline  
Old Feb 18, 18, 7:49 am
  #172  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,086
Weather is generally an acceptable excuse for the airline and they typically won't pay up. However, if it's not weather directly affecting the flight that was cancelled, but weather that has an impact on operational decisions which lead to the cancellation things get a bit murkier. It could be worth trying to file a claim via one of those specialized agencies in Europe.
Ber2dca is offline  
Old Feb 18, 18, 7:52 am
  #173  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX/SFO
Programs: AA EXP; AS 75K; WN A List; UA 1K 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott AMB; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 52,304
Originally Posted by Wayside View Post
EWR had snow and pretty low visibilities (by EWR standards) last night beginning about 5pm and continuing until about midnight.
Originally Posted by clubord View Post
EWR was pretty nasty last night. Snow started coming down heavy right around 6pm.
It snowed but temps were high and it didn't stick to the ground. This wouldn't have caused a blip at MSP, ORD, or DEN.
Kacee is offline  
Old Feb 18, 18, 8:09 am
  #174  
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: In the Swiss amoeba's head
Programs: Lowest level possible
Posts: 2,829
Originally Posted by Ber2dca View Post
Weather is generally an acceptable excuse for the airline and they typically won't pay up. However, if it's not weather directly affecting the flight that was cancelled, but weather that has an impact on operational decisions which lead to the cancellation things get a bit murkier. It could be worth trying to file a claim via one of those specialized agencies in Europe.
Since the EWR flight is the only UA route to/from MAN, there will simply not be any aircraft available at MAN if the EWR-MAN flight is cancelled. UA can't make any operational decisions to make it possible to operate MAN-EWR, unless people expected them to ferry in an aircraft.
If the cancellation is caused by bad weather at EWR, that gives UA justification for not paying compensation.

Key bad weather judgments

However, since the EU Regulation does not provide a clear definition of extraordinary circumstances, there is still a lot of room for interpretation. In recent years, various claims have refined the term extraordinary circumstances.There have been a number of landmark judgements relating to bad weather that we have put together for you here:

No compensation

In general, air passengers are not entitled to compensation for bad weather conditions if the following types of bad weather occur:
- Ash cloud: This sort of natural catastrophe is described as a case of force majeure". Air traffic is restricted and flight bans have to be imposed. The ash cloud impedes visibility for the pilots and ash particles can also affect the sensors in altitude and speed measuring devices.
- Bad weather: If the weather is exceptionally bad, flights are often grounded or have to take off later. Extreme weather conditions like snow, storms, sleet and fog release the airlines from their obligation to pay compensation.
- Thunderstorms: The District Court (Landgericht) of Darmstadt ruled that there is also no entitlement to compensation if a previous flight had to make an emergency landing due to a thunderstorm, meaning that the following flight was delayed or cancelled as a result.(District Court of Darmstadt, judgment of 6 November 2013 7 S 208/12)
- Headwind: Generally, air passengers are not entitled to compensation in cases of extreme headwind.
- Lightning strike: If the previous flight was hit by lightning, meaning that the next flight is delayed or cancelled, then passengers are in most cases not entitled to compensation.

https://www.flightright.com/your-rights/bad-weather
DoTheBartMan is offline  
Old Feb 18, 18, 8:15 am
  #175  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX/SFO
Programs: AA EXP; AS 75K; WN A List; UA 1K 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott AMB; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 52,304
Originally Posted by DoTheBartMan View Post
Since the EWR flight is the only UA route to/from MAN, there will simply not be any aircraft available at MAN if the EWR-MAN flight is cancelled. UA can't make any operational decisions to make it possible to operate MAN-EWR, unless people expected them to ferry in an aircraft.
If the cancellation is caused by bad weather at EWR, that gives UA justification for not paying compensation.
You should try actually reading the EC high court decisions, rather than quick cut and past from third party sites. Because you're wrong.
Kacee is offline  
Old Feb 18, 18, 8:30 am
  #176  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,268
Anyone who says that this is or is not a valid claim misses the point and is relying too much on marketing materials they have read.

Presumably OP was delayed by 4+ hours into EWR and is thus, unless "extraordinary circumstances" existed, entitled to compensation of EUR 600 because this was a departure by a non-EU carrier, but from the EU.

Whether the cancellation is an "extraordinary circumstance" due to an "extraordinary circumstance" on the preceding rotation, e.g. EWR-MAN, is a matter of factual proof. By way of example, if this was BA at LHR, it would be highly unlikely that BA could reasonably argue that it could not rustle up a backup aircraft and crew or reroute passengers, given that LHR is its worldwide center of operations.

But, this is not the case at MAN. Where was the closest relief aircraft and crew? If this matter is litigated, it will be UA's burden to prove these facts. That won't be too hard for UA to show in this case. But, it does not mean that you will lose if you ultimately do litigate as this is a claim which UA will likely defend because it goes to a core issue.

If you make a claim, see what happens. You can then decide whether you want to litigate or not. You can also check one of the claims agencies. They will eat 25-33% of the compensation as a fee, but can be a good indicator because they only take cases they can win.
Often1 is offline  
Old Feb 18, 18, 8:34 am
  #177  
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: In the Swiss amoeba's head
Programs: Lowest level possible
Posts: 2,829
Originally Posted by Kacee View Post
You should try actually reading the EC high court decisions, rather than quick cut and past from third party sites. Because you're wrong.
A third party site that makes its living from submitting EC261 claims. Why would they have an article saying that certain weather issues, including snow, constitute extraordinary circumstances and therefore give airlines justification for not paying compensation, if that was not the case? Wouldnt they be better off encouraging people to submit claims for those situations?
DoTheBartMan is offline  
Old Feb 18, 18, 8:39 am
  #178  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 2,926
If you look at the legal precedents (which I am too lazy to search for right now), you will find that airlines cannot use weather to get out of EU261 compensation unless the weather is unusual and unexpected, and only for flights directly affected by that weather (not any follow-on flights). Some snow in New York in winter is not unusual. A once-in-10-years blizzard might be. And the OP's flight was not directly affected by the weather in EWR last night. United had options, including cancelling other flights out of EWR last night, scheduling less flights out of EWR so that they could handle minor weather disruptions, or ferrying a plane to MAN for today's flight, but they chose to cancel the MAN-EWR flight instead.

I am not arguing whether this is reasonable; I am only paraphrasing what the courts have ruled.
Xyzzy, Silver Fox, Kacee and 2 others like this.
StuMcIlwain is offline  
Old Feb 18, 18, 9:16 am
  #179  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 69,211
Originally Posted by Kacee View Post
It snowed but temps were high and it didn't stick to the ground. This wouldn't have caused a blip at MSP, ORD, or DEN.
Sticking to the ground is relatively irrelevant. Sticking to the wings and control surfaces is far more of an issue. So is reduced visibility.

UA was further impacted at EWR last night due to gate shortages, apparently.

Fact is that the planes had to deice and volumes were reduced due to weather. Maybe the EU courts decide that's not a good enough excuse, but the company will absolutely say it is a weather delay and deny the 600 euro claim to start. Note that UA is still on the hook for a hotel and meals during the wait for a new flight. The weather excuse doesn't relieve the company on that front.
sbm12 is offline  
Old Feb 18, 18, 9:28 am
  #180  
Moderator: United MileagePlus
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clinging to the edifices of a decadent past from the biggest city in America nobody really cares about.
Programs: (ಠ_ಠ)
Posts: 9,072
Also note this thread: Best Practices for Filing EU 261 Claims Against United?
J.Edward is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread