Best Practices for Filing EU 261 Claims Against United?
Aug 7, 17, 8:07 pm
#121
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: 52,261
Originally Posted by notquiteaff
I have filed two EC 261/2004 claims so far (LH and Condor), and both were paid without any issues.
Aug 7, 17, 9:40 pm
#122
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG
Programs: UA 1K 0.9MM, Marriott Gold, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓
Posts: 13,811
Originally Posted by MrBizFlyer
So my question is when does this rule apply if at all to United?
Reading EC261 literally, EC261 will not apply any U.S.>Europe flights. However, Canada views this differently and decided all passengers should be treated the same, and thus extend EC261 to all Canada>Europe flights as well.
While UA is apparently exempted, you may be able to argue that it is an unfair treatment. But again - is it really worth to push that far?
Aug 8, 17, 2:42 am
#123
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada, USA, Europe
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 31,452
Originally Posted by garykung
It is more like a legal question.
Reading EC261 literally, EC261 will not apply any U.S.>Europe flights. However, Canada views this differently and decided all passengers should be treated the same, and thus extend EC261 to all Canada>Europe flights as well.
While UA is apparently exempted, you may be able to argue that it is an unfair treatment. But again - is it really worth to push that far?
Reading EC261 literally, EC261 will not apply any U.S.>Europe flights. However, Canada views this differently and decided all passengers should be treated the same, and thus extend EC261 to all Canada>Europe flights as well.
While UA is apparently exempted, you may be able to argue that it is an unfair treatment. But again - is it really worth to push that far?
Aug 8, 17, 9:26 am
#124
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Chicago ORD
Programs: UA GS Million Miler, Hilton Diamond, Marriott/Starwood Gold
Posts: 143
Originally Posted by Aussienarelle
I understood from earlier in the thread that the customer appreciation "payment" is not relevant to the EU261 claim and is completely separate....
You should apply for, and accept, both. I have done this in the past.
I agree about the shadiness of "hiding" travelers' rights -- I thought airlines are required to inform passengers about EC261, no?
Another thought -- if airlines were more forthcoming about EC261, and more travelers received payments, airlines would certainly simply pass the cost along to all travelers in the form of increased ticket prices. Interesting dilemma: if "those in the know" keep it a secret, do we all benefit?
Aug 11, 17, 7:57 am
#125
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Fransisco, CA
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 162
Originally Posted by Kacee
That nonsense was expressly rejected in Sturgeon v. Condor. I'd right back, citing Sturgeon, and politely demand they pony up.
We have again reviewed your request for cash compensation and found that we complied with all the applicable regulations at the time of your flight.
I understand that the delay was, at best, very frustrating and truly regret you were disappointed. Please let me explain why cash compensation is not applicable under European Regulation EC261/2004. Because all routine preventative maintenance actions were performed on the aircraft as scheduled, and the extended delay due to environmental damage to an engine fan blade could not have been reasonably predicted or avoided, the event is considered force majeure and exclusionary to the mandatory compensation rules.
Please know that our legal department carefully reviews each of these matters with our system and technical operations groups to ensure we are in full compliance with the appropriate legal standards. Although the cause of the irregularity was extraordinary and unable to be avoided, we did what we could to minimize it, and have nothing further to advise at this point.
Although additional compensation is not forthcoming, we sincerely hope that you will choose to fly with us in the future.
I understand that the delay was, at best, very frustrating and truly regret you were disappointed. Please let me explain why cash compensation is not applicable under European Regulation EC261/2004. Because all routine preventative maintenance actions were performed on the aircraft as scheduled, and the extended delay due to environmental damage to an engine fan blade could not have been reasonably predicted or avoided, the event is considered force majeure and exclusionary to the mandatory compensation rules.
Please know that our legal department carefully reviews each of these matters with our system and technical operations groups to ensure we are in full compliance with the appropriate legal standards. Although the cause of the irregularity was extraordinary and unable to be avoided, we did what we could to minimize it, and have nothing further to advise at this point.
Although additional compensation is not forthcoming, we sincerely hope that you will choose to fly with us in the future.
Aug 11, 17, 11:50 am
#127
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: 52,261
Originally Posted by segiddins
Cited Sturgeon and got the following response
Aug 11, 17, 1:13 pm
#128
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Outside of Cleveland Ohio
Programs: UA *G. DL ̶G̶O̶L̶D̶ Member, Hilton/SPG Gold, Hertz PC
Posts: 362
Hi All,
I just read through this for the first time today, any advice would be appreciated. We had a UA flight in Jan. FRA-EWR-DTW, UA/UA Express metal the whole way, 1 PNR. the scheduled EWR-DTW was cancelled and we were placed onto a later flight. Our original arrival was 19:04 and the actual ended up being 22:56.
this was on 1/1/17, is it too late to apply for compensation? Does this even qualify (8min shy of 4hrs)?
thanks
I just read through this for the first time today, any advice would be appreciated. We had a UA flight in Jan. FRA-EWR-DTW, UA/UA Express metal the whole way, 1 PNR. the scheduled EWR-DTW was cancelled and we were placed onto a later flight. Our original arrival was 19:04 and the actual ended up being 22:56.
this was on 1/1/17, is it too late to apply for compensation? Does this even qualify (8min shy of 4hrs)?
thanks
Aug 11, 17, 1:45 pm
#129
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG
Programs: UA 1K 0.9MM, Marriott Gold, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓
Posts: 13,811
Originally Posted by AceReport
Does this even qualify (8min shy of 4hrs)?
The segment involved did not qualify.
Aug 11, 17, 5:32 pm
#130
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Fransisco, CA
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 162
Originally Posted by Kacee
I wonder if there is a claims agency that handles these in Italy? Because they are just flat thumbing their nose at the European cases interpreting the regulation.
Aug 14, 17, 5:43 am
#131
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Outside of Cleveland Ohio
Programs: UA *G. DL ̶G̶O̶L̶D̶ Member, Hilton/SPG Gold, Hertz PC
Posts: 362
Originally Posted by garykung
No, not because of the time.
The segment involved did not qualify.
The segment involved did not qualify.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_CJE-13-18_en.htm
Aug 14, 17, 6:51 am
#132
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Wesseling, NRW, Germany
Programs: UA *S , MR LT Titanium, HH Diamond, Hertz PC
Posts: 3,877
Originally Posted by AceReport
Why does the Segment not qualify? I thought that all flights departing out of the EU needed to get you to your final destination within the time limits established by EU261?
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_CJE-13-18_en.htm
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_CJE-13-18_en.htm
In the case here, the flight to EWR took off and landed as planned, so it was a fully US-domestic flight that caused the delay. While the wording of the judgement does not fully rule out that this would still be eligible for compensation in connection with a EU-departing flight on one ticket as a connection, a similar approach has been rejected by the court when trying to require non-EU airlines also to compensate passengers when departing for the EU. So my guess is that this delay indeed is not eligible for the compensation as per EC261/04.
Greetings - Dirk
Aug 14, 17, 7:07 am
#133
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Outside of Cleveland Ohio
Programs: UA *G. DL ̶G̶O̶L̶D̶ Member, Hilton/SPG Gold, Hertz PC
Posts: 362
Originally Posted by djohannw
In the case referenced in the press-release, the "offending" flight was a flight departing from Europe, yet the departure delay of that flight was below the three hours threshold. However as a knock-on effect of this delay the connections were subsequently missed increasing the delay to 11 hours when finally arriving at their destination.
In the case here, the flight to EWR took off and landed as planned, so it was a fully US-domestic flight that caused the delay. While the wording of the judgement does not fully rule out that this would still be eligible for compensation in connection with a EU-departing flight on one ticket as a connection, a similar approach has been rejected by the court when trying to require non-EU airlines also to compensate passengers when departing for the EU. So my guess is that this delay indeed is not eligible for the compensation as per EC261/04.
Greetings - Dirk
In the case here, the flight to EWR took off and landed as planned, so it was a fully US-domestic flight that caused the delay. While the wording of the judgement does not fully rule out that this would still be eligible for compensation in connection with a EU-departing flight on one ticket as a connection, a similar approach has been rejected by the court when trying to require non-EU airlines also to compensate passengers when departing for the EU. So my guess is that this delay indeed is not eligible for the compensation as per EC261/04.
Greetings - Dirk
Aug 14, 17, 2:39 pm
#134
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG
Programs: UA 1K 0.9MM, Marriott Gold, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓
Posts: 13,811
Originally Posted by djohannw
In the case here, the flight to EWR took off and landed as planned, so it was a fully US-domestic flight that caused the delay.
1. The offending flight was not UA, but a UA Express flight, mostly ExpressJet. And whatever this regional partner was, this partner did not, does not, and will not operate a TATL flight.
2. It is unlikely that the Bundesgerichtshof and the ECJ can and will establish jurisdiction over a U.S. domestic flight, even the ticket was covered by the EC261.
Beside - the premise of the Air France ruling is to impose penalties over the responsible airlines which resulted the delay. So when UA did not cause the delay, it was unlikely that UA would be liable.
Aug 14, 17, 4:41 pm
#135
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Blair and Brown's Broken Britain
Programs: Lifetime Gold, Global Entry, Hertz PC, and my wallet
Posts: 19,640
Originally Posted by segiddins
I hate to say it, but their strategy is working. I don't want to get myself so worked up over a bit of compensation, but it really stinks they're not following the law.
