This may be of interest to some people
Maybe open the floodgates??
I can see the judges point. Unless they are the ONLY airline to fly out of a particular airport it is common practice to arrange movement of passengers with another carrier (agreement or not in place). Although some carriers can and have been known to refuse.
So yes airlines should pursue all avenues first and keep proof of such...so if it gets to court they can show they at least tried instead of leaving people to just sit it out.Edited: 10:45 pm, October 29, 2013
Hahahahaha ..... says the CEO of Emirates!
And I particularly like the first comment at the bottom of the article (Matt from Manchester),
"We will all be going to Skegness for our holidays again if this compensation lark takes off against airlines. I trip to spain will cost Â£500 a ticket or more soon!!!"
Hahahahaha ..... says the CEO of Emirates!
no it won´t. Let´s assume 10% of all planes would be delayed so much that compensation would have to be paid (a way too high percenatge as we know) and that each and every effected passenger claims for the full compensation and that compensation is paid fully.... it would make a short term tcket 25 € more expensive and an intercontinental 60 €.
Maybe add another 5 € for administration but that´s it. All higher figures are simply made up figures by airlines who try to avoid any payment.
In reality it is less than 1% of all flights that are delayed so much that compensation is due and less than 50% would claim at all (at most) so we are talking about 1,25 € for short haul and 3 € for intercontinental (again, max).
Unexpected technical issues haven't been extraordinary since Wallentin-Hermann so not sure how this is a landmark ruling.
The latest guidelines issued by the CAA do actually cover some technical faults as extraordinary, but as they aren't written into EU261 judges can feel free to ignore them. The sooner the EU revisit this regulation to clarify it, and up the delay time for claims, and reduce compensation the better. It's crazy to have pax claiming more than they paid for the ticket, especially for 2 hr delays.
2 hour delays aren't compensatable. I never understood what the price of the ticket had to do with anything. You're compensated for the inconvenience or time lost. That is the same whether you paid £1 or £1000 for your ticket. I do agree that clarification on several issues is sorely needed.Edited: 4:50 am, October 30, 2013
"...not sure how this is a landmark ruling".
All rulings according to the DM are "landmark" ones!!
<<2 hour delays aren't compensatable. I never understood what the price of the ticket had to do with anything. You're compensated for the inconvenience or time lost. That is the same whether you paid £1 or £1000 for your ticket. I do agree that clarification on several issues is sorely needed.>>
My mistake. Only duty of care on 2 hour delays.
This judgement, though not formally setting a precedent, is a pretty compelling case by a more senior judge than has looked at these issues so far (His Honour Judge Platt is a Circuit Judge, rather than a District Judge). His findings are therefore likely to have a significant influence over District Judges considering these cases in the County Courts.
Lexexpress is absolutely right that since the Wallentin judgement in 2008 (in the European Court), it should have been clear that ordinary technical failures cannot constitute "extraordinary circumstances" (which is the principal excuse airlines have been giving to contest paying compensation). Because of some of the ambiguities in the way Wallentin is drafted, airlines have been arguing that technical faults that are either unpredictable or which were not picked up in routine maintenance are deemed "extraordinary". Of course this is an absurd proposition if you stop to think about it: if the technical failure was predictable, why wouldn't the airline address the vulnerable part before it broke?
The Platt judgement is pretty categorical in saying that, in essence, stuff breaks on airplanes all the times, and so - almost regardless of how it happens - airlines need to have the facilities and capability to fix the problems speedily. That is an inherent part of running an airline.
This is in fact what His Honour says on the matter:
"27. ... [I]n my judgment it does not matter how the technical problem was identified. Whether it was identified by routine maintenance (as was the case in Wallentin) or as a result of a warning light during flight (as in the present case) seems to me to be irrelevant. Equally and for that very reason the fact that it was unexpected and unforeseeable is also irrelevant. The reality is that once a technical problem is identified it is inherent in the normal activity of the air carrier to have to resolve that technical problem. Further, the resolution of the problem, as was demonstrated in this case, is entirely within the control of the carrier.
"28.On such an analysis the delay caused by the resolution of an unexpected, unforeseen and unforeseeable technical problem cannot be said to be an extraordinary circumstance given the Wallentin test. Air carriers have to encounter and deal with such circumstances as part of running an airline just as the owner of a car has to encounter and deal with unexpected and unforeseen breakdowns of his car."
The anecdotal evidence from the MSE forum is that this judgement is proving pretty persuasive. And quite right too. I hope the CAA takes note.