Compensation for ordinary technical faults

[airazurxtror]

UK air passengers are getting greater support from airlines during disruption following recent intervention from the Civil Aviation Authority, said the governing body.

The CAA said that an investigation in March found that Jet2 and Wizz Air were not paying compensation for flights disrupted by ordinary technical faults, despite a Court of Appeal ruling against Jet2 last year that meant airlines couldn't use mechanical breakdowns as a blanket excuse to avoid payouts.

"Following this action, the CAA is pleased to announce that Jet2 and Wizz Air have individually confirmed they are now paying compensation for ordinary technical faults," said a spokesman.

The CAA said it will continue to monitor airlines to ensure compliance with the law. In line with the CAA's enforcement policy we will stand up for passengers' interests and will not hesitate to take action against airlines, if we believe operators are not acting as they should," it said.

[airazurxtror]

Court ruling: Dutch airline KLM lost a case at the ECJ this morning which means thousands of passengers can claim compensation for long delays caused by 'techincal' problems

Technical faults are the most common reason for a hold-up. Airlines have consistently argued over the years that these count as extraordinary despite numerous court decisions to the contrary.

As a result, the case went to the ECJ. And once again, the airlines have lost.

The ruling this morning against Dutch airline KLM should mean all passengers who have faced a three-hour delay due to technical problems should be entitled to a refund.

KLM had been trying to argue that spontaneous technical issues - as opposed to technical issues discovered during routine maintenance of the aircraft - are an extraordinary circumstance.

The ECJ ruled that 'a technical problem' is not one of the extraordinary circumstances that airlines can use as a valid defence against paying flight delay compensation.

Today's ruling is now one of the highest profile cases over the issue of technical problems and is binding in all European courts.

Kevin Clarke, Bott & Co flight delay lawyer, adds: 'The vast majority of technical defects are spontaneous and unpredictable; that is the nature of air travel. If there are any signs whatsoever that a part on a plane is on the verge of breaking, it is automatically replaced.

'The fact that the same issue has had to go to the ECJ despite the supreme court ruling shows the lengths the airline industry will go to avoid paying out on valid claims.

'Fortunately the courts have once again ruled in favour of consumers – we're delighted with this outcome.'

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/holi ... z3lzZgfOmQ

[airazurxtror]

The recent case which has clarified the rules involved Corina van der Lans, whose KLM flight from Quito, Ecuador to Amsterdam, Netherlands was delayed by a whopping 29 hours because of a combination of two faults. The airline said two components were defective: the fuel pump and the hydro mechanical unit.
KLM argued the delay was out of its hands, as the defective components were within their recommended lifespan and the manufacturer hadn’t warned which defects may arise once the components reached a certain age.
Van der Lans took her case to the District Court in Amsterdam, which referred the case to the ECJ. Last week the ECJ found in the Van der Lans’ favour and the ruling cannot be appealed.
The court says that technical problems, whether as a result of failure to carry out maintenance or discovered through routine maintenance, don’t count as extraordinary circumstances. It reasoned that technical faults, even those caused by unexpected events, are inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier's activity.

Hearty thanks to Corina van der Lans ! The problem is now settled - in favour of the passengers.

[sean1982]

This whole trend is worrying to say the least, and exactly the reason why judges with no aviation background should be stopped at all costs. The only thing this precedent will do is put the airlines, and so in the end the crew, to accept airplanes with technical faults in order for the airline not having to pay unreasonably high amounts of money, and in most cases much more than the actual inconvenience caused.

This ruling will make flying less safe ... And that's a sad and even perverse trend

[cathay belgium]

Hi,

Less safe, no.. if you are a proper airline....
More expensive to travel.... certainly...

Guess every airline will raise ticketprices to include this risk...

CXB

[airazurxtror]

Guess every airline will raise ticketprices to include this risk...
CXB

Not every airline - some have new and/or well maintained aircraft. I never had a technical delay with Ryanair or Wizzair, for instance.
But I guess that the guys at Jetairfly have the creep ...

[sean1982]

Hi,

Less safe, no.. if you are a proper airline....
More expensive to travel.... certainly...

Guess every airline will raise ticketprices to include this risk...

CXB

No airline can raise high enough to cover the extortionate costs of these compensations. I dont know if an insurance is available for this? But technical faults that are dispatchable per MEL will now be carried on longer, degrading the overall safety of the aircraft. (And some airlines have the policy of: as long as you dont write it down in the tech log, its not a fault :/)

[airazurxtror]

To compensate : to make an appropriate and counterbalancing payment (according to my Webster).
You cause a prejudice to somebody, you have to compensate. I would say it's only normal.
The compensation for a delay is the same for all passengers, it would be too difficult to work out the exact amount of each passenger's prejudice.
I think that this will enhance the general safety : the airlines will be more careful to care in time for the technical faults so as to avoid costly technical delays.

[JAF737]

To compensate : to make an appropriate and counterbalancing payment (according to my Webster).
You cause a prejudice to somebody, you have to compensate. I would say it's only normal.
The compensation for a delay is the same for all passengers, it would be too difficult to work out the exact amount of each passenger's prejudice.
I think that this will enhance the general safety : the airlines will be more careful to care in time for the technical faults so as to avoid costly technical delays.

Start a new career as a judge; you just keep on proving to the public reading this forum you have 0 knowledge on aviation! Keep going, you're a funny guy to read -)

[airazurxtror]

you just keep on proving to the public reading this forum you have 0 knowledge on aviation! Keep going, you're a funny guy to read

I certainly have, as you put it, zero knowledge as a pilot or airline manager, I have never concealed that; but I have nearly 50 years of experience as an airline passenger.
The EU rules in case of delay have now been explicited, and the airlines will have to follow them, willy nilly. If you find it funny, so much the better.

[sean1982]

To compensate : to make an appropriate and counterbalancing payment (according to my Webster).
You cause a prejudice to somebody, you have to compensate. I would say it's only normal.
The compensation for a delay is the same for all passengers, it would be too difficult to work out the exact amount of each passenger's prejudice.
I think that this will enhance the general safety : the airlines will be more careful to care in time for the technical faults so as to avoid costly technical delays.

So because you bring your car to maintenance every day it wont break down? That's bullshit. A mechznical thing can ALWAYS break, no matter how good you treat it.

And btw, being a passenger for 50 years doesnt mean you know what you're talking about. I've been going to a doctor for 33, but im not gonna go and give medical advice on a forum. Some people here should learn this

[airazurxtror]

And btw, being a passenger for 50 years doesnt mean you know what you're talking about.

I am talking about the EU rules, who are there to be adhered to, like it or hate it.

[JAF737]

And btw, being a passenger for 50 years doesnt mean you know what you're talking about.

I am talking about the EU rules, who are there to be adhered to, like it or hate it.

Then stick to talking about EU rules, and don't elaborate. This is completely ridiculous:

I think that this will enhance the general safety : the airlines will be more careful to care in time for the technical faults so as to avoid costly technical delays.

Not every airline - some have new and/or well maintained aircraft. I never had a technical delay with Ryanair or Wizzair, for instance.
But I guess that the guys at Jetairfly have the creep ...

Sorry for using the word "funny", I meant something else...

[sn26567]

On topic please. Some out of topic posts removed...

[SN539]

I'm sorry but this is obviously non objective ! Some members can make remarks and attacks completely out of topics and when answering I'm out of topic ? The same rules for everybody please !

[sn26567]

SN539, I understand your frustration, but since I had deleted the post to which you were replying, I deleted also yours, which had no reason to be there anymore.

[airazurxtror]

Ryanair confirmed that it complies with EU 261 regulations by accepting technical delay claims and claims made within six years of the date of delay.
Ryanair also noted the decision in the KLM case which will have less effect on Ryanair than any other EU airline as Ryanair suffers fewer delays and fewer cancelations than any other EU airline.

- See more at: http://corporate.ryanair.com/news/news/ ... fNlmh.dpuf