Hi,
I'm flying to OPO on Saturday 1 Sept. (SN3811; B733) and yesterday got a phone call from SN to let me know about a change in the schedule; the plane should now leave at 15:40 instead of 12:40. Does anyone know the reason?
Many thanks
SN3811 BRU-OPO on 1 Sept.: schedule change
Moderator: Latest news team
Re: BRU-OPO
Well, I flew the same BRU-OPO route on the eve, 31st August, and the same happened - call on Thursday to announce the flight would be leaving 3 hours later.
Only for it to be delayed again on Friday, it took off at 20:09 !! (originally scheduled for 12.10)
I asked their staff what was happening, at Zaventem I was told there first there had been "a problem" (sic) and then a technical problem that left the plane requiring repair in Lisbon.
This situation obviously caused me damages. I asked for the EC Regulation on flight cancellations and delays and told them I would make a protest. 8 hours !!
But the EC Regulation offers virtually no protection in cases of cancellation or long delay beyond the (almost trivial) rebooking, does anybody know if some sort of compensation for damages can be put through, or any other channel to "make a protest" ?
I mean, I really find it unacceptable that this should have happened quite a few times along last week, and in this case it meant an 8 hour difference...
Best,
Pedro
Only for it to be delayed again on Friday, it took off at 20:09 !! (originally scheduled for 12.10)
I asked their staff what was happening, at Zaventem I was told there first there had been "a problem" (sic) and then a technical problem that left the plane requiring repair in Lisbon.
This situation obviously caused me damages. I asked for the EC Regulation on flight cancellations and delays and told them I would make a protest. 8 hours !!
But the EC Regulation offers virtually no protection in cases of cancellation or long delay beyond the (almost trivial) rebooking, does anybody know if some sort of compensation for damages can be put through, or any other channel to "make a protest" ?
I mean, I really find it unacceptable that this should have happened quite a few times along last week, and in this case it meant an 8 hour difference...
Best,
Pedro
Re:
I understand that for a couple of hours, but 8 I think is far too much. It means a wasted day.
My reasoning was, replacement planes should be in operation to face up to such problems. Seems to me that there is a gap in the EU regulation, between the rules on overbooking and those on flight cancelling and long delays. But hélas ...
My reasoning was, replacement planes should be in operation to face up to such problems. Seems to me that there is a gap in the EU regulation, between the rules on overbooking and those on flight cancelling and long delays. But hélas ...
Bru Air did the same to me : 6 hous delay!
They should have given you meal vouchers!
The only other "compensation" they have to give you is the refund of your ticket if you decide not to travel. They have to refund this amount to you within 7 days. Otherwise zero, nada, nothing, rien de knots.
A nice document can be found on
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_porta ... ion_en.htm
Giving a compensation for every delay would be a little bit to easy (the cost of this would be calculated in the slaes price of your ticket) On the other hand the airliners have no real incentive to avoid overloading the schedules of their aircraft.
The only people who will demand a refund are those who make day returns.
Cheers,
Stij
They should have given you meal vouchers!
The only other "compensation" they have to give you is the refund of your ticket if you decide not to travel. They have to refund this amount to you within 7 days. Otherwise zero, nada, nothing, rien de knots.
A nice document can be found on
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_porta ... ion_en.htm
Giving a compensation for every delay would be a little bit to easy (the cost of this would be calculated in the slaes price of your ticket) On the other hand the airliners have no real incentive to avoid overloading the schedules of their aircraft.
The only people who will demand a refund are those who make day returns.
Cheers,
Stij
Wrong, there are things you cannot expect even with perfect maintenance. Remember an aircraft can be stuck on the ground for a minor issue...OO-SAB wrote:Technical problems should not be considered as "force majeure". They are entirely the airline's responsibility (bad maintenance, etc.). Hence you should be entitled to compensation as provided by EU legislation.
A technical problem is extraordinary circumstances, but only if it's a security or a safety concern and it could not have been foreseen (= if maintenance instructions, normal flying attitude, etc. have been followed).
Bird strike, engine problem, cargo door doesn't want to open, flat tire: flight safety problem, thus extr. circ.
Cockpit door problem is a security risk, thus also extr. circ.
If the satellite telephone from F-seat A1 is broken, or if the liquor trolley cannot be removed from the kitchen: no safety concern, no security risk, thus no extr. circ.
If a truck hits a wing or a cargo door: safety problem, but it could have been foreseen if the driver would have been more carefully, thus: no extr. circ.
However, more important are the consequences from extraordinary circumstances. EU-Regulation 261/2004 says that obligations then are limited or excluded. This indeed calls for common sense. Some airlines immediately go for the "excluded", but it is common sense with regular airlines that "limited" is more appropriate if there is damage to the passengers. So, if a flight is delayed for a technical problem with safety concern, most airlines do offer meals and drinks to the pax, and they agree for rerouting. Same applies for a bird strike: although it's the upmost thinkable example of an extraordinary circumstance, regular airlines will also pay for hotel accommodation if the engine has to be replaced. But it's common sense that financial indemnity because of a bird strike is not necessary.
- - -
In both cases here, it seems that the helpdesk had to go for the "obligations are limited" and not the "obligations are excluded". Snack and drink for a three hour delay are quite acceptable, and a pax asking for a rerouting at a 8 hour delay also.
Fortunately, EU 261/2004 is a Consumer protection law, so it's possible to complain when you're already back home and also after the airline has rejected your request. Every EU member state has a NEB / National Enforcement Body. Just send them a mail with as many practical details as possible, and a short objective relay of what happened (thus not "the bastards who refused to help me", but "the nice lady from the check-in").
All EU-NEB's: http://tinyurl.com/wybln
- - -
EU-Regulation 261/2004 = http://tinyurl.com/3ctzhn
(14) "As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier.
(15) Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where the impact of an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day gives rise to a long delay, an overnight delay, or the cancellation of one or more flights by that aircraft, even though all reasonable measures had been taken by the air carrier concerned to avoid the delays or cancellations.
Bird strike, engine problem, cargo door doesn't want to open, flat tire: flight safety problem, thus extr. circ.
Cockpit door problem is a security risk, thus also extr. circ.
If the satellite telephone from F-seat A1 is broken, or if the liquor trolley cannot be removed from the kitchen: no safety concern, no security risk, thus no extr. circ.
If a truck hits a wing or a cargo door: safety problem, but it could have been foreseen if the driver would have been more carefully, thus: no extr. circ.
However, more important are the consequences from extraordinary circumstances. EU-Regulation 261/2004 says that obligations then are limited or excluded. This indeed calls for common sense. Some airlines immediately go for the "excluded", but it is common sense with regular airlines that "limited" is more appropriate if there is damage to the passengers. So, if a flight is delayed for a technical problem with safety concern, most airlines do offer meals and drinks to the pax, and they agree for rerouting. Same applies for a bird strike: although it's the upmost thinkable example of an extraordinary circumstance, regular airlines will also pay for hotel accommodation if the engine has to be replaced. But it's common sense that financial indemnity because of a bird strike is not necessary.
- - -
In both cases here, it seems that the helpdesk had to go for the "obligations are limited" and not the "obligations are excluded". Snack and drink for a three hour delay are quite acceptable, and a pax asking for a rerouting at a 8 hour delay also.
Fortunately, EU 261/2004 is a Consumer protection law, so it's possible to complain when you're already back home and also after the airline has rejected your request. Every EU member state has a NEB / National Enforcement Body. Just send them a mail with as many practical details as possible, and a short objective relay of what happened (thus not "the bastards who refused to help me", but "the nice lady from the check-in").
All EU-NEB's: http://tinyurl.com/wybln
- - -
EU-Regulation 261/2004 = http://tinyurl.com/3ctzhn
(14) "As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier.
(15) Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where the impact of an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day gives rise to a long delay, an overnight delay, or the cancellation of one or more flights by that aircraft, even though all reasonable measures had been taken by the air carrier concerned to avoid the delays or cancellations.