Aer Lingus Delay - Refusal to pay compensation

[Phantom Shadow]

You believe it not to be extraordinary circumstances, both the airline and the IAA believe it is extraordinary circumstances meaning they don't have to pay you anything.

You're unlikely to change their mind by arguing about it so I would get in touch with the no win no fee lawyers and see what they think, court is probably the only place you will be able to resolve this.

 

[Efour]

I think if you had done something about it 15 months ago it would look better.

But whatever, if you have the time and effort, keep crusading. You might get a free flight just to shut up. Which would be worth it i guess.

 

[Cosmic182]

I hate people who try and get compensation for the smallest most ridiculous thing, just because it's a big enough company to do so. They said themselves it was extraudonairy circumstances, suck it up and get on with your life, better than you and everyone else being in a box! You might not have been here whining if they had of put you on that plane. They paid for your taxi, tbh I think that was good enough. Not everything in the world is perfect.

 

[Lopéz]

Yeah, but this falls outside those parameters (extraordinary circumstances).

Airlines will claim pretty much anything to be "extraordinary circumstances", 2 aircraft in a row going tech doesn't sound extraordinary, it sounds sloppy, as does the crew issue.

You believe it not to be extraordinary circumstances, both the airline and the IAA believe it is extraordinary circumstances meaning they don't have to pay you anything.

You're unlikely to change their mind by arguing about it so I would get in touch with the no win no fee lawyers and see what they think, court is probably the only place you will be able to resolve this.

I agree with this - airlines are responding to most of these claims saying they are "extraordinary circumstances" - but just how many of these extraordinary circumstances do there need to be before they are no longer extraordinary? You are almost certainly going to need to consider court action, which you must remember you could lose!

I think if you had done something about it 15 months ago it would look better.

It doesn't have any bearing on the claim.

 

[Lopéz]

I hate people who try and get compensation for the smallest most ridiculous thing, just because it's a big enough company to do so. They said themselves it was extraudonairy circumstances, suck it up and get on with your life, better than you and everyone else being in a box! You might not have been here whining if they had of put you on that plane. They paid for your taxi, tbh I think that was good enough. Not everything in the world is perfect.

People still aren't getting this it seems.

You book a taxi home from a party in the middle of nowhere back to Liverpool.
You stand outside waiting for the taxi, you call the driver but no answer, you wait longer, nothing, you call again but no answer, you wait longer.
Eventually the taxi driver rings and says he has broken down and he's looking for another car whilst trying to fix the first one. Sorry he didn't tell you earlier but you know how it goes.

A few hours later he calls you and says "You'll never believe this right, but the replacement car is knackered as well! These things eh? We're looking for another one now."

More hours pass and he calls again and says "Well the replacement is nearly fixed but you'll never guess what - I've run out of my regulated EU driving hours, and so has my standby driver! What a bind! Still, these things happen. What I'm going to do is send my mate Dave round when he gets the chance, but he'll be dropping you off in Manchester, not Liverpool. But it's okay, we'll give you your bus fare to make it back to Liverpool!"

You'd be happy with that? "Suck it up"?

Not a hope in hell!

 

[Destination]

Yes lopez, and in your case you could not claim a single thing at all.
Anyway OP, you can keep pushing, but it looks like the iaa have decided that a dual mechanical failure on well maintain craft is extraordinary, even if a single failure in a uk court isn't.
If they have decided then european court is probably your only option.

Fifteen months later you are clearly still very bitter about this loss of eight hours. So either go to the european court and win or lose to see it out, or forget about it and move along with your life. You need to decide to do one or the other, as otherwise this will become an issue in your life. You should cease to fixate upon things that occurred so long ago.

Two routes are available, pick one and stop asking the internet, as people reading it will fall into one of two camps, ones who do not see two failures as extraordinary and would like to enforce a uk ruling in a foreign country, and those who think you are crazy.....

 

[ubersonic]

You believe it not to be extraordinary circumstances, both the airline and the IAA believe it is extraordinary circumstances meaning they don't have to pay you anything.

You're unlikely to change their mind by arguing about it so I would get in touch with the no win no fee lawyers and see what they think, court is probably the only place you will be able to resolve this.

The problem is though that it was blatantly extraordinary circumstances and most reasonable people will see this so court is unlikely to resolve it in a way he likes.

Airlines will claim pretty much anything to be "extraordinary circumstances", 2 aircraft in a row going tech doesn't sound extraordinary.

U wot m8?

A serious aircraft failure is almost extraordinary on it's own due to the insane maintenance and underrated replacement intervals of parts (these over-maintenance requirements regularly put small airlines and clubs out of business). Two going down in a row is bordering on "buy a lotto ticket now!" territory >.>

 

[Adam]

Yes lopez, and in your case you could not claim a single thing at all.
Anyway OP, you can keep pushing, but it looks like the iaa have decided that a dual mechanical failure on well maintain craft is extraordinary, even if a single failure in a uk court isn't.
If they have decided then european court is probably your only option.

Fifteen months later you are clearly still very bitter about this loss of eight hours. So either go to the european court and win or lose to see it out, or forget about it and move along with your life. You need to decide to do one or the other, as otherwise this will become an issue in your life. You should cease to fixate upon things that occurred so long ago.

Two routes are available, pick one and stop asking the internet, as people reading it will fall into one of two camps, ones who do not see two failures as extraordinary and would like to enforce a uk ruling in a foreign country, and those who think you are crazy.....

So here is the timeline of events:

- Delay occurred in April 2013
- I filled out Aer Lingus' customer services form online in April 2013
- I hadn't heard after 3 weeks so sent them a letter
- They replied 3 weeks later to say they would not pay compensation due to "extraordinary circumstances"
- I forwarded this to the Irish Aviation Authority in June 2013
- I received the report from the Irish Aviation Authority in August 2013 and accepted their judgement
- I heard things have now changed following the Jet2 v Huzar case in June 2014 on watchdog
- I asked the Irish Aviation Authority to review their position
- I created this thread

In all it's taken me around 2 hours in total, again false assumptions that this is somehow consuming my life.

Anyway, I have instructed a no win no fee solicitor specialising in these claims so for anyone interested I'll let you know how it pans out. They believe I may be entitled to up to 600 euros which is surprising, they take a 27% fee and an admin charge on top.

 

[jon86]

Awesome. Please let us know how it goes.

 

[Malt_Vinegar]

The problem is though that it was blatantly extraordinary circumstances and most reasonable people will see this so court is unlikely to resolve it in a way he likes.

U wot m8?

A serious aircraft failure is almost extraordinary on it's own due to the insane maintenance and underrated replacement intervals of parts (these over-maintenance requirements regularly put small airlines and clubs out of business). Two going down in a row is bordering on "buy a lotto ticket now!" territory >.>

It depends entirely on the failures, and if the aircraft have been taken care of in such a way to minimise these failures. I believe that pilots file a report after a flight detailing any issues they would like engineering to look at, and it is possible that the issues caused on either the standby or original aircraft will have been reported as suspect by pilots prior to the failure. The airline will have to prove that they took all sensible, and reasonable precautions to prevent these failures. If they prove that, then "extraordinary circumstances" will stand, if not, they might be liable.

This is speculation on my behalf, and i am neither a legal, or aviation expert

 

[Haggisman]

Since "ordinary circumstances" could logically be defined as the flight running on time with no issues, anything else could be classed as "extraordinary", so I wonder, under what exact circumstances would you actually be entitled to compensation? Surely it should be redefined to "circumstances outside the control of the airline"?

 

[MooMoo444]

I hate people who try and get compensation for the smallest most ridiculous thing, just because it's a big enough company to do so. They said themselves it was extraudonairy circumstances, suck it up and get on with your life, better than you and everyone else being in a box! You might not have been here whining if they had of put you on that plane. They paid for your taxi, tbh I think that was good enough. Not everything in the world is perfect.

I wish I could be perfect like this guy. He really is on a higher plane of existence.

 

[Adam]

Well I think this is what the recent case against Jet2 clarified. As Lopez mentioned above, airlines can just claim everything is extraordinary and most people just accept it and don't bother to fight it.

Note this draft list of what is considered extraordinary in the context of flight delays: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/air/doc/neb-extraordinary-circumstances-list.pdf

Technical issues and crew out of hours, which were the cause of the delays, are considered as not being extraordinary.

 

[ubersonic]

Note this draft list of what is considered extraordinary in the context of flight delays: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/air/doc/neb-extraordinary-circumstances-list.pdf

Technical issues and crew out of hours, which were the cause of the delays, are considered as not being extraordinary.

As we don't know what actually went wrong with the primary and backup plane it is possible (and most likely) that this falls under category 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25 or 26 which would make it extraordinary according to that list.

The only technical issue on that list that isn't extraordinary is if the failure is due to lack of maintenance, and if that was the case surely the Irish Aviation Authority would have refused to accept it as an excuse.

 

[Trifid]

You'd be happy with that? "Suck it up"?

Not a hope in hell!

You wouldn't be getting £200 compensation for it though. I don't think I see this as any different to claiming compensation from being rear ended in a car which this forum is dead against. It's annoying yes, but not the end of the world having to wait a few hours in most cases.

 

[jhmaeng]

While the Huzar v Jet2 case would not apply in Ireland, the earlier CJEU case of Friederike Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia does. You will see in the text of the Jet2 judgment that the judge simply clarified and upheld the principle of the latter CJEU judgment.

The press release summarising the latter judgment can be seen here:
http://curia.europa.eu/en/actu/communiques/cp08/aff/cp080100en.pdf

It's a very high standard for the airline to satisfy in order to plead "extraordinary circumstance". The relevant bits quoted below:

In its judgment of today, the Court finds that in the light of the specific conditions in which carriage by air takes place and the degree of technological sophistication of aircraft, air carriers are confronted as a matter of course in the exercise of their activity with various technical problems to which the operation of those aircraft inevitably gives rise. The resolution of a technical problem caused by failure to maintain an aircraft must therefore be regarded as inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier’s activity. Consequently, technical problems which come to light during maintenance of aircraft or on account of failure to carry out such maintenance do not constitute, in themselves, ‘extraordinary circumstances’.

However, it is not ruled out that technical problems are covered by ‘exceptional circumstances’ to the extent that they stem from events which are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control. That would be the case, for example, in the situation where it was revealed by the manufacturer of the aircraft comprising the fleet of the air carrier concerned, or by a competent authority, that those aircraft, although already in service, are affected by a hidden manufacturing defect which impinges on flight safety. The same would hold for damage to aircraft caused by acts of sabotage or terrorism.

The Court states that, since not all extraordinary circumstances confer exemption, the onus is on the party seeking to rely on them to establish that, even if it had deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its disposal, it would clearly not have been able – unless it had made intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time – to prevent the extraordinary circumstances with which it was confronted from leading to the cancellation of the flight. The fact that an air carrier has complied with the minimum rules on maintenance of an aircraft cannot in itself suffice to establish that that carrier has taken all reasonable measures so that it is relieved of its obligation to pay compensation.

 

[Malt_Vinegar]

You wouldn't be getting £200 compensation for it though. I don't think I see this as any different to claiming compensation from being rear ended in a car which this forum is dead against. It's annoying yes, but not the end of the world having to wait a few hours in most cases.

Its very different indeed. If you pay for a service, which is (in most cases) quite costly, if you do not receive that service you should be entitled to compensation.

So, for example, if you paid for a product to be shipped on a 1 day tariff, and it arrived after 2 days, would you be happy having paid the price for a 1 day service?

I paid for a flight to return me home at a certain time, they failed to do this, as such they failed to provide the flight/service I paid for. It is really quite simple. I believe the idea behind this is to try to keep airlines providing a decent service and avoid delays/poor performance. If it requires prices to be increased then that is what is needed to provide a safe and reliable service.
Airlines have been in price wars for years (hence the thriving low cost sector) and it is affecting the competition who provide more sensibly priced services badly. I believe the regulators are trying to take control back, and allow a more level playing field and stop dangerous cost cutting that some budget airlines are guilty of.
Ryanair are known to penalise pilots for taking excess fuel, and as such they have declared an alarming number of fuel emergencies in recent years, this also has a knock on to other airlines who miss slots, delay departures/etc whilst they deal with an emergency situation.
For example, I have had it agreed at work that I will never fly Ryanair again. I believe they are not safe and provide a terrible service.

 

[DannyDrama]

Worst 'I'm an entitled ****' thread ever.

 

[Lopéz]

For example, I have had it agreed at work that I will never fly Ryanair again. I believe they are not safe and provide a terrible service.

The same for me, I drive to Glasgow instead of using FlyBe because the route I use is often delayed or cancelled, and the consequences for our business are too great to risk using them.

 

[Adam]

I actually don't mind Ryanair if you accept they will get you from A to B with no real bells and whistles, I'll happily travel with them but always make sure I upgrade the ticket to choose my seat and skip the queue to board. Makes it such a more pleasant experience.

My flight times are normally dictated by meetings and I'll pick the most convenient airport rather to get me there/home. I like Ryanair from Stansted but the 6.30am Dublin flight is an early one by the time my car picks me up, so this week I'll be going from City on the 7am flight which means I can get there later and get through security quicker.