If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
EU Regulation 261/2004 Update
Am 26.03.2012 12:43, schrieb Tom P:
[snip] However, in the final analysis, that doesn't alter the fact that this was a delay and not a cancellation, and different rules apply. No, the European Court has ruled that for delays of more than 3 hours the same rules apply. Moreover at least german courts ruled that technical problems are no excuse in general. The airline has to proove that it really was "unforeseeable", otherwise it's regarded as lack of maintainance. As i already wrote there are now companies that make business of sueing airlines. They win these cases hands down. Josef |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
EU Regulation 261/2004 Update
"Martin" wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:34:15 +0200, Tom P wrote: On 03/24/2012 09:38 AM, tim.... wrote: "Tom wrote in message ... On 03/20/2012 09:14 PM, Jake wrote: Unfortunately, it would appear that 261/2004 is worded in such a way that you are not entitled to compensation. The text is here - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...01:0007:EN:PDF If I read this correctly, the situation is that you were subject to an unforseeable delay. Under Article 6 it says - "1. When an operating air carrier reasonably expects a flight to be delayed beyond its scheduled time of departu . . . " However, the air carrier apparently did not expect the flight to be delayed - it was unforseeable. An EU court has ruled that this particular definition of "unforeseeable" by airlines is incorrect. tim Indeed, the wording of this clause of the regulation is idiotic. Last week KLM/AF lost a Dutch high court action to avoid paying compensation to travellers inconvenienced by the Icelandic volcano. Any idea where I can read details of this case? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
EU Regulation 261/2004 Update
On 03/27/2012 11:06 AM, Martin wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 02:28:33 +0100, wrote: wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:34:15 +0200, Tom wrote: On 03/24/2012 09:38 AM, tim.... wrote: "Tom wrote in message ... On 03/20/2012 09:14 PM, Jake wrote: Unfortunately, it would appear that 261/2004 is worded in such a way that you are not entitled to compensation. The text is here - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...01:0007:EN:PDF If I read this correctly, the situation is that you were subject to an unforseeable delay. Under Article 6 it says - "1. When an operating air carrier reasonably expects a flight to be delayed beyond its scheduled time of departu . . . " However, the air carrier apparently did not expect the flight to be delayed - it was unforseeable. An EU court has ruled that this particular definition of "unforeseeable" by airlines is incorrect. tim Indeed, the wording of this clause of the regulation is idiotic. Last week KLM/AF lost a Dutch high court action to avoid paying compensation to travellers inconvenienced by the Icelandic volcano. Any idea where I can read details of this case? In the Dutch press. It's the kind of thing that makes Europe such a wonderful place to operate for the (fill in the blanks). see - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule quote: "The use of this technique is meant to empower the sovereign to control subjects, populations, or factions of different interests, who collectively might be able to oppose his rule." |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
EU Regulation 261/2004 Update
On 03/28/2012 12:04 AM, Martin wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 23:45:59 +0200, Tom wrote: On 03/27/2012 11:06 AM, Martin wrote: On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 02:28:33 +0100, wrote: wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:34:15 +0200, Tom wrote: On 03/24/2012 09:38 AM, tim.... wrote: "Tom wrote in message ... On 03/20/2012 09:14 PM, Jake wrote: Unfortunately, it would appear that 261/2004 is worded in such a way that you are not entitled to compensation. The text is here - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...01:0007:EN:PDF If I read this correctly, the situation is that you were subject to an unforseeable delay. Under Article 6 it says - "1. When an operating air carrier reasonably expects a flight to be delayed beyond its scheduled time of departu . . . " However, the air carrier apparently did not expect the flight to be delayed - it was unforseeable. An EU court has ruled that this particular definition of "unforeseeable" by airlines is incorrect. tim Indeed, the wording of this clause of the regulation is idiotic. Last week KLM/AF lost a Dutch high court action to avoid paying compensation to travellers inconvenienced by the Icelandic volcano. Any idea where I can read details of this case? In the Dutch press. It's the kind of thing that makes Europe such a wonderful place to operate for the (fill in the blanks). see - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule quote: "The use of this technique is meant to empower the sovereign to control subjects, populations, or factions of different interests, who collectively might be able to oppose his rule." Not really. I assume that KLM's T&Cs define where court cases are to be held. My line of thought was that the outcome of a court case in one EU country might not necessarily give rise to precedent in another country. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cut-Throat Competition --- De-Regulation Is Good (?) | Robert Cohen | Air travel | 8 | March 29th, 2006 08:16 AM |
125cc Motorcycles in France class B + A1 regulation? | Lee | Europe | 0 | January 3rd, 2005 02:08 PM |
Questions on America West Baggage regulation | Peng Yu | Air travel | 1 | August 6th, 2004 04:57 PM |
Cruise Tax & Regulation Initiative Fails! | Ray Goldenberg | Cruises | 13 | January 17th, 2004 06:28 PM |
!!! GGC 2004 UPDATE !!!!!! | Cruising Chrissy | Cruises | 8 | January 6th, 2004 02:26 AM |