EC Regulation 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Join this forum to discuss the latest news that happened in the world of commercial aviation.

Moderator: Latest news team

Passenger
Posts: 6213
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

EC Regulation 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by Passenger » 17 Sep 2015, 16:19

On 17th September 2015, the European Court of Justice has ruled that technical problems are no "extraordinary circumstances" that waive the indemnity (250-600 Euro) that airlines have to pay when a technical issue causes a delay or a cancellation. Airlines can claim the indemnity from the manufacturer of the failing part that caused the problem, the court states.

EU Court verdict Carola van der Lans versus KLM:
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-257/14
(language change into EN, FR, DE, ... is possible there: see Curia, then "Taal van het document" -> ...)

In brief - the press release:
EN:
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/P_174034/
NL:
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/P_174041/
FR:
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/P_174033/
DE:
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/P_174036/

All above press releases end with a direct link to the full court verdict, in the language of the press release

- - -

Above is a factual report about this new verdict. My personal opinion is that this court verdict contradicts with aviation safety. Example: it will put pressure onto certain airlines in case of a technical issue: "do we continue to our final destination, or do we divert?".

LJ
Posts: 851
Joined: 14 Mar 2004, 00:00
Location: Alkmaar NL

Re: EU Rule 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by LJ » 17 Sep 2015, 22:54

Passenger wrote: Above is a factual report about this new verdict. My personal opinion is that this court verdict contradicts with aviation safety. Example: it will put pressure onto certain airlines in case of a technical issue: "do we continue to our final destination, or do we divert?".
I doubt that will happen as they would be liable in case of a serious event (and would create more financial loss than a couple thousands EUR in compensation under 261/2004). Moreover, the court mentioned specifically that an airline could prevent this by more and better maintenance. To be honest, this ruling was to be expected given previous rulings, which already mentioned that technical issues are part of the operation of an airline and thus cannot be considered extraordinary. Moreover, let's be honest, if airlines didn't try to get out of paying compensation due to "technical delays" in the past, we wouldn't be in this situation.

Passenger
Posts: 6213
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: EU Rule 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by Passenger » 05 Nov 2015, 19:52

It seems that Ryanair (who else) will deny boarding to some 100 Polish football supporters (Legia Warsaw) who have a confirmed return flight back home = from Charleroi to Poland.

The press reports that Ryanair has blacklisted them "because they made a mess in the incoming flight to Charleroi":

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/sportwereld/cn ... n=64038139

Could be all very true, but there is no legal basis to blacklist all of them and thus deny all of them access to the return flight (unless the airline has opened a file for each of the hundred passengers, with their seat number and with individual reports by the crew). Indeed: what proof is there that passenger nr 27 on the blacklist has participated to the problems on the incoming flight? Maybe he was silent and polite. Same applies for passengers nrs 9, 19, 31, 42, 57, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 97, 98, 99 and 100 on that blacklist: what is the proof that they, as an individual in the aicraft, behaved badly?

Stand up for your rights, supporters!

sean1982
Posts: 3163
Joined: 18 Mar 2003, 00:00
Contact:

Re: EU Rule 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by sean1982 » 05 Nov 2015, 20:02

Article 7 of FR's general terms and conditions: we may refuse you or your baggage if you have misconducted on a previous flight and we have reason to believe such conduct may be repeated.

All 100 passengers were arrested for continued refusal of complying with safety requests, being under the influence of alcohol and/or verbal abuse of the crew. All their details were recorded per individual passenger together with the details of the attending officers and 100 offload reports where issued as per current EASA procedures

User avatar
lumumba
Posts: 1578
Joined: 04 Sep 2003, 00:00
Location: brussels Europe

Re: EU Rule 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by lumumba » 05 Nov 2015, 20:08

I can completely understand that.....you have no police there in the sky and 100 in one plane is a lot.
Hasta la victoria siempre.

Passenger
Posts: 6213
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: EU Rule 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by Passenger » 05 Nov 2015, 20:20

sean1982 wrote:Article 7 of FR's general terms and conditions: we may refuse you or your baggage if you have misconducted on a previous flight and we have reason to believe such conduct may be repeated.

All 100 passengers were arrested for continued refusal of complying with safety requests, being under the influence of alcohol and/or verbal abuse of the crew. All their details were recorded per individual passenger together with the details of the attending officers and 100 offload reports where issued as per current EASA procedures
EU legislation prevails over your sales conditions, including your Article 7.

They were not arrested. They were, at the most, interrogated by the police and then released without charge. If the infracts are correct, those passengers should have been arrested upon arrival in Charleroi. Infracts against aircrew's orders are punished severely, with jail punishment and a high fine. That all passengers were allowed to leave the airport after a few hours proofs that the 100 so called offload reports were 100 copies of a standard form.

sean1982
Posts: 3163
Joined: 18 Mar 2003, 00:00
Contact:

Re: EU Rule 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by sean1982 » 05 Nov 2015, 20:33

Nope and you clearly show your lack of knowledge about offload procedures ;)

Unless off course you want to enter into a discussion with an IAA licensed security Instructor who actually ammended the manuals for offloads a few years back in the same way you went into discussion with a JAF 787 pilot about transatlantic crossings

LJ
Posts: 851
Joined: 14 Mar 2004, 00:00
Location: Alkmaar NL

Re: EU Rule 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by LJ » 06 Nov 2015, 23:08

Passenger wrote:They were not arrested. They were, at the most, interrogated by the police and then released without charge. If the infracts are correct, those passengers should have been arrested upon arrival in Charleroi. Infracts against aircrew's orders are punished severely, with jail punishment and a high fine. That all passengers were allowed to leave the airport after a few hours proofs that the 100 so called offload reports were 100 copies of a standard form.
You don't have to be arrested to enter the no-fly list of a specific airline. Airlines exclusio
Passenger wrote:EU legislation prevails over your sales conditions, including your Article 7.
However, which EU law would prevail? Not 261/2004. Any airline may refuse to fly you if they have a valid reason. Moreover, you can punish a group instead of the sole individual.

Passenger
Posts: 6213
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: EU Rule 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by Passenger » 07 Nov 2015, 16:48

airazurxtror wrote:Gone five days ago for a holiday in Egypt, Albina and Paulina T. (Russian-sounding name) were denied boarding the Jetairfly flight that would take them back to Belgium this Friday night. The mother and daughter, resident in Belgium had not yet as bags "cabin" as they were gone for a short stay. Once the "check-in" past, impossible to embark: the doors close before their eyes. Taken aback, the wife contacted her husband remained in Belgium. He calls the call center of the Jetairfly for more explanations. On the phone, they explain to him that his wife and daughter are on the list of people "at risk" 'but against no information is given to the travelers on the spot. Finally, they learn that they cannot embark on any Jetairfly flight for safety reasons. Albina and Paulina are then invited to buy tickets to go with another company. The JAF return ticket will be refunded. The company justifies and explains that she has the right to refuse passengers on board, referring to its terms and conditions. The husband was able to find another flight to bring back his wife and daughter in Belgium. They boarded another plane of Aeroflot and are currently in transit in Moscow. Foreign Affairs said they had not been kept informed of the refusal to take on passengers to Brussels. An element that pushes the husband to believe that Russian nationality of his wife is the only cause of rejection. It does not understand the tour operator's decision to have agreed to ship them five days ago but not today.

That is Jetairfly ... Scandalous, if you ask me. But then, when you book on Jetairfly, you deserve all that can happen to you.
sean1982 wrote:Every company has the right to refuse passengers if they might pose a threat against the aircraft, crew or passengers and doesnt even have to give an explanation as to why. It has nothing to do with JAF in particular and this crusade of you is on the border of ridiculous
airazurxtror wrote: Posing a threat because you have a Russian-sounding name ? What next ? Because you have an arab- or Jewish-sounding name ? because your nose is too long or your skin too dark ? And why would a passenger with a Russian-sounding name be a threat to security on the inbound flight whilst having been accepted on the outbound flight ? because in the meantime a Russian aircraft has allegedly been sabotaged ? Where is the connection ? Does it mean that you are never sure to be brought back home by Jetairfly ? I am sure the affected passengers will lodge a complaint and demand heavy damages compensation. And rightly so.
sean1982 wrote:How the hell do you know that that was the only reason? Because the passengers family said so?? Those 9/11 terrorists also said they were just taking flying lessons for fun. JAF has no obligation and is even prevented by law to disclose any details as to why these passengers were refused. Those passengers were removed under the rules in the general terms and conditions and they are lucky they get the money for their return flight back because they are not even entitled to that!
Oh boy. Let’s put some things clear here because too much acid (zuur) has been spread.

Once a ticket is sold, which is the case for the passengers that were denied boarding in Sharm el Sheihk on 6th Nov, European legislation EU-Rule 261/2004 applies. And EU 261/2004 prevails to the General Conditions airlines apply. EU 261/2004 even forbits that airlines counter the content via general conditions: see Article 15, 1. “Exclusion of waiver. Obligations vis-à-vis passengers pursuant to this Regulation may not be limited or waived, notably by a derogation or restrictive clause in the contract of carriage…”

The reason why Jetairfly was allowed to deny boarding to these Russian passengers, is not because their general conditions allow to do so. The only reason to deny confirmed passengers from boarding is when Jetairfly refers to remark (14) from 261/2004: (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.

Jetairfly apparently estimated that the passengers were “a safety risk” (cfr 261/2004). When the passengers disagree, they can simply file a compaint with the National Enforcement Body for 261/2004 of their choice, and ask for the compensation (600 € + hotel costs + cost of the return flight via Moscow). It’s a free procedure and it's then this NEB who will decide if there was or wasn't a safety risk as per 261/2004 (in Belgium, the NEB is the Belgian CAA - link is on this page: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/air/ ).

Knowing both Jetair’s legal and commercial departments as third party, I contradict what airazuxtror concludes in his sour posts above. I think there were other factors that the passengers have not communicated to the press. Luckily for the passengers, a neutral body will finally decide.

But maybe that won't be necessary. Given the massive cost for the repatriation, including sending a Belgian sniffer dog unit to Sharm el Sheikh, I guess that Jetairfly will re-imburse the Russian passengers once things have cooled down.

And finally: my remarks may contradict with those from "...an IAA licensed security Instructor who actually ammended the manuals for offloads a few years back...".But then, we know his company's policy regarding EU Rule 261/2004: "Ryanair never pays compensation. Passengers must go to court". Once again: denied boarding is consumer legislation. And though I'm no lawyer, I know what I'm talking about: I'm dealing with that stuff, quite officially actually, since a few decades.

LJ
Posts: 851
Joined: 14 Mar 2004, 00:00
Location: Alkmaar NL

Re: EU Rule 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by LJ » 07 Nov 2015, 22:19

Passenger wrote:(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.
Yet this is what's in most general conditions of airlines and probably also the basis why FR refused the pax. The fact that the term "security risk" can be interpreted broadly (hence why this will probably end up in court) and you can be branded as such quite easily and doesn't mean that 261/2004 get you on each flight once you have a valid ticket (which these pax may not even have as it's possible that FR voided their return flight). We've seen this happening on other airlines as well and these 100 Polish soccer fans are certainly not the first (and last) to overcome this.

sean1982
Posts: 3163
Joined: 18 Mar 2003, 00:00
Contact:

Re: EU Rule 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by sean1982 » 07 Nov 2015, 22:28

Passenger likes to measure with 2 weights and sizes

Passenger
Posts: 6213
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: EU Rule 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by Passenger » 08 Nov 2015, 14:09

LJ wrote:
Passenger wrote:(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.
Yet this is what's in most general conditions of airlines and probably also the basis why FR refused the pax. The fact that the term "security risk" can be interpreted broadly (hence why this will probably end up in court) and you can be branded as such quite easily and doesn't mean that 261/2004 get you on each flight once you have a valid ticket (which these pax may not even have as it's possible that FR voided their return flight). We've seen this happening on other airlines as well and these 100 Polish soccer fans are certainly not the first (and last) to overcome this.
Indeed, airlines have general conditions in which they describe when they are allowed to refuse pax. However, EU Rule 261/2004 preveals to those general conditions and 261/2004 even forbits to counter whatever article from the rule via own general conditions: Obligations vis-à-vis passengers pursuant to this Regulation may not be limited or waived, notably by a derogation or restrictive clause in the contract of carriage. De uit deze verordening voortvloeiende verplichtingen ten aanzien van de passagier kunnen niet worden beperkt of teniet worden gedaan door middel van bijvoorbeeld een beperkings- of ontheffingsclausule in de vervoerovereenkomst. Les obligations envers les passagers qui sont énoncées par le présent règlement ne peuvent être limitées ou levées, notamment par une dérogation ou une clause restrictive figurant dans le contrat de transport.

And that is exactly what Ryanair has done with the 100 Polish soccer fans: they all have a confirmed return ticket, which means that 261/2004 applies. Ryanair has cancelled their return flight, and Ryanair said the cancellation is done as per their conditions of carriage. EU 261/2004 forbits this. So the closest Ryanair could argue, is that there was a "safety risk". But was there really for the return flight? That's not sure. Could be. Maybe. Perhaps. It's even not sure there was a "safety risk" on the inbound flight: the aircraft didn’t divert to another airport to offload them, they weren’t handcuffed upon arrival, they weren't even arrested upon arrival for violation of international law (unlawful interference with aircrew). Were they very very noisy? Were some of them drunk ? Did some of them denied orders from a crew member? Yep, absolutely. But not all 100 of them. So had Ryanair the right to deny all of them on the return flight ? No, 261/2004 forbits this. Ryanair should have allowed them to check in in CRL, and then give them a warning: "use of alcohol before the flight will be seen as a safety risk". And only then, when they did start drinking, at the airport, the captain of the flight could have denied them boarding.

Same applies for the Jetairfly passengers that were denied boarding in Sharm el Sheikh, apparently because of their Russian passports. If that was the only reason for the denied boarding, Jetairfly will have to pay them the compensation as per 261/2004 (= indemnity, cost of other tickets, hotel costs).

Regarding Ryanair, their policy towards the compensation is known, as Ryanair’s CEO recently declared to TravelWeekly.co.uk : "We have a policy of always appealing cases...". So even when it is absolutely obvious that FR passengers are entitled for a compensation, Ryanair refuses.
Source for the above quote:
http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/Articles/ ... +trot.html

Referring to Sean (Ryanair) remark about my so called "double standards": Ryanair even charges each passenger 2 € p/p as "EU Rule 261/2004 surcharge". But at the same time, they say they don’t accept the rule. Talking about double standards…

sean1982
Posts: 3163
Joined: 18 Mar 2003, 00:00
Contact:

Re: EU Rule 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by sean1982 » 09 Nov 2015, 12:23

you talk like you have inside info, but in fact you dont .. so EVERYTHING you posted in that previous post ... and I mean EVERYTHING is pure and utter bullshit :D

You don't know what they did, you dont know what paperwork was filled in upon their removal from the aircraft, you don't know what charges were made against them by the airline after removal from the aircraft. You dont know how much compensation Ryanair pays out to passengers each year. You have no FACTS whatsoever and as usual your posts are made up of presumptions and prejudice. Way to go


If you really want to talk about this, read up on IRISH laws and regulations in particular about the offload request and prosecution paperwork ;)

Passenger
Posts: 6213
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: EU Rule 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by Passenger » 07 Jan 2016, 17:51

The Dutch Aviation Inspectorate has threatened Vueling with a penalty of 60.000-90.000 Euro for each time it will refuse to pay out the compensation, as set out in EU Rule 261/2004. The ILT says that Vueling sends passengers a standard reply with "extraordinary circumstances apply", even when it's clear that they do not apply.

Press release Inspectie Leefomgeving en Transport (ILT)

De Inspectie Leefomgeving en Transport (ILT) heeft een last onder dwangsom opgelegd aan Vueling Airlines. De luchtvaartmaatschappij overtreedt volgens de inspectie stelselmatig de compensatieplicht voor passagiers bij vertraging, instapweigering of annulering van een vlucht. Bij elke geconstateerde overtreding moet Vueling een dwangsom tussen de 60.000 en 96.000 euro betalen. Het totale bedrag kan oplopen tot maximaal een miljoen euro. Hiermee wil de ILT Vueling dwingen om aan de compensatieplicht te voldoen.

Op basis van Europese regelgeving hebben passagiers recht op compensatie als hun vlucht is geannuleerd of meer dan drie uur is vertraagd. Recht op compensatie bij vertraging of annulering is de regel, alleen in uitzonderlijke gevallen kan de luchtvaartmaatschappij zich beroepen op buitengewone omstandigheden (bijvoorbeeld stakingen of extreme weersomstandigheden). Passagiers moeten voor compensatie een claim bij hun luchtvaartmaatschappij indienen. Indien de luchtvaartmaatschappij de claim afwijst, kunnen passagiers een klacht indienen bij de ILT.

De ILT heeft vastgesteld dat Vueling passagiers een standaard afwijzing stuurt zonder aan te tonen dat er buitengewone omstandigheden waren. Pas als passagiers daarover een klacht indienen bij de ILT compenseert Vueling alsnog. Door de terechte verzoeken om compensatie eerst af te wijzen, overtreedt Vueling de wet. Passagiers die deze afwijzing accepteren, lopen compensatie mis. Daardoor hoeft Vueling minder compensatie te betalen. Dit leidt tot oneerlijke concurrentie met luchtvaartmaatschappijen die passagiers wel volgens de regels compenseren.

De ILT heeft Vueling herhaaldelijk aangesproken en in 2015 onder verscherpt toezicht geplaatst. Nu blijkt dat Vueling haar werkwijze nog steeds niet heeft aangepast, heeft de inspectie een last onder dwangsom opgelegd. Passagiers hebben de mogelijkheid een nieuwe of eerder afgewezen compensatieclaim over vluchten (opnieuw) in te dienen bij luchtvaartmaatschappijen, mits hun vlucht niet langer dan twee jaar geleden heeft plaatsgevonden.

Source:
https://www.ilent.nl/actueel/ilt-legt-v ... om-op.aspx

Translation by Google Translate:

The Environment and Transport Inspectorate (ILT) has imposed a penalty on Vueling Airlines SA The carrier according to the inspection systematically violates the obligation to compensate passengers for delays, denied boarding or cancellation of a flight. Any observed Vueling offense must pay a fine between 60,000 and 96,000 euros. The total amount can be up to one million euros. This will ILT Vueling force it to comply with the obligation to compensate.

On the basis of European legislation, passengers have a right to compensation if their flight is canceled or delayed more than three hours. Right to compensation in case of delay or cancellation is the rule, only in exceptional cases, the airline can invoke extraordinary circumstances (eg strikes or extreme weather conditions). Passengers need for compensation claim from their airline. If the carrier rejects the claim, passengers can file a complaint with the ILT.

The ILT has determined that Vueling passengers sends a standard rejection without showing that there were exceptional circumstances. Only when passengers about filing a complaint with the ILT Vueling still compensates. By the rightful demands for compensation to reject first, Vueling breaking the law. Passengers who accept this rejection, miss out on compensation. Vueling therefore have to pay less compensation. This leads to unfair competition with airlines or passengers offset by the rules.

The ILT Vueling has repeatedly addressed and placed under surveillance in 2015. Now it appears that Vueling her method still has not adjusted the inspection imposed a penalty. Passengers have the option of a new or previously rejected compensation claims from flights (again) to submit to airlines, provided that their flight has no more than two years previously.

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 35232
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

Re: EU Rule 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by sn26567 » 22 Feb 2016, 19:28

Employers can claim delay compensation from air carriers

According to European Court of Justice’s binding judgment, not only travelers, but employers of business passengers, that faced delayed flights, can claim compensation from air carriers, Irish Times report.

Airlines will have to cover the losses suffered by the employers, because Court of Justice, referring to the Montreal Convention ruled that concept of consumer “may include persons who are not themselves carried and are therefore not passengers.”

In previous cases Court of Justice clarified that travelers who arrive “three hours or more after the scheduled arrival time” have a right to compensation. The decision also applies in case of connecting flights when travelers arrive at their final destination three or more hours late.

Court of Justice clarified that the compensation air carriers have to pay employers in “cannot in any case exceed the cumulative amount of compensation that could be awarded to all of the passengers concerned if they were to bring proceedings individually.”
André
ex Sabena #26567

Passenger
Posts: 6213
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: EU Rule 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by Passenger » 15 Apr 2016, 12:30

sean1982 wrote:
Passenger wrote:Brussels Airlines fully respected aviation legislation EU Rule 261/2004. Brussels Airlines gave all passengers the right to cancel, also during the days after 22/03. One competitor (a low cost carrier) simply told its passengers that the flights were not cancelled, but just reschuduled to/from Charleroi. Whilst Brussels Airlines was loosing bookings ànd was organizing transport for the remaining passengers to/from the regional airports, a competitor cashed in...
Total and utter lies. Passengers got their transport costs reimbursed.
No sir. I give the truth, nothing but the truth (unconvenient perhaps). Ryanair did not respect the basis rule for cancelled flights, as stated in EU-Rule 261/2004. In case of a cancellation because of force majeure/overmacht, passengers must be offered the right to choose between a cancellation (with full refund) and a rebooking into a new flight (example to/from Charleroi).

Ryanair refused to offer this choice. Actually, Ryanair even refused to say that the flights were cancelled (except for one day = on 22/03). For flights after 23/03, Ryanair said they were just operating out of Brussels Charleroi i.s.o. Brussels Zaventem, and Ryanair said that passengers had to accept this change. Only aim: to avoid that passengers would cancel, as happened with the bona fide airlines.

Regarding the reimbursement of transport to/from CRL: Ryanair didn’t even respect the basic rule of the legislation, and you want us to believe that Ranair will reimburse transport costs? If so, then why wasn’t that announced on the relevant info page? Simply because that would cause a legal obligation. The only right that passengers have, is the right to send an email to Dublin and ask for a refund.


This is how Ryanair announced the changes, one week after the attack:

- - - - - - - - - -

Luchthaven Brussel Zaventem blijft op dit moment gesloten. Alle Ryanair vluchten die t/m Donderdag 07 april gepland staan te vliegen naar/van Brussel Zaventem zullen vliegen naar/van Brussel Charleroi.

Passagiers die vanaf Brussel Zaventem hebben geboekt zullen in deze periode vanaf Brussel Charleroi moeten reizen. Alleen klanten met een geldige instapkaart zal worden toegestaan om de terminal gebouw binnen te gaan.

Enkele vluchten zijn geannuleerd op Brussel Zaventem (22 maart). Passagiers waarvan hun vlucht is geannuleerd kunnen hieronder omboeken of een volledige vergoeding aanvragen. Een aantal vluchten werden (22 maart) te Brussel Zaventem geannuleerd.


- - - - - - - - - - -

L’aéroport de Bruxelles Zaventem (Brussels Airport) reste fermé à l’heure actuelle. Tous les vols de Ryanair prévu au départ de /arrivée à Bruxelles Zaventem jusqu’au Jeudi 07er Avril inclus vont continuer d’opérer au départ de /arrivée Bruxelles Charleroi.

Les clients ayant réservé un vol au départ de Bruxelles Zaventem à ces dates-ci devront par conséquent se rendre vers Bruxelles Charleroi. Seuls les clients ayant une carte d'embarquement valide seront autorisés à entrer dans le terminal.

Un Nombre important de vols ont étés annulés au départ de Bruxelles Zaventem le 22 Mars. Les clients dont les vols ont étés annules peuvent être transférés sur un autre vol ou être remboursé intégralement. Liste des vols annulés: Mardi 22 Mars.

sean1982
Posts: 3163
Joined: 18 Mar 2003, 00:00
Contact:

Re: EU Rule 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by sean1982 » 15 Apr 2016, 13:26

Lies again :) dont talk about stuff you dont know. There IS already a regular bus service between Brussels and CRL (Not so to anr and lgg ans also not to mention that extra busses would greatly overload the army/police checkpoint at the vehicle entrance of the airport). Passenger could take any bus that was convenient for them (not for the "bonafide" airlines) and simply request a reimbursment of the price of that ticket. Any passenger that didnt want to fly from CRL could get their money back.

(And no, im not going to keep on discussing this with you because its vechten tegen de bierkaai. Of all airlines operating in Belgium FR passengers were the least inconvenienced for the shortest amount of time)

Passenger
Posts: 6213
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: EU Rule 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by Passenger » 15 Apr 2016, 17:57

sean1982 wrote:Any passenger that didnt want to fly from CRL could get their money back.
I've copy/pasted the above text from a compaint that has been sent to the Economic Inspection, Belgian FOD-SPF Economie. It's not a lie: it's a copy/paste.

Only passengers flying to/from Charleroi on the day of the attacks = 22th March were allowed to cancel. All flights after 23th March were regarded as rescheduled to Charleroi and passengers had to accept the reschedule to CRL. Read my lips: "Passagiers die vanaf Brussel Zaventem hebben geboekt zullen in deze periode vanaf Brussel Charleroi moeten reizen". MOETEN. Les clients ayant réservé un vol au départ de Bruxelles Zaventem à ces dates-ci devront par conséquent se rendre vers Bruxelles Charleroi. DEVRONT. Passengers who have booked flights from Brussels Zaventem must fly from Brussels Charleroi. MUST FLY.
sean1982 wrote:Lies again...
And no, im not going to keep on discussing this with you because its vechten tegen de bierkaai...
It's your last two months with Ryanair, so try not the defend the undefendable. A copy/paste from your own website proofs that you did not offer the right to choose between a cancellation (with refund) and a rebooking (ex. out of Charleroi). Just admit it, and try to sell the move from BRU to CRL as "a minor schedule change, certainly not a cancellation, perhaps a bit unconvenience, nothing more".

And finally, please stop telling that you will refund that easily. Even when a court condemns Ryanair to pay, they don’t. A passenger who recently won a court case against Ryanair had to send in a bailiff to collect the 610 UKP that a judge ordered Ryanair to pay (Ryanair probably hoped the passenger would give up when they refused to respect the court verdict).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ng-in.html

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20160201_02102366

And 100 other news reports about this - just Google Lucas Marshall Ryanair

sean1982
Posts: 3163
Joined: 18 Mar 2003, 00:00
Contact:

Re: EU Rule 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by sean1982 » 15 Apr 2016, 18:28

Im not interested in Lucas Marshall :D it has nothing to do with Brussels

If anyone complained to the FOD they were wrongly informed because everyone was allowed to cancel when they didnt want to fly from CRL. That's why initially there was a big drop in LF. What they were NOT allowed was to freely re-book to later dates.

All passengers were also informed about the EU rules and the possibility to claim back the bus.

End of story

User avatar
cathay belgium
Posts: 2176
Joined: 18 Aug 2008, 00:17
Location: Lommel-Belgium
Contact:

Re: EU Rule 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by cathay belgium » 15 Apr 2016, 19:01

Hi,

Sean, FR informed about EU261 and a claim of a bus? Really, didn't happen !
Wanna proof?
Come and check my mailbox... just standard cancellation mail !
EU261 and FR ! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Guess FR managers can't read so they can't see what the law is and they will always say it wasn't according to this rule!
And they let you do everything,going to court etc..., but they won't move...
For this reason they should be grounded really !
Tought EU rules are for everyone,... except airlines I guess..

CXB
New types planned for 2019 : A223
New types flown : AN24,AW139,B737MAX8,B763nonER,EMB110 Bandeirante, Shorts360,Autogire MTOsport2010

Post Reply