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

sean1982
Posts: 3152
Joined: 18 Mar 2003, 00:00
Contact:

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

Post by sean1982 » 15 Apr 2016, 19:05

You were on a flight the 22nd which was cancelled not on flights after the 22nd. :roll:

Is that proof? No
Did you take the bus to CRL? No

Shall I look up some horror stories about "bonafide" airlines? No

https://www.ryanair.com/content/dam/rya ... 261-nl.pdf

FR clearly informs their passengers about their right as required by EU law

User avatar
cathay belgium
Posts: 2156
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, 19:18

Hi,

Okay, I was on 22nd... have explained my toughts about the given FR solution already...

Concerning EU261, an answer of a FR employee in a standard FR language : NO ! ;)
They give you the info.. WHY don't they deal with it ITSELVES then :shock: :roll: :roll: :roll:
I did say airliners, not only FR... but FR is by far the worst worst! airline to deal with this..
A small coupon by delay is offered, a compensation by a big delay of cancellation never ever..
Have same stories with BA,AF,JAF,... don't worry... but here in the end they paid..
Hope you are soon with BA, a much more conveniant space for loyal employees I guess...

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

Passenger
Posts: 6051
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

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

Post by Passenger » 16 Apr 2016, 09:35

sean1982 wrote: https://www.ryanair.com/content/dam/rya ... 261-nl.pdf
FR clearly informs their passengers about their right as required by EU law
That is not informing passengers about their rights. That's a link to a Ryanair document with just a few articles from EU-Rule 261/2004. To inform passengers is giving a link to the official EU-web page for passengers rights, or to the official and full text of 261/2004.

EU-Rule 261/2004 gives all BRU-pax the right to cancel. Not only for 22th March, but for all BRU-flights that were transferred to Charleroi. Ryanair said passenger had to go to Charleroi: MOETEN – DEVRONT is totally different from "your flight is cancelled, so you now have the right to choice between a cancellation (with full refund) and a rebooking to/from Charleroi".

I do understand that this means that a lot of passengers would cancel their flights because they didn't want to travel to Belgium anymore. But EU 261/2004 is consumer protection legislation, which means that the right to cancel preveals to the profit of airlines. It's also EU legislation, which means it applies to all EU airlines.

Let me copy/paste the full text Ryanair had put online, as it makes clear how Ryanair has mislead the passengers, by stating that the right to cancel was limited to flights on 22th March only:
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.

Gelieve in Brussel Charleroi te komen ten minste 3 uur voor de geplande vertrektijd en reken met extra tijd voor extra veiligheidscontroles.

U mag uw originele Brussel Zaventem instapkaart gebruiken voor deze vlucht.

Verdere updates zullen worden geplaatst in de loop van de dag.

Onze gedachten zijn bij de slachtoffers en hun familieleden.

Enkele vluchten zijn geannuleerd op Brussel Zaventem (22 maart).

Passagiers waarvan hun vlucht is geannuleerd kunnen hieronder omboeken of een volledige vergoeding aanvragen.

Handbagage en ingecheckte bagage van de vluchten die niet vertrokken zijn vanaf Brussel Zaventem (22 maart) zijn vrijgegeven om af te halen op Brussel Zaventem Airport voor passagiers woon achtend in België.

Zie onderstaande link voor informatie over het afhalen van uw bagage en de desbetreffende vluchten:
http://www.brusselsairport.be/en/alarm/69875/

Repatriëring van bagage voor klanten buiten België zal deze week volgen.

Een aantal vluchten werden (22 maart) te Brussel Zaventem geannuleerd:

Dinsdag 22 maart
VOOR HET HERBOEKEN VAN UW GEANNULEERDE VLUCHT Klik hier
LET OP: Als er in uw reservering een vlucht staat die niet geannuleerd is, kunt u deze vlucht NIET online veranderen naar een andere datum. Om de datum van zo’n vlucht zonder kosten te veranderen kunt u contact opnemen met ons callcenter, zie hieronder.

VOOR HET AANVRAGEN VAN RESTITUTIE ONLINE Klik hier

Voor telefoonnummers van het callcenter en openingstijden Klik hier

Voor de schriftelijke kennisgeving voor compensatie en assistentie EU261 Klik hier

Volg ons op Twitter @RyanairFlights

- - - - - - - - - -

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.

Merci de bien vouloir arriver au moins 3 heures avant le vol programmé et de prévoir du temps supplémentaire aux contrôles de sécurité.

Il est permis d’utiliser la carte d’embarquement prévue à l’origine pour le vol au départ de Bruxelles Zaventem.

De nouvelles mises à jour seront publiées en temps voulu.

Nos pensées vont aux victimes et leurs proches.

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.

Les bagages en cabines et bagages en soute sur un certain nombre de vols ne sont pas partis de Bruxelles Zaventem le 22 mars et sont maintenant à disposition des usagers pour collection à l’aéroport.

Veuillez-vous rendre sur le site suivant pour plus de détails sur la collection des bagages et les vols en question http://www.brusselsairport.be/en/alarm/69875/

La rapatriement des bagages pour les clients vivant hors de la Belgique suivra cette semaine

Liste des vols annulés :

Mardi 22 Mars

AFIN DE CHANGER LA RESERVATION VOTRE VOL ANNULÉ: Cliquez ici

VEUILLEZ NOTER: Si votre réservation comprend un vol qui n'a pas été annulé il vous sera impossible de transférer ce vol à une autre date sans frais. Pour transférer le vol gratuitement, veuillez, s'il vous plaît, contacter un de nos centres d’appels. Voir ci-dessous.

FAIRE UNE DEMANDE DE REMBOURSEMENT EN LIGNE: Cliquez ici
Veuillez cliquer ici pour obtenir le numéro du centre d'appel et les heures d'ouverture: Cliquez ici

Pour obtenir la notice écrite reprenant les règles d'indemnisation et d'assistance en conformité avec le règlement 261/2004 de l'UE: Cliquez ici

Suivez-nous sur Twitter @RyanairFlights

sean1982
Posts: 3152
Joined: 18 Mar 2003, 00:00
Contact:

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

Post by sean1982 » 16 Apr 2016, 13:31

ostair wrote:Don't know if its on topic but seems that the Dublin flights from BRU are diverted to CRL at least until 03/05.

A friend of mine got a sms/email saying that his morning flight at BRU is changed to CRL @30/04.
The option is a refund...there is no option to book a later flight the same day from BRU.
Posted yesterday in the Ryanair 2016 forum. Passengers clearly have the option to get a refund.
Ergo, you don't know what you are talking about. Again :cry:

Passenger
Posts: 6051
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

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

Post by Passenger » 16 Apr 2016, 19:09

sean1982 wrote:
ostair wrote:Don't know if its on topic but seems that the Dublin flights from BRU are diverted to CRL at least until 03/05.

A friend of mine got a sms/email saying that his morning flight at BRU is changed to CRL @30/04.
The option is a refund...there is no option to book a later flight the same day from BRU.
Posted yesterday in the Ryanair 2016 forum. Passengers clearly have the option to get a refund.
Ergo, you don't know what you are talking about. Again.
It's not ostair who doesn't know what he's talking about. It's you. Again.

Passengers may choose a rebooking onto a flight of their choice. The only requirement for the rebooking is availability. Not the airline's yield, not the load factor. Only requirement is that there is a seat available in Economy Class.

See EU Rule 261/2004, 8. Right to reimbursement or re-routing:
Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall be offered the choice between:

(a) - reimbursement within seven days, by the means provided for in Article 7(3), of the full cost of the ticket at the price at which it was bought, for the part or parts of the journey not made, and for the part or parts already made if the flight is no longer serving any purpose in relation to the passenger's original travel plan, together with, when relevant,

- a return flight to the first point of departure, at the earliest opportunity;

(b) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at the earliest opportunity;

or

(c) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at a later date at the passenger's convenience, subject to availability of seats.[/i]
Ryanair and respect for EU-Rule 261/2004? Not a good marriage...

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ ... 61&from=EN

sean1982
Posts: 3152
Joined: 18 Mar 2003, 00:00
Contact:

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

Post by sean1982 » 16 Apr 2016, 19:38

a return flight to the first point of departure, at the earliest opportunity
Is not applicable cause he hasn't departed yet
re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at a later date at the passenger's convenience, subject to availability of seats
Was offered by an alternative flight from CRL and a refundable bus fare. It doesn't say "a flight of their choice"

I wasn't talking about ostair btw, I was talking about you ;) Passenger and reading: a bad marriage

ostair
Posts: 283
Joined: 19 Jan 2004, 00:00
Location: ostend

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

Post by ostair » 16 Apr 2016, 21:40

@sean1982
So the coachtransfer from BRU to CRL will be be paid for. No doubt one would need proof of payment to claim a refund.

What about the difference in airporttaxes? A small 2 Euro at CRL while its over 20 Euro at BRU.

Passenger
Posts: 6051
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

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

Post by Passenger » 16 Apr 2016, 23:22

sean1982 wrote:
a return flight to the first point of departure, at the earliest opportunity
Is not applicable cause he hasn't departed yet
re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at a later date at the passenger's convenience, subject to availability of seats
Was offered by an alternative flight from CRL and a refundable bus fare. It doesn't say "a flight of their choice"
Let me give a last try. EU-Rule 261/2004 is consumer protection legislation. In case of any doubt, the doubt must go to the benefit of the passenger. For cancelled flights, this means that it's not up to the airline to decide what rerouting the passenger will get. The passenger must agree with the rerouting. If not, the airline must give another proposal. Actually it works smoothly in practice, as you will understand once you work at British Airways. Passenger is stranded. Airline tells what the alternatives are via other airports. Passenger agrees for a specific rerouting. Rebooking is finalized. Done in a few minutes. All happy.

In the case that was brought up here, the passenger did not have the right to choose the alternative. Ryanair decided for them that it would be via CRL, which is against 261/2004.

"EU 261/2004 is consumer protection legislation" is not my invention. it's jurisprudence meanwhile:

example: passengers stranded in a foreign country are entitled for accommodation assistance, even when extraordinary circumstances apply:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... rt-says-1-

example: the famous/notorious Sturgeon versus Condor case (delayed passengers are entitled to the same indemnity as cancelled passengers).
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail. ... d8bca948d5

sean1982
Posts: 3152
Joined: 18 Mar 2003, 00:00
Contact:

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

Post by sean1982 » 17 Apr 2016, 11:09

ostair wrote:@sean1982
So the coachtransfer from BRU to CRL will be be paid for. No doubt one would need proof of payment to claim a refund.

What about the difference in airporttaxes? A small 2 Euro at CRL while its over 20 Euro at BRU.
You can make a claim via the normal channels with a receipt of the bus ticket

Difference in airport taxes are not re-imbursable. Its not Ryanair who choses the flight to depart from CRL. Its tue airport regulator.

convair
Posts: 1711
Joined: 18 Nov 2011, 00:02

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

Post by convair » 17 Apr 2016, 12:27

sean1982 wrote: Difference in airport taxes are not re-imbursable. Its not Ryanair who choses the flight to depart from CRL. Its tue airport regulator.
If this is true, it is totally ludicrous and unacceptable!

sean1982
Posts: 3152
Joined: 18 Mar 2003, 00:00
Contact:

Re: EC Regulation 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by sean1982 » 17 Apr 2016, 14:13

Did SN re-imburse passenger departing from ANR and LGG?

Also totally unacceptable? Or is it allowed then? :roll:

convair
Posts: 1711
Joined: 18 Nov 2011, 00:02

Re: EC Regulation 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by convair » 17 Apr 2016, 17:26

sean1982 wrote:Did SN re-imburse passenger departing from ANR and LGG?

Also totally unacceptable? Or is it allowed then? :roll:
What do you think?

Poiu
Posts: 556
Joined: 14 Nov 2015, 09:38

Re: EC Regulation 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by Poiu » 17 Apr 2016, 18:07

convair wrote:
sean1982 wrote:Did SN re-imburse passenger departing from ANR and LGG?

Also totally unacceptable? Or is it allowed then? :roll:
What do you think?
I had a SN flight cancelled in the aftermath of the attacks. I tried 100 times to contact SN help desk: unsuccessful, went to the airport desk abroad: unable to help, sent an e-mail to SN: no answer...

sean1982
Posts: 3152
Joined: 18 Mar 2003, 00:00
Contact:

Re: EC Regulation 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by sean1982 » 17 Apr 2016, 19:05

The answer is: no

I rest my case

ostair
Posts: 283
Joined: 19 Jan 2004, 00:00
Location: ostend

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

Post by ostair » 17 Apr 2016, 22:13

sean1982 wrote:
ostair wrote:@sean1982
So the coachtransfer from BRU to CRL will be be paid for. No doubt one would need proof of payment to claim a refund.

What about the difference in airporttaxes? A small 2 Euro at CRL while its over 20 Euro at BRU.
You can make a claim via the normal channels with a receipt of the bus ticket

Difference in airport taxes are not re-imbursable. Its not Ryanair who choses the flight to depart from CRL. Its tue airport regulator.
Ok thanks.
Looked at other options but there aren't any.

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 34853
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

Re: EC Regulation 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by sn26567 » 17 Apr 2016, 22:45

Poiu wrote:I had a SN flight cancelled in the aftermath of the attacks. I tried 100 times to contact SN help desk: unsuccessful, went to the airport desk abroad: unable to help, sent an e-mail to SN: no answer...
I had an SN flight cancelled because of the BGATC strike, sorry, inability to work. Unable to reach SN by phone, I contacted them through Twitter and my problem was instantly solved to my satisfaction. b.imaginative !
André
ex Sabena #26567

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 34853
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

Re: EC Regulation 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by sn26567 » 28 Apr 2016, 11:28

Airline Passenger battles Emirates Airlines for two years and wins

The process of claiming compensation for flight delays is not for the faint-hearted, as two Australian passengers have discovered. When Brett and Lisa Smith’s flight from Milan to New York was delayed more than 23 hours, they thought that their case for compensation under European Union legislation would be a simple matter. They were wrong.

Under EU 261/2004 compensation rules, passengers whose flight is cancelled or arrives more than three hours late can claim up to €600 depending on the distance of the flight. The compensation rules apply to flights departing from any EU airport (including Iceland, Norway or Switzerland) or arriving in the EU with an EU carrier.

The couple, booked on flight EK 205 from Milan Malpensa to New York (JFK) in April, 2014 experienced a long ‘creeping delay’. After check-in, they were advised the flight would be delayed by three hours or so. After finally boarding, passengers were told that the engine technical issue could not be fixed after all, and a part needed to be flown in from Dubai the following day.

Passengers were deplaned, returned through immigration, collected their bags, and transported to a hotel. Nearly 24 hours later, the exhausted passengers were finally on their way to New York.

The couple lost a day of their holiday, along with the cost of one night’s hotel accommodation, theatre tickets and dinner reservation, all of which was pre-booked, pre-paid, and non-refundable.

Ignoring the rules

Airlines are expected to inform passengers of their right to compensation in the event of lengthy delays. An estimated 11 million people per year in Europe alone are eligible to claim for €6 billion in compensation for flight disruptions under European Union (EC) 261 legislation. At no point during the 23-hour saga were the Smiths advised that they were eligible for compensation.

When Mr Smith, a frequent Emirates flyer, later contacted the airline, Emirates rejected the claim. The airline stated that the matter had been investigated by ENAC, the Italian Civil Aviation Authority, and ENAC had ruled that the delay was due to ‘extraordinary circumstances’ and Emirates was therefore not obliged to pay compensation.

When Emirates provided no evidence of either the investigation or ruling, Mr Smith decided to contact refund.me (https://www.refund.me/), the air passenger rights company that advocates for travellers.

Mr Smith says: “I’m pretty relaxed about delays due to safety issues; these things happen. But I’m surprised and annoyed that the airline claimed there was an investigation and ruling to justify not paying out, when there doesn’t appear to have been either. We wouldn’t have discovered this if refund.me hadn’t pursued the claim on our behalf.

‘Extraordinary circumstances’ – what counts?

Airlines can only legally sidestep compensation claims if a flight disruption is due to extraordinary circumstances beyond an airline’s control; events that ‘could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken’. These include bad weather, security issues, industrial action, and hidden manufacturing defects.

Airlines often try to avoid compensation pay-outs for aircraft technical failures, arguing that this also falls under extraordinary circumstances, but a recent European Court of Justice ruling (Corina van der Lans v KLM) rejected this argument.

It took two years, countless emails, forms, document submissions, and ultimately an investigation and ruling from the appropriate local ENAC Directorate to secure full compensation of €600 each for the Smiths.

This case illustrates just how far airlines will go in an attempt to fob off passengers,” says Eve Büchner, Founder and CEO of refund.me. “The majority of passengers either don’t know their rights, or do not have the time, nerve or money to jump through the endless hurdles airlines put up in an attempt to force passengers to abandon their case.”

It’s absolutely impossible for an individual who has no knowledge of the law and no experience of dealing with the claim process to get compensation,” said Mr Smith­­. “Which, of course, is what the airlines want. The airlines are happy to brush off customers with an array of excuses and push passengers to the point where they are forced to go to court. An impossible situation if you have to travel to another country to do so.”

Source: e-Turbo News
André
ex Sabena #26567

Passenger
Posts: 6051
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: EC Regulation 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by Passenger » 19 May 2016, 18:38

Vueling refused to compensate Belgian passengers from two delayed flights. Some 100 passengers then contacted Claim IT, who took the matter to the Zaventem district court. They won the case, but Vueling refused to accept the court verdict. Claim IT then went to Vueling's head office in Spain, where a Spanish bailiff presented the court verdict. No result neither. Vueling then sent their bailiff to IATA, and IATA blocked the amount on Vueling's compulsary trust account with them. Claim IT was paid, and Vueling had to re-establish its IATA bond. All passengers recieved 390 €, less 25% fee (the amount that the court awarded was higher then the EU-compensation because the court awarded extra costs).

http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/2/Reizen/artic ... ieen.dhtml

Passenger
Posts: 6051
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: EC Regulation 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by Passenger » 23 Dec 2016, 09:56

Another one of those nice examples how to violate EU-Rule 261/2004:

"...A Fly 365 Aviation Boeing 737-300, registration YR-SUA performing flight FLA-134 from Stuttgart (Germany) to Pristina (Kosovo), was enroute at FL330 about 60nm south of Munich when the crew reported a problem with the right hand engine (CFM56) and diverted to Munich (Germany) for a safe landing on runway 08R about 25 minutes later.

According to information The Aviation Herald received, the aircraft remained unattended because the operator did not want to pay for handling or technics. The passengers received their luggage and were "permitted" to go whereever they wanted to.

Passengers reported there was a big bang from the right hand side, the aircraft subsequently diverted to Munich. They did not receive any reply from the airline on Dec 21st, the following morning they were told to buy tickets to Switzerland and further on to Pristina, the company would re-imburse the tickets. The passengers declined that "offer"...


http://avherald.com/h?article=4a275236&opt=0

Fly 365 could argue that the delay is caused by extraordinary circumstances -an inflight technical problem- but they must offer passengers assistance, and arrange transport to the final location.

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 34853
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

Re: EC Regulation 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by sn26567 » 25 Feb 2017, 00:44

Five airlines that fly into Europe (American, Etihad, Emirates, Singapore and Turkish Airlines) have been told they must pay compensation to passengers for delays.

These airlines will have to obey European laws or be taken to court.

All had told the Civil Aviation Authority that they did not pay compensation when their delays meant passengers missed a connecting flight.

But compensation is in fact due if passengers arrive at their final destination more than three hours late.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-39046235
André
ex Sabena #26567

Post Reply