Passengers are now able to claim compensation for delayed flights of more than 3 hours

Civil Aviation Authority of UK

CAA Advice To Passengers Hit By Long Delays

Date: 23 October 2012

A judgment today at the European Court means passengers will now be able to claim compensation from airlines for delayed
flights in some situations. Following the judgement, the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is offering new advice to passengers in
the event their flight is delayed.

Today’s Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) judgment in the case of TUI Travel and others v CAA confirms that
passengers whose flights arrive more than three hours late may be entitled to compensation for the delay in line with EC
Regulation 261/2004, unless extraordinary circumstances, outside their airline’s control, delayed the flight.

The right to compensation for delayed flights is not set out expressly in Regulation EC261/2004, so TUI and others brought the
case, which has now clarified the situation. Today’s judgment offers clarity for consumers and the industry.

The CAA has now updated its Passenger Portal – a dedicated passenger advice section of its website – to ensure that people
have access to clear, unbiased information about their rights and what they should do if they have a complaint. Access the advice here.

Iain Osborne, CAA Director of Regulatory Policy said, “Every year around 200 million passengers travel on two million flights to
and from the UK, with the vast majority experiencing no problems. However, when something does go wrong, there are
regulations in place to protect travellers, and the CAA is ready to ensure companies abide by them.

“Today’s judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union offers much needed clarity for passengers, the airline
industry and the CAA about when compensation must be paid following delays.”

As the UK’s enforcement body, the CAA provides a free mediation service to any passenger having trouble resolving complaints
against airlines or airports. Before contacting the CAA, passengers should contact the airline first, to give them an opportunity to
consider their claim.

More information about the CAA’s Passenger Advice and Complaints Team.

The European Union is separately reviewing provision of assistance and compensation to passengers under the EC
Regulation 261/2004 rules. The CAA looks forward to playing a full part in that review as it progresses.

The CAA’s Passenger Portal can be found at: www.caa.co.uk/passengers.

For further media information contact the CAA Press Office on: 0207 453 6030; press.office@caa.co.uk.

Follow the CAA on @UK_CAA.

Notes to Editors:
1. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) judgment can be found here: CJEU Decision.
2. Today’s judgment confirms a previous decision by the CJEU about the right to compensation for lengthy delays in the case of
Sturgeon v Condor Flugdienst GmbH and Bock and others v Air France (19 November 2009).
3. The High Court in the UK (alongside the German High Court) asked the CJEU for further interpretation of the judgment given
in the Sturgeon case following a challenge by several airlines to the CAA’s willingness to enforce claims for compensation for
delays.
4. Flight cancellations occur for a variety of reasons, some of which are outside the control of the airline. The right to financial
compensation does not apply if the airline can demonstrate that the reason for the cancellation was an extraordinary event and
was outside their control. Extraordinary circumstances vary from case to case but could include problems like extreme weather
conditions or strikes. Even if there are extraordinary circumstances leading to a cancellation, you are still entitled to care and
assistance including food, drinks and hotel accommodation where appropriate.
5. The CAA is the UK’s specialist aviation regulator. Its activities include: making sure that the aviation industry meets the
highest technical and operational safety standards; preventing holidaymakers from being stranded abroad or losing money
because of tour operator insolvency; planning and regulating all UK airspace; and regulating airports, air traffic services and
airlines and providing advice on aviation policy from an economic standpoint.

Our small claim court has also made a similar decision against AirAsia for flight delay/cancellation in “Now Everyone Can Sue.

Advertisements

17 thoughts on “Passengers are now able to claim compensation for delayed flights of more than 3 hours

  1. GE Man

    This month on the 6th of Nov MAS flight to London was delayed for more than 24 hours. The brand new Airbus A380 with a registration 9M-MNA was grounded due to low pressure in one of the brake accumulators.

    The delay was avoidable if the engineering top managements were proactive and knowledgeable to solve the problem but they rather got busy to buy the parts for obvious reasons.

    It has cost MAS more than half a million ringgit paying the for hotel’s and food for the passengers, not to mentioning the millions of ringgit loss of revenue due to non-utilization of aircraft and reputation as a premier carriers but also in the course fuming a long term MAS VVIP customer from Pahang which was totally avoidable with proper timely engineering approval/action.

    Now with this new EC Regulation 261/2004 on passenger right to claim compensation for any flights delayed for more than 3 hours came into effect in October 2012, it will make a big hole in MAS pockets if all the passengers claim for compensations for this flight delay and this is not the first time .

    It all trace to no other then the incompetent CEO of MAS Engineering bo(otak) head Azhari, under his direct order the replacement of the un-serviceable parts was actioned rather than seeking the engineering expertise of the experienced MAS technical team who suggested to do a swap of the parts within the aircraft brake systems.

    This bo(otak) idiot should have just taken the advise from the experienced floor engineer to just swap its position and let the aircraft fly under concession @ MEL (Minimum Equipment List) by changing the parts/defect position – unfortunately bo(otak) has kept all the experienced floor engineers isolated from the decision making process. He eagerly instructed the AOG desk to buy the parts though it was ordered with the service provider.

    Some may say, it’s under warranty and Airbus Industries will compensate. How would Airbus going to compensate MAS if the aircraft will be able to fly if they swap the parts/defect position and fly under MEL concession, and finally after wasting a day the decision was taken to swap the parts and it took only 1 hour to swap the location of this part and make the aircraft ready for its flight.

    Finally, once the aircraft was back from London after the long flight delay, he eagerly instructed the AOG desk to use the parts that was bought under his order for obvious reasons.

    Well that’s not all, this bo(otak) Azhari is now in cohort with certain top manger to “cook up” MAS 3rd and 4th quarter financial results.

    This is the main reason why every time some one ask this bo(otak), tak malu kah dia still hanging on to his post even thou’ all the pariah men that were parachuted during the share suap have already quit MAS.
    Bo(otak) said he is needed.

    YES, he need you to hold and delay millions of dollars in payment to vendors/service providers like RR, PW, GE, EADS, Goodrich, Honeywell, Hamiltons, …. you name it .

    Most of the payment is more than six month due and you bo(otak) head are giving stupid excuse, raising objection and withholding payment as disputed invoices and not ledger posting as debt payable, most are straight forward contracts for supply of parts and services in which there is no excuse for dispute to not paying on-time.

    In layman’s term and understanding, the only reason MAS is delaying/not paying the vendors on-time is that they will keep/show it as cash in hand and will declare 3rd / 4th quarter result as improving and may even making small profit !! Trying to cheat lah ni.

    The worrying thing is that if this bo(otak) head keep on fooling around and doing this kind of game with this reputable international vendors and service providers it will have a long-term adverse impact on MAS even after this bo(otak) head is long gone from MAS.
    This could cause looooong technical delay if this were to happen ie vendors / suppliers pull out .

    Not paying and / or dilly delay paying the service provider / vendor ? Macam pernah aku dengar cerita saperti ini ya , tapi di airline mana ya ? ?

    Azhari is taking another poison pills for MAS so that MAS will be in bad book with this vendors for a long time to come…

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      Brovo GE Man.. Very detail indeed. Hope AJ will have another look at engineering and “THINK”.

      About the delay of A380 on 6 Nov. It must be MH2 supposedly to depart KUL at 2340 hrs. That means there was no MH3 departing London on 7 Nov at scheduled time of 1050 hrs as the delay was more than 24 hrs as you mentioned it. I was a little confused because I was on board MH3 on 7 Nov from London. It took off at 1430 hrs. Yes there was a delay but only 3 hrs 40 min. And I did received an email from Cheryl.Reneaux@uk.malaysiaairlines.com on 6 Nov at 1929 hrs informing of the ~ 4 hrs delay. When I entered our new Golden Lounge at 1215 hrs, I could see through the glass pane the A380 was already parked at Gate 5, Heathrow Terminal 4. Perhaps you got the wrong date by mistake or the wrong period of delay from your sources.

      Di harap di masa akan datang semua fakta haruslah tepat kerana kes di atas dipanjangkan dengan pertuduhan ke atas orang lain. Betul atau tidak pertuduhan itu soal kedua kerana ianya perlu penyiasatan tetapi permulaannya haruslah dengan fakta yang tepat.

      Reply
    2. Parameswara

      Could it be some are still in MAS, but working for the disgruntled cheapskate fellow and creating such engineering problems that incur losses running into millions of Ringgit for the airline?

      Needs checking especially when even new aircraft have problems resulting in expensive disruptions.

      Reply
  2. MAS Boy

    That Botak is just incompetent. Only the TOPless management needs him. He should just go back to where he belong i.e. AirAsia provided they will accept an incompetent fella like him.There are more problems in the Engineering Division after he was installed by the Pariah and gang. He should follow the foot step of Nanny Danny and Al Ishal Ishak and leave MAS quietly. At least Al Ishal has been awarded a post in AirAsia for doing a good job in making MAS to pay a lot of money for the new blue logo for MAS!

    Reply
  3. Hanifah

    Hopefully one day such ruling will be applicable in Malaysia. Then the pariah will be running for his life. With the Botak around, I will not be surprised if one day MAS had to pay huge compensation for such delay. Incompetent botak, tak malukah. No one need you in MAS except the brainless idiots sitting up in the nice air-condition and drawing big salaries.

    Reply
  4. Si Botak yang tak tau malu

    The tak malu and incompetent botak will never leave because he never had it so good. I am sure that he never in his dream thought that he will be the head of engineering. It is now showing that MAS is having problems with its engineering side. AJ please wake up, MAS does not need an incompetent botak at all. Just give him the boot like you did to Martin Burrow will be good for MAS.

    Reply
  5. Genga

    I hope that such ruling is made in Malaysia so that air traveler rights are protected from being bullied by airlines such as AirAsia.

    Reply
  6. Hana

    This type of ruling should be made in Malaysian courts to protect the travelers. Then we will see whether Tony can still blow his trumpet and assisted by the Star.

    Reply
  7. The Gooberman

    Read the fine print, people.

    First of all, it’s “may” claim, not “can” claim or an “automatic right to claim”.

    Second, there are several extenuating circumstances that airlines can use to justify flight delays or cancellations. There are enough loopholes to keep lawyers for the airlines to tie up such cases in knots, should the cases go to litigation.

    Third, the “ruling”, as such, is only applicable within the EU. There will be fierce opposition if it the EU tried to give it applicability outside the EU. Witness how the EU was forced to compromise over the carbon emissions scheme for airlines.

    Any such policy will have be negotiated under the auspices of the ICAO and IATA for it to have worldwide applicability.

    Further, such a policy will have to be ratified by the individual member states of the ICAO and accepted by the members of IATA.

    So, it’s not as easy as it looks, wishful thinking aside.

    Reply
  8. Poseidon's Spear

    After the Gman made his usual trenchant observations on this topic, the others who had voiced opinions suddenly went quiet.

    Way to go, Gm an!

    Reply
  9. Average Joe

    We can do even WITHOUT getting that CAA ruling applicable in Malaysia. Do not ever forget the June 13 landmark decision by the Consumer Claims Tribunal involving a case of ridiculous flight delay:

    https://weechookeong.wordpress.com/2012/06/15/now-everyone-can-sue-compensated-for-flight-delay/

    Apart from this landmark decision, in most cases the airlines would still get away due to the customer’s own attitude, gullibility and lack of awareness on consumer rights.

    I’m sorry that your hope of seeing everyone keep quiet for long is now dashed, Poseidon’s Spear. However, let me recommend a perfect place where you can have everyone else silent. The morgue in any nearby General Hospital will suit you very well.

    Thank you.

    Reply
    1. Poseidon's Spear

      Av Joe

      Yes, I am aware of the CCT ruling you had referred to.

      As a fairly frequent traveller myself, such initiatives to protect passengers against unwarranted, unreasonable or untenable restraints on passengers’ rights is to be applauded.

      We must be careful, however, that consumer and judicial activism does not result in unfair and onerous restrictions on the way that companies (airlines in this case) run their business.

      Low-cost carriers have a different operational model and work under different constraints from “premium” full-service carriers.

      To put it bluntly, it’s Pollyanna-ish to expect first world service at third world prices.

      Why else would LCCs be flourishing (in most cases) and taking away traffic from the full-service carriers?

      If passengers aren’t prepared to acknowledge these operational differences and accept these constraints, then they would be well advised to give their business to the “FSCs” and stay well clear of the LCCs.

      Alas, for most of us, the contents of our bank accounts preclude us from partaking of such indulgences!

      On a side note, I believe that most, if not all, of the airline check in desks at Changi Airport close 30-45 minutes before scheduled flight departures.

      Alas, for most of us, the contents of our bank accounts prevent us from partaking of such ibdu

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s