Re: Compensation refusal by scheduled airline - no proper reason given - what further action can I take
Roland Perry
Fri, 18 Sep 2009, david <exa...@example.com> remarked:
>I am partially concerned by the entry in this flight report showing that
>the aircraft did indeed take off -empty- from Florence at around 2 hours
>after its scheduled departure time (assuming I read this correctly)
The time is the same as when the details were updated to show
"cancelled". Obviously the plane did have to leave at some stage, but
that's not what the 3.30* is telling you.
>http://www.flightstats.com/go/FlightStatus/flightStatusByFlightExtendedDetails.do?id=157168160&airlineCode=LH&flightNumber=4061
> Departure Time Detail
> ScheduledActual
>Published1:40 PM
>Gate1:40 PM 3:30 PM *
>Runway
It never reached the runway. And the "Departure Status" information
doesn't show a gate number. Compare the same flight the following day to
see what it would look like.
>Apr 14 3:30 PM AFO STATUS-Cancelled Status Changed From Scheduled To
>Cancelled
Eventually cancelling the flight.
--
Roland Perry
Richard J.
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 13:35:25 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
> wrote:
[snip]
>> It never reached the runway. And the "Departure Status" information
>> doesn't show a gate number. Compare the same flight the following day to
>> see what it would look like.
>>> Apr 14 3:30 PM AFO STATUS-Cancelled Status Changed From Scheduled To
>>> Cancelled
>> Eventually cancelling the flight.
> Thank you for your comments. I originally though that the status change
> shown in the fragment shown below (AEQP Changed To AR8)
> was the reason for the cancellation
>
> Apr 14 11:20 AM Airline Time Adjustment Estimated Gate Departure
> Changed To 04/14/09 03:30 PM
> Arrival Terminal Changed To 1
> AEQP Changed To AR8
>
> Apr 14 3:30 PM AFO STATUS-Cancelled Status Changed From Scheduled To
> Cancelled
>
>
> but on looking at the next days routine flight details - the same status
> code appears.
"AEQP Changed to AR8" means that the aircraft equipment, i.e. the type
of aircraft, was changed to an Avro RJ85, which is a bit odd, as the
RJ85 is the normal type for LH 4061, according to the LH timetable. It
looks as though Lufthansa may routinely confirm the aircraft type by
issuing a "change" event. It doesn't seem relevant to the cancellation.
> So... What was the correct reason for flight cancellation ?
Apparently because there was no aircraft in Florence for the flight, as
the outward flight LH 4060 was also cancelled. Flightstats.com shows
that flight being delayed a couple of times before being cancelled at
13:30. That meant that they had to cancel LH 4061 as well. There's no
indication on flightstats.com of why LH 4060 was cancelled.
> and how do I find it out ?
Ask Lufthansa.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)
Roland Perry
23:09:26 on Sat, 19 Sep 2009, Richard J. <rjnew...@blueukder.co.yon>
remarked:
>> So... What was the correct reason for flight cancellation ?
>
>Apparently because there was no aircraft in Florence for the flight, as
>the outward flight LH 4060 was also cancelled. Flightstats.com shows
>that flight being delayed a couple of times before being cancelled at
>13:30. That meant that they had to cancel LH 4061 as well. There's no
>indication on flightstats.com of why LH 4060 was cancelled.
>
>> and how do I find it out ?
>
>Ask Lufthansa.
And even if they tell you, they may still claim that whatever it was,
constitutes "exceptional circumstances" - despite the recent ruling
about faults being discovered in routine maintenance not qualifying for
that description.
I was once on a plane where the delay was caused by a "suspected water
leak in the galley", when I was pretty sure that the reason the carpet
there was drenched was due to the violent rain storms outside blowing
into that area when the door was opened to take the catering trolleys on
board.
Is any of that "exceptional" ? This area desperately needs a list of
what things qualify as exceptional, and which don't. I find it very odd
that there doesn't seem to be a list anywhere. (Or does the relevant EU
law have a list in one of its appendices?)
But I've also been booked on flights where the reason for cancellation
was quite obviously a low load factor, and bizarrely the alternative
routing they sent me on actually meant I arrived back home *earlier*
(the transfer time at the new mid-way hub on the alternative routing
being much less than at the original one); despite a later departure
which had triggered a no-quibble compensation payment which they
processed on the spot.
--
Roland Perry
tim.....
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:m4EZXExN...@perry.co.uk...
> In message <Gwdtm.80916$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, at 23:09:26
> on Sat, 19 Sep 2009, Richard J. <rjnew...@blueukder.co.yon> remarked:
>>> So... What was the correct reason for flight cancellation ?
>>
>>Apparently because there was no aircraft in Florence for the flight, as
>>the outward flight LH 4060 was also cancelled. Flightstats.com shows that
>>flight being delayed a couple of times before being cancelled at 13:30.
>>That meant that they had to cancel LH 4061 as well. There's no indication
>>on flightstats.com of why LH 4060 was cancelled.
>>
>>> and how do I find it out ?
>>
>>Ask Lufthansa.
>
> And even if they tell you, they may still claim that whatever it was,
> constitutes "exceptional circumstances" - despite the recent ruling about
> faults being discovered in routine maintenance not qualifying for that
> description.
>
> I was once on a plane where the delay was caused by a "suspected water
> leak in the galley", when I was pretty sure that the reason the carpet
> there was drenched was due to the violent rain storms outside blowing into
> that area when the door was opened to take the catering trolleys on board.
>
> Is any of that "exceptional" ? This area desperately needs a list of what
> things qualify as exceptional, and which don't. I find it very odd that
> there doesn't seem to be a list anywhere. (Or does the relevant EU law
> have a list in one of its appendices?)
No, that's why it's being sorted out by case law.
As you say, routine failure to maintain the plane (and presumably inadequate
rostering of staff) has been held by the court not to be an exceptional
circumstance (whatever the airline may claim)
> But I've also been booked on flights where the reason for cancellation was
> quite obviously a low load factor, and bizarrely the alternative routing
> they sent me on actually meant I arrived back home *earlier* (the transfer
> time at the new mid-way hub on the alternative routing being much less
> than at the original one); despite a later departure which had triggered a
> no-quibble compensation payment which they processed on the spot.
Compensation claims are payable based upon arrival times, so they screwed up
there.
tim
Roland Perry
Sep 2009, tim..... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>> But I've also been booked on flights where the reason for cancellation was
>> quite obviously a low load factor, and bizarrely the alternative routing
>> they sent me on actually meant I arrived back home *earlier* (the transfer
>> time at the new mid-way hub on the alternative routing being much less
>> than at the original one); despite a later departure which had triggered a
>> no-quibble compensation payment which they processed on the spot.
>
>Compensation claims are payable based upon arrival times, so they screwed up
>there.
What I probably got was 400 Euro compensation for the denied boarding
(because it was cancelled), reduced by 50% to 200 Euros because the
re-routed flight got me there within 2 hours of the original time.
--
Roland Perry