The flight hit the news My wife had noticed that the plane was dumping fuel and that some mechanical noises were going on for far too long after take-off. The pilot decided to return to Manchester. Initially we were told "We'll be using the slides." and "You will need to brace". For the passengers who weren't keen on flying at the best of times, this was not their best day.
As it turned out, it was actually quite a smooth landing. Several passengers (including myself) were very happy with this. There was a delay following this "hot landing" as the plane was immobilised on the runway, having burst at least one tyre. We were kept on the plan until the remaining tyres cooled as they didn't want flying bits of tyre to hit anyone as they deplaned.
We started our trip, uneventfully, the following day having lost the relaxing day I had planned before starting work.
After some investigation once things had settled I wrote to the airline on 9 March 2008. I never got a reply.
After a reasonable period of time for them to respond, I contated the airline via their website on 16 July, 2008. And again on 30 July, 2008.
At this point I wonder to where I should turn. Time passes and regulations change, with legal clarifications and Martin Lewis on TV reminds us not to give up.
For an overview of the legistlation changes, see below.
Prompted to take further action by these changes and by Martin Lewis' TV reminders, I contacted the airline again on 10 April, 2013: (www.aa.com/webservices) as I was aware that the 6 year limit was approaching.
On 15 April, 2013, I actually got a response:
"Please provide me with the American Airlines booking reference, ticket number, itinerary, flight number, date and time that correspond to the trip in question."
Pleased to be finally getting somehwere, I responded the very day say with the requested information.
On 23 April, 2013, I got a response to that:
"As you have correctly identified, you will be entitled to cash compensation of 600EUR."
So now I've got their attention, they asked for my bank account details to post in a web contact form online. Not keen to provie my normal account details, I popped into my bank to setup a new account just for this purpose and, on 24 April, 2013, provided those details.
The next step was somewhat disheartening when, on 10 June, 2013 I got the message:
"Unfortunately, we are unable to locate you or your wife on the manifest of flight 55 for February 23, 2008. The confirmation locator you provided does not reflect a passenger with the last name of "Scott""
At this point, I contacted the CAA, providing them with copies of all of the correspondence thus far. I got an automate response from the CAA advising:
“We are currently taking about eight weeks to reply to complaints.”
I made one last ditch attempt before chasing the CAA again as I was fully aware that the 6 year deadline was approaching relatively quickly when compared with the rate of progress for this issue.
This time I provided all of the information in one message on 8th July, 2013: the booking references, account information and brief history of communications and reference numbers. It was a bit of a challenge to be succinct, accurate and comprehensive without being confusing and sticking with the 1500 character limit, but I think I did it.
It went rather quiet until November 4th, 2013:
"Our records indicate that flight 55 did not operate as scheduled and you are, therefore, entitled to cash compensation in the amount of 600EUR per passenger."
"... Or, if you would prefer, in place of the check compensation, we would like to offer a transportation voucher in the amount of $1750.00USD per passenger."
Knowing that we would be travelling with the airline again one day, we opted for the vouchers. I know many would say at a glance not to take the vouchers, but their value was significantly greater.
On 6th November, 2013: I updated CAA, with all correspondence thus far as a matter of courtesy to advise them that they need not continue to chase and also in case it did not work out, I wanted them to have a record of the latest information to hand.
On 26th December, 2013, we received a further email from the airline:
"We received the required information in order to provide the applicable compensation.
The vouchers should arrive shortly, via standard mail.
Again, we are sorry for what happened and look forward to welcoming you and Ms. Scott onboard again soon."
Towards the end of January, 2014, the vouchers arrived in the post.
We tried to get flights to San Francisco and Las Vegas, possibly taking in Salt Lake City aswell. However, these flights were less than perfect - at one point it suggested we travel from San Francisco to Salt Lake City via Philadelphia. That struck us as silly.
The following day, after a little further research and some inspiration from somewhere, we had our flights booked to Hawaii for 16 nights. One day either side, either way, would have cost us an extra $500 each.
We enjoyed that holiday very much and didn't want to post our tale until we'd got back.
If you'd like to get in touch, please feel free to Tweet me @gulbrain.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_Delay_Compensation_Regulation
In the case Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia—Linee Aeree Italiane SpA (Case C-549/07) of 22 December 2008,[2] the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg ruled on the interpretation of Article 5 of the regulation relating to cancellations, specifically paragraph 3 which states:
An operating air carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.
The Court agreed with Wallentin-Hermann that any technical issues during aircraft maintenance don’t constitute "extraordinary circumstances" that would allow airlines to avoid paying passengers compensation for canceled flights. This case therefore closed the loophole which had allowed the airlines to abuse passengers by frivolous interpretation of "technical or extraordinary circumstances"; it further defined the phrase and limited its exploitation. The definition of "technical and/or extraordinary circumstances" by the Court now stands firm and solid: any carrier must prove that the alleged mechanical problem leading to the cancellation was "beyond its actual control", the court affirmed in a statement. In its judgment, the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Justice held:
"Extraordinary circumstances” was not defined in the 2004 Regulation, but the phrase was to be interpreted narrowly since article 5(3) constituted a derogation from the principle, indicated in recitals 1 and 2 of the preamble, of protection of consumers, in as much as cancellation of flights caused serious inconvenience to passengers
Furthermore, in the joined cases of Sturgeon v Condor, and Bock v Air France (C-402/07 and C-432/07),[3] the Fourth Chamber of the European Court of Justice held on 19 November 2009 that despite no express provision in the Regulation to compensate passengers for delay, passengers are now entitled to the compensation as set out in Article 8 for any delay in excess of three hours providing the air carrier cannot raise a defence of "extraordinary circumstances".
"Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation EC 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed may be treated, for the purposes of the application of the right to compensation, as passengers whose flights are cancelled and they may thus rely on the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of the regulation where they suffer, on account of a flight delay, a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours, that is, where they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier."
This is the page footer. You have reached the bottom of the page. There is nothing further to read here, honest.