I see that Simples72 hasn't been back ?, What a pity because he wanted some advice and instead he got a moral lecture from some posters. 
Whilst I didn't contribute I was interested in any advice, and I did bother to read the links posted by Andy (thanks Andy) with regards to what is classed as actual arrival time.
From reading the link, my interpretation is that the arrival time is not when the aeroplane applies the brakes, but when the doors are open, you release the seat belt and start disembarking...until that point you are still on a flight whether it's up in the air or not.!
I'm not interested in other people's views on whether or not someone should claim compensation, and as Andy pointed out, it's an EU ruling, so, it's an individual's choice on whether or not to pursue a claim.
What brought me to post in this thread is because my son has recently suffered a delay flying from Gatwick to Seville and he intends to claim compensation, so, as he lives in Hong Kong I've been doing the ground work for him.
He flies all over the world and flight delays are something that he's familiar with, but this wasn't a holiday, he had a meeting planned with several people for late afternoon, and as he'd left Yorkshire at 3 am to drive down to London Victoria to drop off the hire car, then take the Gatwick Express for his early morning flight, he was still sat in Gatwick Airport when he should have been in Spain....this was a 'flying' visit to Seville that also had a 'knock- on effect reducing the time in Seville before going onto Madrid via the AVE ...so, yes he was annoyed and so would I be too, and under the circumstances, I'd probably make a claim.
I was 'watching' this flight and I've got the 'logs' of the changes made from the scheduled departure/arrival and the actual departure/arrival, and what I find confusing is that the airline information says that the plane was delayed 176 minutes and that it landed at 4 -16 pm. Call me cynical, but how convenient that the time was brought down to 4 minutes below the 3 hour compensation rate changes.!
Yet, Seville Airport didn't change the status from active to landed until 4-24 pm (local time)
I know they could have made a bit of time up in the air, but having suffered a 3½ hour delay at Gatwick, they'd have to fly super doper speed to reduce 3½ to under 3 hours, if you're calculating the delay time, the actual time of gate departure and gate arrival in Seville.
He could have spent more than 4 minutes waiting for the doors to be opened or the steps to arrive, which was the crux of the argument made in Andy's link regarding what time the airline says you landed, and what time you actually released the seat belt and started to disembark.
I've had a look at that site....they want €25 and they take 27% of the compensation.....I know they have to make a living, but (imo) that's a scandalous percentage.
Sanji x
Whilst I didn't contribute I was interested in any advice, and I did bother to read the links posted by Andy (thanks Andy) with regards to what is classed as actual arrival time.
From reading the link, my interpretation is that the arrival time is not when the aeroplane applies the brakes, but when the doors are open, you release the seat belt and start disembarking...until that point you are still on a flight whether it's up in the air or not.!
I'm not interested in other people's views on whether or not someone should claim compensation, and as Andy pointed out, it's an EU ruling, so, it's an individual's choice on whether or not to pursue a claim.
What brought me to post in this thread is because my son has recently suffered a delay flying from Gatwick to Seville and he intends to claim compensation, so, as he lives in Hong Kong I've been doing the ground work for him.
He flies all over the world and flight delays are something that he's familiar with, but this wasn't a holiday, he had a meeting planned with several people for late afternoon, and as he'd left Yorkshire at 3 am to drive down to London Victoria to drop off the hire car, then take the Gatwick Express for his early morning flight, he was still sat in Gatwick Airport when he should have been in Spain....this was a 'flying' visit to Seville that also had a 'knock- on effect reducing the time in Seville before going onto Madrid via the AVE ...so, yes he was annoyed and so would I be too, and under the circumstances, I'd probably make a claim.
I was 'watching' this flight and I've got the 'logs' of the changes made from the scheduled departure/arrival and the actual departure/arrival, and what I find confusing is that the airline information says that the plane was delayed 176 minutes and that it landed at 4 -16 pm. Call me cynical, but how convenient that the time was brought down to 4 minutes below the 3 hour compensation rate changes.!
Yet, Seville Airport didn't change the status from active to landed until 4-24 pm (local time)
I know they could have made a bit of time up in the air, but having suffered a 3½ hour delay at Gatwick, they'd have to fly super doper speed to reduce 3½ to under 3 hours, if you're calculating the delay time, the actual time of gate departure and gate arrival in Seville.
He could have spent more than 4 minutes waiting for the doors to be opened or the steps to arrive, which was the crux of the argument made in Andy's link regarding what time the airline says you landed, and what time you actually released the seat belt and started to disembark.
using someone like Bott and Co
I've had a look at that site....they want €25 and they take 27% of the compensation.....I know they have to make a living, but (imo) that's a scandalous percentage.
Sanji x
HI Sanji , I wasn't aware of the " arrival time " until I searched out this info and updated ruling and if I was now on a delayed flight I would now know to accurately measure the time of the delay and get some type of proof for making a claim .
In terms of using Bott and co I wasn't aware of their charges and just named them as they seemed reputable
" I'm sure there are other alternative companies that are available. "
I'm sure most have similar charges too ?? But having read of a few situations people have reported Passengers do seem to get given the runaround from some airlines and fobbed off a bit ,, I think claims can be easily made and I would do it myself but if I was getting mucked about I wouldn't hesitate to use someone to give them a legal battle and give them a kick up the **** as getting something is better than nothing and I not going to spend ages and waste valuable time being given the runaround .
In terms of using Bott and co I wasn't aware of their charges and just named them as they seemed reputable
" I'm sure there are other alternative companies that are available. "
I'm sure most have similar charges too ?? But having read of a few situations people have reported Passengers do seem to get given the runaround from some airlines and fobbed off a bit ,, I think claims can be easily made and I would do it myself but if I was getting mucked about I wouldn't hesitate to use someone to give them a legal battle and give them a kick up the **** as getting something is better than nothing and I not going to spend ages and waste valuable time being given the runaround .
my interpretation is that the arrival time is not when the aeroplane applies the brakes
No edit button,
of course I meant when the brakes on the aeroplane are applied by the pilot. lolIn terms of using Bott and co I wasn't aware of their charges and just named them as they seemed reputable
No problem Andy, When I started looking, I was just surprised at the level of compensation most of these firms are taking.
My youngest has decided to try and recover the compensation himself, so, I've sent him the template letter with all the details, but should he find that he starts playing postal chess with the airline, I have found a firm that takes 15% + vat from the compensation.
http://www.euaviationlawyers.eu/make-a-claim/
How good are they? well, I have no idea, it's like holiday insurance, you don't know how good they are, until the first time that you have to make a claim.
I not going to spend ages and waste valuable time being given the runaround
He hasn't got the time either, he's a very busy lad.
Sanji x
Normally as far as depatture and arrival times it is brakes off, brakes on, but as with most things the EU regulate on, they make no sense 
If the arrival time is when the door opens meaning it is actually out of the airlines control, why is the departure time brakes off time which also means it is out of their control? It doesn't make sense, nor is it fair on the airlines IMO. It would be fairer if the times were calculated by runway times.
If the arrival time is when the door opens meaning it is actually out of the airlines control, why is the departure time brakes off time which also means it is out of their control? It doesn't make sense, nor is it fair on the airlines IMO. It would be fairer if the times were calculated by runway times.
Sunaddict wrote:but as with most things the EU regulate on, they make no sense
quote]
Regulation no 261/2004 does not define the actual arrival time , that being the case , the need for a uniform application of EU law and the principle of equal treatment .
It follows that the concept of " actual arrival time " must be interpreted in such a way as to apply uniformly throughout the European Union
During a flight , passengers remain confined in an enclosed space , under the instructions and control of the air carrier , in which , for technical and safety reasons , their possibilities of communicating with the outside world are considerably restricted . In such circumstances , passengers are unable to carry on , without interruption , their personal , domestic , social or business activities . It is only once the flight has ENDED that they are able to resume their normal activities .
In that regard , it must be stated , that in principle the situation of passengers on a flight does not change substantially when their aircraft touches down on the runway at the destination airport , when the aircraft reaches its parking position and brakes are engaged , as the passengers continue to be subject , in the enclosed space to various constraints .
It is only when the passengers are permitted to leave the aircraft and the order is given to that effect to open the doors of the aircraft that the passengers may in principle resume their normal activities without being subject to those constraints .
Makes perfect sense to me !! Clarification and fairness
The fairness to the airlines is there is quite a leeway before they have to pay delay compensation anyway .
IMO. It would be fairer if the times were calculated by runway times
How do you consider that to be fairer?
You could spent 15 minutes sat on the plane taxing around airports such as Heathrow to reach the runway, or from the runway to reach the gate.
If the arrival time is when the door opens meaning it is actually out of the airlines control,
Until you start disembarking, passengers are still under the control of the airline, whether it's parked up with the brakes applied or you're up in the sky.
If the doors are open and someone goes into the overhead locker to retrieve their coat and a metal crutch falls on top of a bald headed bloke sat in the seat below, causing a scalp injury requiring a few sutures...are you saying because the brakes are applied and the doors are open, that it's no longer the airlines problem.?
BTW : I saw that happen a couple of years ago on a flight back from Alicante and as scalps tend to bleed profusely, there was blood everywhere.
I'll give another example....
A few years ago we landed at my local airport (Doncaster) and we were kept on the plane for 15 minutes or more, waiting for the steps....there are no air bridges at Donny.
People were getting more and more agitated waiting, and the reason they gave for the delay was because we'd arrived early and they weren't expecting us.
That was the most lame excuse that I have ever heard, considering Doncaster airport is lucky if they have 10 flight in a 24 hour period.
I was still being held a captive on that plane until the point where I disembarked, so, no I do not agree with your suggestion of calculating departing/arrival by runway times...and if we'd been delayed instead of being early, those 15 minutes could make all the difference regarding a compensation claim.
Quite simply put: Until the point where I reach the bottom of the steps and place my foot on the floor, or I step onto an air bridge, I haven't arrived.... (imo) the EU have got it right.
Sorry Andy, I'd just finished writing this post, a few seconds before your post popped up.
Sanji
No problem Sanji 
People's opinions are valid , but rules are made for clarification and uniformity , your post highlighted the practicalities , my post was the EU reasonings and I think both make sense .
Sorry to hear you being held " captive " were they wearing eye patches and saying " aaaarrrggg " a lot
( just my sense of humour , ) !!!!!
I hope your son gets his rightful claim dealt with promptly .
As just ordinary travellers / holiday makers we are constantly reminded when we have problems that airline and ( accommodation providers ) have strict and comprehensive T&CS that we have to abide to and read in full , so when a supplier ( airline carrier ) doesn't keep to its service level and inconveniences its paying passengers then any rules that protect us the consumers should be applied in the same vigour that they apply their T&CS
That is being fair IMO
People's opinions are valid , but rules are made for clarification and uniformity , your post highlighted the practicalities , my post was the EU reasonings and I think both make sense .Sorry to hear you being held " captive " were they wearing eye patches and saying " aaaarrrggg " a lot
( just my sense of humour , ) !!!!!
I hope your son gets his rightful claim dealt with promptly .
As just ordinary travellers / holiday makers we are constantly reminded when we have problems that airline and ( accommodation providers ) have strict and comprehensive T&CS that we have to abide to and read in full , so when a supplier ( airline carrier ) doesn't keep to its service level and inconveniences its paying passengers then any rules that protect us the consumers should be applied in the same vigour that they apply their T&CS
That is being fair IMO
You could spent 15 minutes sat on the plane taxing around airports such as Heathrow to reach the runway, or from the runway to reach the gate.
and you could spend 15 mins in a take off queue, and all of those things are out of the airlines control so why should it be taken into consideration as regards delay compo?
Until you start disembarking, passengers are still under the control of the airline, whether it's parked up with the brakes applied or you're up in the sky.
Technically yes, but the airline has no control over how long it takes to get to the position of being able to open it's doors.
A few years ago we landed at my local airport (Doncaster) and we were kept on the plane for 15 minutes or more, waiting for the steps....there are no air bridges at Donny.
Exactly! The fact they were waiting for steps is out of the airlines control. Things outside of the airlines control are considered 'extraordinary circumstances' as far as EU261 is concerned when it comes to delay compensation, so why should the ground time that the airlines have no control over factored into the actual delay times?
Isn't a scheduled flight time , made up of time taken to fly to destination and also taking into consideration the time from push back to taxi ing and then take off , then build in some extra time for weather conditions and then landing and parking up
Often you hear the captain explaining that they have good weather conditions and can fly there with no problems arriving on time , also you get situations where you have a bit of delay taking off but the captain says the time will be made up and arrival could be early .
So a fair amount of leeway is already given to allow for taxi ing and parking up within the scheduled flight time .
The Ronny Henning case was that the airline disputed the delay and the EU agreed that the actual arrival time meant a delay of over 3 hours and compensation to be paid , the interpretation of actual arrival time has now been made clearer and a more uniform calculation
Often you hear the captain explaining that they have good weather conditions and can fly there with no problems arriving on time , also you get situations where you have a bit of delay taking off but the captain says the time will be made up and arrival could be early .
So a fair amount of leeway is already given to allow for taxi ing and parking up within the scheduled flight time .
The Ronny Henning case was that the airline disputed the delay and the EU agreed that the actual arrival time meant a delay of over 3 hours and compensation to be paid , the interpretation of actual arrival time has now been made clearer and a more uniform calculation
Time can be made up on route providing there is a tail wind. Flight time is calculated from brakes off to brakes on. If the EU considered that to be the departure and arrival time then the airline would have to bear any delays after the brakes were released, but wouldn't have to also have to bear the delay after they'd applied the brakes, which isn't calculated into flight time.
We've sat on an aircraft waiting for steps and then a bus to take us to the terminal building abroad on quite a few occasions. Why should the airline be responsible for that? They can't make a bus or steps arrive any sooner.
If runway times are unfair, and IMO brakes off to door opening are unfair, then surely brakes off brakes on would be fair as the middle ground?
Meanwhile I'll go back to trying to find a decent powered 'hoover' that the EU hasn't banned, and I'm ordering a couple of decent hairdryers before I'm told I've got to have a bad hair day every day
We've sat on an aircraft waiting for steps and then a bus to take us to the terminal building abroad on quite a few occasions. Why should the airline be responsible for that? They can't make a bus or steps arrive any sooner.
If runway times are unfair, and IMO brakes off to door opening are unfair, then surely brakes off brakes on would be fair as the middle ground?
Meanwhile I'll go back to trying to find a decent powered 'hoover' that the EU hasn't banned, and I'm ordering a couple of decent hairdryers before I'm told I've got to have a bad hair day every day
They can spend nearly up to 3 hours faffing around for steps before any delay compensation is due
There is plenty of leeway for airlines to avoid any delay compensation , if the time difference between brakes on and doors open is that critical , they should be trying harder not to inconvenience passengers
There is no ban on vacuum cleaners that suck powerfully , the ban is on cleaners that use too much energy and /or not energy efficient , and too much heat is bad for your hair better sort out your lawn mower too , the list is endless of " EU interference " ( as the UK media informs us )
There is plenty of leeway for airlines to avoid any delay compensation , if the time difference between brakes on and doors open is that critical , they should be trying harder not to inconvenience passengers
Sunaddict wrote:
Meanwhile I'll go back to trying to find a decent powered 'hoover' that the EU hasn't banned, and I'm ordering a couple of decent hairdryers before I'm told I've got to have a bad hair day every day
There is no ban on vacuum cleaners that suck powerfully , the ban is on cleaners that use too much energy and /or not energy efficient , and too much heat is bad for your hair
better sort out your lawn mower too , the list is endless of " EU interference " ( as the UK media informs us )
andy66 wrote:They can spend nearly up to 3 hours faffing around for steps before any delay compensation is due
There is plenty of leeway for airlines to avoid any delay compensation , if the time difference between brakes on and doors open is that critical , they should be trying harder not to inconvenience passengers
Sunaddict wrote:
Meanwhile I'll go back to trying to find a decent powered 'hoover' that the EU hasn't banned, and I'm ordering a couple of decent hairdryers before I'm told I've got to have a bad hair day every day
There is no ban on vacuum cleaners that suck powerfully , the ban is on cleaners that use too much energy and /or not energy efficient , and too much heat is bad for your hair
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about flight compensation, and the EU regulating anything and everything, although I suppose they have to keep themselves employed somehow. When the regs are revisited hopefully they will become fairer in delay times which would go some way to address the difference, and supposedly also clearer in the wording and definitions. I believe the proposal was to raise the delay times to 5, 9 and 12 hours but the amendment will be to 3, 5 and 7 hours and also the journey distances in those brackets will change (subject to them changing their minds lol)
I've yet to find a 1600 watt cleaner that sucks powerfully (900 from 2017 does't bear thinking about lol), or a low wattage hair drier that actual does anything decent towards styling. Only a front lawn to think about and that will be gone soon. The back went years ago. Petrol mower does the job while it's still there.
Still the search continues, and the carpets are slowly getting replaced with laminate. Upstairs all done, so only the downstairs to think about. In the meantime I've got 2 GHD hairdryers on the way - just in case!
Can't add any smilies because apparently the maximum has already been used. Party poopers!
I'm afraid vacuum cleaners are not something I take a great interest in I'm all laminate upstairs , and fitted my own solid wood flooring throughout lounge & conservatory , have no mower , as front is nicely paved driveway ( as parking is horrendous where I live ) and back is patio with log cabin at the top and what looks like a giant cat litter tray ( gold shingle ) in the middle thanks to cats , I'm a low maintenance person and hopefully energy efficient last used a hair dyer in the 80s couiffuring my new romantic image 
; ( a la nick rhodes) thus no need for said appliance now , see too much heat and " product " is bad for your hair !!
I think people think the EU do interfere and make stupid rules , but they do push forward good ideas ( perhaps need more considered detail ) in making manafacturers and suppliers improve their product and prod them to innovate and improve efficiency which I see as no bad thing ,
Ideally no passengers would suffer inefficient service which causes delays ,but the principal of them being recompensed is a fair one and reminds carriers of their responsibilities .
I'm all laminate upstairs , and fitted my own solid wood flooring throughout lounge & conservatory , have no mower , as front is nicely paved driveway ( as parking is horrendous where I live ) and back is patio with log cabin at the top and what looks like a giant cat litter tray ( gold shingle ) in the middle thanks to cats , I'm a low maintenance person and hopefully energy efficient last used a hair dyer in the 80s couiffuring my new romantic image ; ( a la nick rhodes) thus no need for said appliance now , see too much heat and " product " is bad for your hair !! I think people think the EU do interfere and make stupid rules , but they do push forward good ideas ( perhaps need more considered detail ) in making manafacturers and suppliers improve their product and prod them to innovate and improve efficiency which I see as no bad thing ,
Ideally no passengers would suffer inefficient service which causes delays ,but the principal of them being recompensed is a fair one and reminds carriers of their responsibilities .
Exactly! The fact they were waiting for steps is out of the airlines control. Things outside of the airlines control are considered 'extraordinary circumstances' as far as EU261 is concerned when it comes to delay compensation, so why should the ground time that the airlines have no control over factored into the actual delay times?
No it isn't out of the airlines control.
Who signs the contract for the ground handling staff such as swissport?.... it's the airlines.The airlines make the decision which contractor they employ, therefore they are ultimately responsible for the performance of their contractors.
When passengers were waiting 90 minutes at Gatwick for their luggage, Monarch Airlines terminated their swissport contract.
The hard facts are these...
Airlines want the cheapest contractor running services on the cheap. The contractor employs people on zero hour contracts, so when those people don't turn up for work at 6 am, there's nobody there to supply the steps or off-load the luggage.
The root cause of this situation is the dysfunctional nature of the airline industry subcontracting
Sanji
Sanji , agree with the " hard facts " you listed and is symptomatic of the problems experienced by passengers daily
My experience of Swissport at LGW is that they are shockingly bad , and that's being polite !
Airlines need to held responsible for providing their passengers with reasonable service levels and if constant cost cutting causes delays then why not compensate passengers for service failures
My experience of Swissport at LGW is that they are shockingly bad , and that's being polite !
Airlines need to held responsible for providing their passengers with reasonable service levels and if constant cost cutting causes delays then why not compensate passengers for service failures
Post a Reply
Please sign in or register an account to reply to this post.
Similar Topics
-
Booked flight 1 year in advance - any time limit to claim
Posted by Dadooronron in Tour Operators and Travel Agents
-
can i claim compensation?
Posted by Fiona in Thailand Discussion Forum
-
Have I got a claim for compensation ?
Posted by vicjayhay in Holiday Complaints
-
Compensation - how/what can you claim?
Posted by Faith69 in Holiday Complaints
-
Compensation claim advice please- abta arbitration or court?
Posted by kevn39 in Holiday Complaints