Flight delay compensation gets a boost - TravelSkills TravelSkills Flight delay compensation gets a boost October 27, 2014 In Europe, airlines must compensate passengers in cash when a prolonged delay is their fault. (Photo: Flickr / Tony Hisgett) Flying to Europe and facing delays? Unlike in the US, airlines in Europe are required to compensate passengers in cash for prolonged flight delays. A recent European Court of Justice ruling redefines flight arrival time and its decision favors passengers, according to FlightRight.com , a company that helps travelers claim compensation from airlines. The European Court of Justice recently decided that the actual arrival time of an aircraft at its destination is defined by when at least one aircraft door is opened. This ruling has particular significance for passengers who seek compensation for a flight delayed by three hours or more, especially in cases in which the aircraft lands close to the three-hour threshold. For anyone flying between North America and Europe, the new ruling can boost their chances of collecting compensation of as much as $800.

(EU’s compensation rules only apply when the delay is fault of the airline– which means delays due to storms or labor actions, etc., don’t count.) Related: Dealing with delays and cancellations in the US (VIDEO) In this recent case, the court took a clear position in favor of delayed passengers by noting that, so far as passengers are concerned, they are confined in the aircraft for the entirety of the flight. The court decided that flight delays should be calculated based on the time at which one of the doors of the aircraft is opened, at which time passengers can leave the aircraft and resume their activities. The time the aircraft lands on the runway or reaches its parking position is therefore irrelevant when calculating a flight’s arrival time. Marek Janetzke, managing director of Berlin-based flightright , which fights for compensation owed to passengers when their flights are delayed or cancelled, says that the ruling will be crucial for determining the outcome of ‘edge’ cases: “For years, we have heard from passengers that their claims for compensation were denied because their airline maintained that the flight had arrived on time, based on when the aircraft landed or came to a standstill.

But as many passengers know, a lot can happen between when a plane lands and when a door actually opens. For them, the clock is still ticking while they wait to deplane.” Helpful: EU Air Passenger Rights Five things to do if your flight is delayed The ramifications of this decision are significant. For example, about 2.6 million passengers fly from London to New York every year, of which approximately 21 thousand passengers would be directly affected by the regulation. Collectively, they would be eligible for compensation of around $17 million. In light of the court’s decision, flightright recommends that passengers take the following steps whenever it looks like their flight will be significantly delayed: If the delay occurs at the departing airport, ask a gate agent what is the cause of the delay. The weather? A technical issue? Crew staffing problems? Note the reason the airline provides, and when it was given. Document any other pertinent information provided by airport or airline staff. Record the time that you boarded the aircraft, when the aircraft pushed back from the gate, and when it took off. During the flight, ask a member of the flight or cabin crew if they know the cause of the delay.

Document any information provided, who provided it, and the time. Upon arrival at the destination airport, note when the aircraft landed, when it came to a standstill, and when it docked at the gate or parking area. Document the exact time that the first door was opened. US and Canadian citizens/residents benefit from European flight delay compensation laws The European Air Passenger Rights Regulation 261/2004 and subsequent decisions of the European Court established minimum rights for passengers when they are denied boarding against their will or if their flight is cancelled or delayed by three hours or more. The law provides for U.S. and Canadian citizens and residents and entitles them to up to $800 in compensation from the carrier when they are delayed on routes between North America and Europe. According to a recent flightright survey , technical problems with an aircraft, bad weather, and delays associated with crew staffing problems are the most common reasons why passengers claim compensation. Are all these valid reasons to pursue a claim? Most of them are. If the flight delay, overbooking or flight cancellation additionally meets the following criteria, passengers should claim compensation. Which flights qualify for the EU regulation? First, the flight must be operated by an EU-regulated airline.

This means the passenger is either departing from any airport within the EU on any airline (including US airlines), or is flying into Europe with an EU-based airline. In addition, both the distance of the flight and the duration of the delay affect the amount of compensation passengers may be able to claim. This can range from 125 – 600 euros ($160 – $800) per person. >> Take a peek at what you may have missed on TravelSkills.com this week! << Like what you just read? Then say so! Scroll back up to the top and LIKE the post on Facebook, post it on Linked In and/or tweet it! Would you rather get TravelSkills Weekly instead of Daily? No probs! click here to sign up for TravelSkills Weekly. Are you in the market for a new credit card? Looking for a fat points or mileage bonus to sweeten your balance? Then check out our BEST CREDIT CARDS FOR BUSINESS TRAVELERS and scoop up the deals! Please join the 80,000+ people who read TravelSkills every month! Sign up here for one email-per-day updates!

Related Filed Under: Airlines , Travel Tips Tagged With: EU , Europe , Flight rights Max Durston While it is important that this rule has now been established by law, it will probably not affect the majority of cases as most will not be on the 3 hour border. There is another company like flightright that handles these claims, also based in Germany where the airlines seem to respect the regulations more than in some other European countries, but charges a lower commission of 15%: 150,000+ people read TravelSkills every month! Join them! Enter your email here & choose daily or weekly updates: Editor Chris McGinnis Click here to get $20 off your first Lyft ride! Trending on TravelSkills How to claim EU flight delay compensation|(EC) 261/2004 | This is Money comments If your flight has been delayed by at least three hours or cancelled then you have the right to compensation under European law. Under EU Regulation 261/2004, passengers are entitled to up to €600 (£509) in compensation when their flight lands at their destination more than three hours late.

But airlines don't always have to pay out and can avoid doing so if the delay is caused by an extraordinary circumstance, such as bad weather or crew strikes. If your flight has been delayed or cancelled you should be able to claim compensation Previously, airlines routinely refused to pay out for delays caused by technical faults, claiming they counted as extraordinary events. But in 2014 two landmark Supreme Court rulings declared that carriers should pay out when a delay was caused by a technical fault. We explain below when you're entitled to compensation, how to claim it, what to do if your claim is rejected and we have included template letters for you to use. More... Why you need a free EHIC card and how to apply for one without being conned into handing over your cash How does compensation work for delayed flights? Under EU rules, airlines must pay compensation for cancelled or heavily delayed flights, but how much you’re entitled to depends on the flight you booked and the amount of time you’ve been delayed by. The flight must have departed from an EU airport, operating by any airline, or it must be arriving into an EU airport and be operated by an EU airline. The 'EU airport' also includes the following countries; Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.

It also needs to have been at least three hours late arriving at your destination to be eligible for compensation and the ruling that outlines these rights is Regulation (EC) 261/2004 The amounts available start from €250 (£212) for flights of less than 1,500km long which are delayed by at least three hours and go up to €600 (£509) for flights of more than 3,500km between an EU and non-EU airport, delayed by at least four hours. What exactly are my rights? Regulation (EC) 261/2004 requires that airlines compensate passengers if their flight is cancelled or heavily delayed. WHAT IF EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES DO OCCUR? Airlines have a duty of care to look after stranded passengers, even if cancellations are due to extraordinary circumstances out of their control. If you have been left stuck and out of pocket by your airline, then you will need to keep a record of what you have spent, including receipts and try to reclaim from airline using the EU rule. They must also offer you meals, refreshments and hotel accommodation as appropriate whilst you wait for a rearranged flight.

They should also cover any transport costs between the hotel and the airport. There are no time or monetary limits on the provision of this assistance. If your airline does not provide assistance, keep your spending to a minimum, make sure you get receipts and claim reimbursement from your airline when you get home. ›› Download Regulation (EC) 261/2004 How to claim compensation for a delay Passengers can claim by telling the airline their flight number, names of passengers and the reason for the delay (we have included template letters at the end of this guide). HOW MUCH YOU'RE ENTITLED TO IF YOUR FLIGHT IS DELAYED Delay to your arrival More than 3,500km, between an EU and non-EU airport €600 If you can’t remember how long the delay was, the website Flightstats.com is free to use and will show you how long a flight has been delayed for, although it won’t state what the delay was for. If the claim is rejected, but you believe it's valid you can escalate it to the ombudsman or the relevant regulator (this will depend on the airline).

If you still don’t get the answer you believe is right it is possible to take the airline to the small claims court. Can my airline turn down my claim? Airlines don't have to accept every claim and they can turn them down if 'extraordinary circumstances' apply. However if this is the case, the airline still has a duty of care to passengers. The rules state that airlines must provide passengers with accommodation, meals and refreshments and transport between the airport and accommodation. Airlines are breaking the rules if they shirk this obligation. If your airline turns down your claim under extraordinary circumstances you can challenge this if you do not believe it to be true. Write back to the explaining why this is not the case and explain that you will take the matter up with the Civil Aviation Authority if it is not settled properly. Rules: You should be able to claim compensation for flight delays dating back six years. A classic example is airlines claiming technical faults as extraordinary circumstances. However, this can be challenged. The problem is that many airlines are still trying to wriggle out of such claims. This is because the regulation gives no definition of exactly what extraordinary circumstances are, but does give some examples.

ASK AN EXPERT more It says: 'As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. 'Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier.' The crucial part of this is that it says 'which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken'. This means that you can challenge the technical faults defence on the basis that an airline should have reasonable expectation that things can go wrong on an aircraft and should have contingency plans in place, ie replacement parts or access to them where it operates. If your flight is delayed by more than three hours you should be able to claim from your airline If your airline tries to claim extraordinary circumstances, challenge them to explain exactly what they were and why they could not have been reasonably avoided. The onus is on them to prove this. How far back can I claim?

Regulation (EC) 261 does not set a time limit on how far back claims can go, instead stating that this should be determined by the laws in respective EU countries. In the UK, the statute of limitations law is six years, so by this logic an airline should consider claims for delays dating back six years from the time the claim is submitted. Some airlines have used legal loopholes to avoid paying out here too. In 2104 we reported the case of a Monarch passenger who found the airline was delaying their claim while it waited for a court ruling. When that ruling arrived in passengers' favour, the This is Money reader tried to claim only to be told that he was out of the six years. When he contested this on the basis it was Monarch that delayed things not him, he was told that despite having been in touch regularly over the years, as he had not made a court claim within the past six years he was outside the allotted time period. Monarch said: 'If a customer presents their claim to an airline within six years but does not issue court proceedings and the six years have now expired, they are unfortunately unable to claim.

You will not be able to claim compensation if you are delayed because of bad weather 'It is our customers' responsibility to seek legal advice from either the Citizen's Advice Bureau, Civil Aviation Authority, or otherwise in order to find out if they need to take any action to stop time running out under the Limitation Act.' What will happen when I ask for compensation? If you are not given the assistance that you are due, you will need to make a claim against the airline. You will need receipts and proof of expenses and they must be reasonable. What about travel insurance? Most travel insurance policies should cover passengers for extra expenses incurred if they are stuck. Depending on the policy, this could cover the knock-on effects of not being able to fly. Cancelled hotels, trips and other expenses already paid out could be reclaimed under your travel insurance. It is important to check your policy carefully to see what is covered, any exclusions and the relevant excesses. Once again keep any extra spending to reasonable level, hold onto receipts and if in doubt, call your insurer before paying for anything. Travel insurance does not override airlines duty of care, but you cannot claim for the same thing twice. It is always unclear what airlines will do when faced with claims.

Some may try and refuse to pay and stave off claims. If this happens passengers need to use the courts to force payment. The best way to do this is through the small claims track of the county court. ›› How to use the small claims court What can't I claim? Your expenses should be reasonable such as a hotel similar to the standard of the one you were staying in or a simple meal. Living it large and then trying to charge it to the airline is unlikely to work. You are also unlikely to find airlines paying for the expense of you abandoning your flight and navigating your way home yourself. Although, if you have taken the simplest and best-value route you may be covered and if you had been advised to get yourself home and that you would be reimbursed by the airline, then you should state this and claim. This is Money has heard a lot of reports of airlines trying to fob off passengers, deny they are issuing reimbursements or claim that this is not the law. That is untrue and while you may need to be persistent, you should get your money.

If your airline does claim extraordinary circumstances, they need not pay the compensation amounts above but still have a duty of care to look after you and get you where you are meant to be going. You should tell them that under Regulation (EC) 261/2004 Article 5 you are entitled to be reimbursed or re-routed under Article 8 and also offered assistance, including accommodation, meals and transport under Article 9. You should also state that under Article 5, airlines are able to not pay compensation in accordance with article 7 in the case of 'extraordinary circumstances', but crucially that this extraordinary circumstances clause does not apply to the entitlement to assistance under Article 9. Reclaim: The sample letter below can be copied and pasted to help you with your claim. The sample reclaim letters We have provided a sample paragraph and letter for you to use. Either copy and paste the paragraph into your letter, or use the letter template and add your personal details into it. Copy and paste the text, as needed, adding in your details. For more advice visit the Civil Aviation Authority website .

Delays or cancellations not classed as extraordinary circumstances Dear Sir/Madam I am writing regarding flight [flight number] on [date] from [departure airport] to [arrival airport] with the scheduled departure time of [scheduled departure time]. My booking reference is [booking or reservation reference if available]. This flight arrived [number of hours] hours late at [airport] (or) This flight was cancelled and I arrived late on [time and date of arrival]. The passengers in the party were [names of party]. The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Tui & others v CAA confirmed the applicability of compensation for delay as set out in the Sturgeon case. As such, I am seeking compensation under EC Regulation 261/2004 for this delayed flight. My scheduled flight length was [number of kilometres – see here if you need to check flight length /], therefore I am seeking [if less than 1500km: €250, if more than 1500km but less than 3500km: €400, if more than 3500km: €600) per delayed passenger in my party.

The total compensation sought is €]. I look forward to hearing from you and would welcome a response in 14 days., Yours faithfully, Delays or cancellations classed as extraordinary circumstances Dear Sir/Madam I am writing regarding flight [flight number] on [date] from [departure airport] to [arrival airport] with the scheduled departure time of [scheduled departure time]. My booking reference is [booking or reservation reference if available]. This flight arrived [number of hours] hours late at [airport] (or) This flight was cancelled and I arrived late on [time and date of arrival]. Unfortunately, your airline failed to meet its obligations under EU rules and did not provide me with the assistance it should have in the form of rerouting home / accommodation / meals / transport to the airport. [Delete as applicable.] I am therefore asking you to please compensate me for £----. I enclose receipts. The EU rules that state that I should have been assisted by yourselves are in Regulation (EC) 261/2004.

In this Article 5 states that in the case of cancellation or delay of more than one day I am entitled to be reimbursed or re-routed under Article 8 and also offered assistance, including accommodation, meals and transport under Article 9. Article 9 states: 1. Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall be offered free of charge: (a) meals and refreshments in a reasonable relation to the waiting time; (b) hotel accommodation in cases — where a stay of one or more nights becomes necessary, or — where a stay additional to that intended by the passenger becomes necessary; (c) transport between the airport and place of accommodation (hotel or other). 2. In addition, passengers shall be offered free of charge two telephone calls, telex or fax messages, or e-mails. 3. In applying this Article, the operating air carrier shall pay particular attention to the needs of persons with reduced mobility and any persons accompanying them, as well as to the needs of unaccompanied children. Under Article 5 part 3, airlines are able to avoid paying compensation in accordance with Article 7 in the case of 'extraordinary circumstances', but this extraordinary circumstances clause does not apply to the entitlement to assistance under Article 9.

A 2014 ruling ratified by the Supreme Court, in the case of Huzar vs Jet2 , says that European airlines can no longer claim technical faults as extraordinary circumstances, so must pay out compensation for flight delays of longer than three hours such cases. I thank you for your assistance with this and await your response. Yours faithfully Delayed flight: What are my passenger rights? (EU edition) - Airhelp AirHelp Delayed flight: What are my passenger rights? (EU edition) April 7, 2016Cecilia Minges This week, another landmark court case for air passenger rights was won in the Danish Supreme Court . This case ensures that the courts will continue to rule in favor of consumers when it comes to flight delays and cancellations. But you may still be sitting there scratching your head and thinking – gosh this is really complicated – what ARE my air passenger rights when my flight gets delayed or cancelled? We’re glad you asked, and of course happy to answer all of your questions about your air passenger rights and EC261!

Pro Tip — you can find a comprehensive guide covering all things EC261 on our “Know Your Rights” page, but here’s a cheat sheet for those of you who need a quick overview: What is EC261? EU regulation (EC) 261/2004 requires airlines to compensate passengers up to 600 if their flight is heavily delayed or cancelled. In 2009, the European Court of Justice ruled in Sturgeon v. Condor Flugdienst GmbH that a flight would be considered “heavily delayed” if it was disrupted by more than 3 hours. Just a few years later in 2013, in the case of Air France v. Heinz Gerke Folkerts, the courts ruled that flights delayed by less than 3 hours, but then arriving more than 3 hours past the originally scheduled arrival time, were still entitled to compensation under EC261. A lot of the time, the airlines try to use the loophole of “extraordinary circumstances” to wiggle out of paying out compensation, but in recent years the courts have ruled in favor of passenger rights in most major landmark cases.

What are “extraordinary circumstances?” “Extraordinary circumstances” were not defined by the courts when the original EC261 legislation was passed back in 2004. This meant that many airlines began to interpret the phrase in a way to best serve their own agendas, which has resulted in a number of cases over the past decade that have aimed to clarify the terminology for both travelers and the airlines. The following scenarios are defined/classified as “extraordinary circumstances” and legally fall out of an airline’s control: Terrorism or sabotage Inclement weather Unknown manufacturing defects On the other side of the coin, the courts have ruled that the following scenarios ARE NOT considered “extraordinary circumstances” and are deemed within the controls of the airline.

This means that in these scenarios the airline must pay compensation to affected passengers: Technical issues (except for unknown manufacturing defects or acts of sabotage) Denied boarding due to flight overbooking Flight is understaffed, cabin crew/pilots arrive late, or airplane crew exceed working hours Any other circumstance not listed as an “extraordinary circumstance” from the previous list of examples In this week’s Danish Supreme Court case, the court once again ruled in favor of passenger rights, when it upheld the ECJ’s landmark 2015 Van der Lans v. KLM case. In both the Danish court case and the Van der Lans case, the judges ruled that technical defects cannot be considered “unforeseeable” or “extraordinary circumstances,” and then used as an excuse to not pay out compensation to passengers. How can I check to see if my delayed or cancelled flight is eligible for compensation? We thought you’d never ask! Ok so this is an easy one and AirHelp’s unique area of expertise of course 😉 Like you, we know that EC261 is not the easiest law to understand – there are even more stipulations to consider, such as how far you were flying, how long your delay was, etc.

that all make a difference for your claim – and that’s exactly why we invented our super easy, online claim form, which instantly tells you if you’re eligible for compensation . If your delay is covered under EC261, AirHelp will handle all of the paperwork and bureaucracy for you, so that all you have to do is sit back, kick your feet up and watch the money roll in! On the other hand, if your flight is cancelled or delayed and is not covered under EC261 , all hope is not lost and you may be covered and not even know it. Regardless of your situation, we are always here to answer any and all of your questions about EC261, so feel free to chat with us live or check out some other passenger rights FAQs here . Airlines shirk responsibility in compensation claims passengers Airlines shirk responsibility in compensation claims passengers Tuesday 22 January 2013 London 23 January 2013 -- Airlines continue to evade European laws for compensation of victimised air passengers on a large scale. One of the ways they try to do this is by blaming delays on ‘extraordinary circumstances’ such as unexpected technical difficulties.

Some airlines also still disagree with the principle that air passengers are entitled to be compensated for the time they lose as a result of delays. These are the results of research done by claim agency Flight-delayed.co.uk of claims filed by 10,000 passengers from all across Europe. As defined by European legislation, air passengers are entitled to compensation if their flight is delayed by three hours or more. This was confirmed yet again by the European Court of Justice in October of 2012, three months ago this week. Nevertheless, victimised passengers continue to face many obstacles in successfully filing a claim for compensation. Statistics collected by claim website Flight-delayed.co.uk from compensation claims filed by 10,000 passengers from across Europe between July and December of 2012 also demonstrate that. ‘Technical difficulties’ is the argument most used to deny compensation. 40 percent of all cases is denied for this type of reason. The real cause of a delay is almost always kept under wraps by the airline.

Raymond Veldkamp, spokesperson for Flight-delayed.co.uk: “The European Court ruled that technical defects are part of an airline’s operational responsibilities and do not exempt them from their obligation to compensate passengers in the case of a delay unless the defect could not have reasonably been prevented or predicted. As a result, airlines use this legislative loophole to their advantage by blaming every delay on the catch-all excuse of ‘technical defects’. Airlines are also aware of the public’s fear of crashes, meaning they need only mention a potential defect to lull their customers into waiting for hours on end.” Of course, passengers never find out the real reason for the delay, which may not even be one of safety but of economics instead.For years, the main excuse for not paying compensation claims to victimised passengers was that there was no legal ground to do so. Most airlines have stopped using this argument after an extended legal debate between the airlines and the European Court. Veldkamp: “For the most part, airlines finally realise that they have lost this battle.

As a result, some airlines do compensate more now than they did before, while others stopped responding at all after October 23rd.” Another tactic airlines are often said to employ now is to complicate the process of filing for compensation as much as they can. Monarch Airlines, for example, have drafted their own complaint form, and only accepts compensation requests if they are filed by using this form. As a result, many customers have had their letters sent back to them unanswered, forcing them to send the exact same information twice, but in a different format. “The airlines know consumers are easily scared off by legal lingo, thick dossiers and lawsuits, and use these things to intimidate the passenger and discourage them from seeing their claim through ‘till the end.”Of the 10,000 passengers whose data were compared for this research, only 846 received compensation from the airline directly after their first request. Of all passengers that filed a claim after October 23rd, only 24 percent received a response from the airline within the legally set timeframe of 6 weeks. Before the 23rd, this percentage was 45.

The largest shift between the period before and after October 23rd can be perceived in claims filed with British Airways. Where previously, BA responded within 6 weeks in 60 percent of all cases, this number dropped dramatically to 17 in the period after October 23rd. Veldkamp: “The numbers speak for themselves: airlines ignore the legally set response time or fail to respond altogether. If they do respond, they almost always reject the claim straight away. The reason that is given for rejecting claims varies greatly. What’s also remarkable is that there are huge differences between the results of different airlines. What this means is that the chances of successfully claiming for compensation are highly dependent on which airline you’re facing. This conclusion by itself is unacceptable.”With an estimated number of only 7 percent of consumers being aware of their rights as air passengers, the key to forcing airlines to fulfil their responsibilities may be in reaching the masses. When asked for a response to the European ruling last October, MEP for South East England Catherine Bearder stated: “Passengers must be better informed about their rights, starting when purchasing their tickets [...] but also in departure and arrival halls as well.

It is unacceptable that many people are not aware of already existing EU rights when facing not just delays but cancellations and luggage problems during their trips as well.” Airliners.net - Aviation Forums Airliners.net Hey A.net fans, Airliners.net is getting a new homepage. Take a look and provide feedback here. Aviation Forums Civil Aviation Discussions about factual events happening in the airline and general aviation industries. If it's happening in commercial aviation, you'll get the information and opinions here first. Last post by jbpdx , Sun Dec 18, 2016 5:45 am 287369 Topics 4921025 Posts Re: Oregon Aviation Thread - … by jbpdx Sun Dec 18, 2016 5:45 am Travel, Polls & Preferences Opinion-based discussions about aviation. The best, worst, biggest, smallest. Or seeking advice as to a preferred carrier for a trip you are planning, etc.

Last post by anshabhi , Sun Dec 18, 2016 4:25 am 25463 Topics 293426 Posts Air India on LHR-EWR by anshabhi Sun Dec 18, 2016 4:25 am Technical/Operations The more advanced forum for those of you who want to dig deeper into technical issues as well as airline management and operations. A forum for both professionals and knowledgeable amateurs. Last post by AA737-823 , Sun Dec 18, 2016 5:14 am 28351 Topics 364021 Posts Re: Have a look at this video… by AA737-823 Sun Dec 18, 2016 5:14 am Aviation Hobby Discussions about flight simulation, model collections, memorabilia, collectables, post cards, slides, etc.

Last post by Thunderboltdrgn , Sat Dec 17, 2016 3:47 pm 18310 Topics 131847 Posts Re: Will the PMDG 747v3 actua… by Thunderboltdrgn Sat Dec 17, 2016 3:47 pm Aviation Photography Discuss equipment, techniques, digital editing, photography related news and events, spotting tips and locations. Use the Photography Feedback forum to have your photos reviewed by fellow photographers and get feedback on ways to improve them. Last post by vikkyvik , Sat Dec 17, 2016 4:19 pm 34700 Topics 366893 Posts Re: Announcing Our New Creati… by vikkyvik Sat Dec 17, 2016 4:19 pm Photography Feedback Have your photos reviewed by fellow photographers and get feedback on ways to improve specific images.

Last post by jelpee , Sat Dec 17, 2016 2:01 pm 4653 Topics 41337 Posts Re: Post Screening JK by jelpee Sat Dec 17, 2016 2:01 pm Trip Reports Discussions about specific trips you have taken. The more detail the better. Photo-essays on complete trips are welcome and encouraged. We welcome start-to-finish accounts of your journeys with the sort of detail your fellow enthusiasts will appreciate. Last post by PayaLebar , Sun Dec 18, 2016 4:23 am 19779 Topics 266782 Posts Re: Jakarta-Medan, Banda Aceh… by PayaLebar Sun Dec 18, 2016 4:23 am Military Aviation & Space Flight Discussions about military aviation and space flight. Defense contracts, new fighters, tankers and transports and aerospace development.

Last post by ThePointblank , Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:50 am 10676 Topics 170698 Posts Re: Canada And The Fwsar by ThePointblank Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:50 am Non-Aviation This forum is for topics not related to aviation. It can be anything really, reflections on why you think Microsoft is a cool company to why you'll never buy a Nissan. This is the only forum where political comments are allowed. This is also the forum to organize Airliners.net meetings and events. Last post by zkojq , Sun Dec 18, 2016 5:39 am 96710 Topics 2491715 Posts Re: Nico Rosberg, 2016 F1 Cha… by zkojq Sun Dec 18, 2016 5:39 am Site Related This is the place where Airliners.net related information will be posted like dates for scheduled downtime, info about new sections and features etc.

This is also the forum for suggestions, comments and constructive criticism related to any part of Airliners.net. Last post by porkchop , Sun Dec 18, 2016 2:58 am 8005 Topics 90412 Posts AIR FAIR Passenger Rights Bolstered by EU Ruling | Lanzarote News | News from the Island You are here: News from the Island > News > AIR FAIR Passenger Rights Bolstered by EU Ruling Friday September 18, 2015 AIR FAIR Passenger Rights Bolstered by EU Ruling Passengers flying to Lanzarote and other destinations within the European Union will now be able to receive compensation if their flight is delayed by technical problems. After a landmark ruling was made yesterday in the European Court of Justice prohibiting airlines from using unexpected technical glitches as an excuse for non-payment. Under current EU regulation EU261 passengers who reach their destination three hours or more behind their scheduled arrival time are entitled to compensation ranging from £185 to £445. However, many airlines, including Jet2, Thomas Cook and Ryanair, have been resisting making payments as they awaited the outcome of yesterday’s court case.

The court ruled that; “Airlines must ensure the maintenance and proper functioning of all aircrafts used for commercial activities. No component of an aircraft is indestructible; these situations are inherent in the normal operations of an airline. Therefore, when a flight is cancelled due to unforeseen technical errors, the airline remains obliged to pay compensation to its passengers.” As a result, airlines can now only avoid making payment for delays when they are caused by bad weather, strike action or air traffic control issues. And now the Civil Aviation Authority has ordered foot dragging flight operators to compensate the thousands of passengers who filed claims – or face enforcement that could ultimately lead to court action. Europe Seeks Update of Law on Fliers’ Rights - The New York Times The New York Times Global Business |Europe Seeks Update of Law on Fliers’ Rights Search Photo Deicing on Wednesday at Orly Airport in Paris, where snow snarled air traffic. Credit Jacques Brinon/Associated Press PARIS — Denise McDonagh might have gotten her €1,100 settlement from Ryanair faster under new traveler-rights rules the European Union proposed for the airline industry on Wednesday. But she probably wouldn’t have gotten nearly as much.

And that is the rub of the European Union’s proposal , which is meant to clarify air travelers’ rights to aid and compensation when flights are delayed or canceled — as happens tens of thousands of time a year. The proposed changes would also seek tougher oversight and enforcement of airlines’ compliance with the law. “It is very important that passenger rights do not just exist on paper,” Siim Kallas, the European Union transport commissioner, said Wednesday in Brussels. “We all need to be able to rely on them when it matters most — when things go wrong.” But the proposal is not completely pro-passenger. The proposed update of rules first spelled out in 2004 would significantly roll back airlines’ obligations to passengers who wind up stranded for extended periods because of extraordinary events like the Icelandic volcano eruption three years ago, which grounded more than 100,000 flights across Europe. Continue reading the main story In Ms. McDonagh’s case, she was stranded for a week in April 2010 in Faro, Portugal, trying to get back to Dublin as the ash cloud lingered and European governments dithered about whether they could safely reopen their airspace.

But not until this past January was her claim against Ryanair, for lodging and meals, finally resolved by the European Court of Justice, which rejected the airline’s claim that the extraordinary circumstances of the event absolved Ryanair of having to compensate her. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Under the new E.U. rules, if they eventually become law, an airline presumably would be held more closely and quickly accountable. At the same time, though, the new rules would cap the airline’s liability to three days of lodging and meal reimbursement — meaning Ms. McDonagh would have been eligible for less than half the sum the court awarded. That is why John Hennessy, the lawyer who represented Ms. McDonagh against Ryanair, considers the European Union’s move to update the traveler-protection rules a step in the wrong direction. “The whole ethos of the original directive is that if someone is stuck in a foreign place and can’t get back, the airline pays the reasonable expenses,” Mr. Hennessy said by telephone from Dublin on Wednesday. Ryanair said Wednesday that it welcomed the capping of the passenger food-and-lodging provision to three nights, even if it was not completely happy with all the proposed changes.

The debate is likely to continue, but one thing seems certain: Eight years after the European Union introduced its far-reaching package of passenger rights legislation, the law is still not well understood by customers. And critics say this leads to frequent abuses by airlines. Among the proposed changes is a rule obliging airlines to inform passengers about the nature of any flight disruption no later than 30 minutes after the scheduled departure time. Passengers who are delayed two hours or more would be entitled to care and assistance at the airport, including meals and refreshments, regardless of the distance of their flight. After five hours, passengers would have the right to renounce the flight and have their ticket price reimbursed. In the event of a flight that has already boarded and is delayed by more than an hour on the tarmac, passengers would have the right to free drinking water, access to toilets and medical assistance. Should the tarmac delay extend to five hours, passengers would have the right to cancel their ticket and get off the plane. “Complaints about air travel amount to 80 percent within the transport sector, which shows the extent of the problem in Europe,” Monique Goyens, director general of the Brussels-based consumer organization BEUC, said in a statement.

“We hope this prompts a much-needed upsurge in airlines’ respect for passenger rights.” Advertisement Continue reading the main story The proposal, which would require approval by a majority of the Union’s 27 member countries, as well as the European Parliament, aims to address the most common airline practices that remain a regular source of frustration to travelers. Helen Kearns, a commission spokeswoman, said that if adopted, the new rules would probably take effect before the end of 2015. The E.U. regulation applies to all carriers that take off from an airport in one of the Union’s member states, regardless of their nationality. The rules do not apply to non-European airlines on flights that originate outside the European Union. Few air travel disruptions are as chaotic as the notorious ash cloud, of course. But delays are commonplace. In January of this year, for example, when air traffic was significantly disrupted by winter storms, about two of every five flights within the Union experienced some kind of delay, according to data compiled by Eurocontrol, which manages air traffic for the bloc. But the average delay was only 12 minutes, well below the 30-minute threshold at which most of the proposed changes would take effect.

Just 4.5 percent of flights were delayed by more than one hour. The new proposal would clarify the rights of passengers who miss a connecting flight because of a delay. Travelers would be entitled to care and assistance after two hours of waiting at their connecting airport and financial compensation if their arrival was delayed by more than five hours on any flight of less than 3,500 kilometers, or about 2,175 miles. For flights of up to 6,000 kilometers, the right to compensation would kick in after nine hours, while for longer flights the deadline would be 12 hours. Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up Privacy Policy Airlines would also be compelled to re-route passengers on another airline — or an alternative transport mode — if they were unable to find an alternate route on their own services within 12 hours of the original departure time. Rules for handling passengers’ complaints would also be tightened. Airlines would have to establish clear complaint procedures and systems and to acknowledge complaints within a week of receipt. A deadline of two months would be set for airlines to formally reply.

Airline groups also cautiously welcomed the proposal. Viktoria Vajnai, a spokeswoman for the Association of European Airlines, in Brussels, described it as “a step in the right direction” for both airlines and passengers. “We believe that a comprehensive and coherent regulation will benefit not only passengers but the whole aviation industry,” Ms. Vajnai said. Advertisement Continue reading the main story The International Air Transport Association applauded the new limits to airlines’ obligations as an “important outcome.” But the airline lobbying group, which represents 240 airlines worldwide, also cautioned that the regulations might be difficult to enforce outside the European Union if they conflicted with other countries’ consumer protection regimes. It also said that the proposed regulation covering delays to connecting flights unfairly placed the entire burden for compensation on the operator of the first flight — at odds with existing international rules that require such costs to be shared between affected carriers. And Ryanair, which is a budget airline, took issue with the proposed requirement that airlines rebook passengers on competing airlines if a solution could not be found within 12 hours. That rule would “unfairly and disproportionately increase costs for low-fare airlines, which do not participate in airline alliance programs,” the company said.

It was alluding to the alliances of big airlines that can enable them to send passengers to other carriers and still share the ticket revenue. For all the potential benefits to customers, the new rules would set strict limits on the amount of care and assistance airlines must provide in extraordinary circumstances beyond their control, like extreme weather or an air traffic controllers’ strike. Or a volcanic ash cloud. Current rules provide for an unlimited right to such care, but airlines have long argued that this places an unfair financial burden on them. During the weeklong volcano aftermath in 2010, for example, global airlines claimed nearly $2 billion in lost revenue and added customer-care expenses. Even during the ash-cloud disruption, though, many airlines resisted meeting their legal obligations — as the European Court of Justice ruled in Ms. McDonagh’s case against Ryanair. But under the new proposal, airlines would have to pay only for a maximum of three nights of hotel accommodation in such situations. Beyond that, airports and local authorities — not the airlines — would be expected to prepare contingency plans for dealing with mass disruptions. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Rights to financial compensation would also be significantly curtailed.

The proposal extends the delay threshold for any compensation to five hours from three hours currently for intra-European flights. But the right to compensation for inter-continental passengers would not kick in until a delay reached at least nine hours. BEUC, the European consumer rights group, said it was disappointed by the new limits on passenger care and compensation. But it said it welcomed the clarification of legal gray areas that until now had often made it difficult for passengers to seek redress. Mr. Hennessy, the lawyer for Ms. McDonagh, said that carriers reaped tens of millions of euros each year from cancellation insurance they sell to passengers, which goes toward offsetting expenses when things go wrong. “Let’s say I’m stuck for two weeks through no fault of my own, while these airlines have already charged me and everyone else an insurance levy,” Mr. Hennessy said. “So now they don’t have to give me my full compensation? I think that’s wrong.” Correction: March 14, 2013 An earlier version of this article misspelled the surname of the lawyer for a traveler who claimed compensation for being stranded for a week. He is John Hennessy, not Hennessey.

A version of this article appears in print on March 14, 2013, on Page B2 of the New York edition with the headline: Europe Proposes New Rights for Fliers When Flights Are Delayed or Canceled. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe Flight canceled? Firms may help you cash in - SFGate Flight canceled? Firms may help you cash in New York Times Published 3:12 pm, Monday, August 10, 2015 Ricardo Vice Santos , chief executive of an app startup, missed a meeting with prospective investors in Stockholm this spring because his SAS flight from Paris was canceled. Although he lost out on the business opportunity, Santos received compensation for his disrupted trip, thanks to a European Union regulation mandating compensation in the event of overbooked or canceled flights. He did not make the claim on his own. Santos sought assistance from AirHelp, one of many online companies that help travelers make claims against airlines. Santos’ flight was canceled March 26; he filed his claim immediately with AirHelp and received compensation of about $330 May 19.

“I missed an important meeting,” he said, adding that filing the claim “wasn’t so much about the money but about someone exercising his rights, making a statement.” To file the claim on his own, he said, would have meant being on the phone for 30 minutes or more — time he could not afford to lose. “I like that it didn’t cost me any time, that someone is looking out for my rights,” he said. The EU regulation, which has been in effect since 2005, stipulates that passengers must be compensated if their flight is canceled or overbooked. (The European Court of Justice has ruled that flight delays of three or more hours are equivalent to a flight cancellation.) Compensation, which can range from $275 to $660, is not required if a delay is forced by events beyond the airline’s control, like bad weather, a bomb threat or a strike. Henrik Zillmer , chief executive of AirHelp, estimates that less than 1 percent of travelers eligible for compensation collect it. Some travelers, he said, are not even aware they are owed it, while others cannot be bothered to apply for it.

Filling a void That gap has created an opening for companies like AirHelp, founded in 2013, and its competitors, which include AirRefund, Refund.me, FairPlane and Flightright. Established in 2010, FairPlane and Flightright focus on working directly with inconvenienced travelers, whereas AirHelp’s customers include both travelers who apply for refunds on its website and those referred by online travel agencies and travel management companies. Applying for compensation is straightforward enough: Once a company like AirHelp determines that a traveler on a canceled flight is eligible for compensation, the company applies on the traveler’s behalf and often must take legal action to obtain it. Fees are entirely contingent on the success of a claim and range from 15 to 25 percent of the compensation. Most companies report close to 100 percent success rates in obtaining compensation for travelers on eligible flights, although payment can be delayed if litigation is required. For example, a county court in Manchester, England, ruled in April that the family of Timothy Ash was owed compensation for a delay of more than five hours on a Thomas Cook Airlines flight in 2011 from Antalya, Turkey, to Manchester.

The airline’s claim, that the bird strike that caused the delay represented an “extraordinary circumstance,” was rejected by the judge, who noted that bird strikes occur daily. In the United States, consumers do not have the same level of protection. The Transportation Department does not require airlines to compensate passengers whose domestic flights have been delayed or canceled. But U.S. laws allow travelers to be compensated after being involuntarily bumped. Last year, AirHelp began processing those applications as well. Compensation for those claims can run as high as $1,300. Airlines push back As for the European laws, there is no guarantee that they will remain in place. Although the European Union has proposed making its regulations more consumer-oriented, some large European carriers are lobbying against moves in that direction. Anina Klein , a psychiatric researcher in Orangeburg, N.Y., used Flightright to obtain compensation of $920 for herself and her mother for a trip in June. The two women, who took SAS from Newark Liberty International Airport to Dublin, via Oslo, for a wedding, were supposed to fly home to Newark from Dublin, via Copenhagen, but their Copenhagen-Newark flight was canceled.

It took them an extra day to get home, and their trip was anything but direct: They had to fly from Dublin to Copenhagen to Stockholm to Frankfurt and then to John F. Kennedy International Airport , rather than to Newark. A lawyer by training, Klein said it was easier to apply for compensation for the trip through Flightright “rather than call internationally.” Next time, though, she might take a different approach to getting compensation. “The commission was worth it,” she said, “but if it happens again, I would do it myself.” Latest from the SFGATE homepage: Click below for the top news from around the Bay Area and beyond. Sign up for our newsletters to be the first to learn about breaking news and more. Go to 'Sign In' and 'Manage Profile' at the top of the page. Comparison To Australian Laws Law Commercial Essay Comparison To Australian Laws Law Commercial Essay Comparison To Australian Laws Law Commercial Essay Introduction Based on the recent judgment in the European Court of Justice, airlines in EU are now obliged to compensate passengers who are left stranded due to cancellations or delays for their flights that are under ‘extraordinary circumstances’.

[ 1 ] A landmark case arose out of this incident which included one of the passengers on the Faro to Dublin flight scheduled was cancelled following the airspace closure. [ 2 ] Ms McDonagh was left stranded without any care from her airline, Ryanair. She took the matter to court on the basis that the airline is obliged to pay her compensation for the cost of meals, accommodation and transport she incurred during the period of volcano eruption, between 17th – 24th April 2010. [ 3 ] The questions the Court had to address were whether the eruption was under ‘extraordinary circumstances’, which would oblige the carrier to provide care to its passengers and compensation also. [ 4 ] Additionally, Ryanair also argued that there is a limitation on monetary compensation to its passengers. The Court however rejected all views from Ryanair and was of the opinion that the volcano eruption did fall under ‘extraordinary circumstances’, therefore does not release air carriers from their obligation to provide care. [ 5 ] Furthermore, the regulation does not provide for any limitation in relation to temporal or monetary compensation to provide care to the passengers – the air carrier must provide care from the time of cancellation until the next flight for the passenger.

[ 6 ] The air carriers’ obligation to provide care is pursuant to Article 9 of the EU Regulation for the period of cancellation or delay. [ 7 ] Under the article, carriers are to provide free of charge meals, hotel accommodation, transport and communication services for the week of delay. [ 8 ] Comparison to Australian laws Currently in Australia, passengers are not entitled to compensation if their flights have been delayed or cancelled, whereas, in Europe, passengers are entitled to monetary compensation for lengthy delays of more than four hours. [ 9 ] In Europe, a passenger can be reimbursed for the value of $730 AUD, which is a cap value imposed by EU Regulations. [ 10 ] Although, airlines in Australia are not obliged to immediately compensate their passengers, air passengers are still able to seek claims through courts. [ 11 ] Australian passengers are covered under the Civil Aviation (Carrier’s Liability) Act and the Montreal Convention. [ 12 ] Passengers are eligible to make their claim through the courts under those regulations for compensation. However, with the many claims flooding the courts, passengers would be queuing up for lengthy court process.

Under the Montreal Convention, which was incorporated into the Civil Aviation Act in 2009, allows for compensation in Special Drawing Rights (SDR), which is a supplementary foreign reserve asset by the IMF. [ 13 ] Under Article 19 of the Convention, the carrier is liable for damages caused to passengers as a result of a delay. [ 14 ] The maximum amount of damages listed under Article 22 is 4,150 SDR ($6,232 AUD). [ 15 ] Although it is the maximum amout the carrier has to compensate the passengers, it is however not a guaranteed amount. The Article also allows for further compensation to be awarded by the court under its own laws. [ 16 ] Passengers can increase the compensation cap if they can show that the carrier acted recklessly with intent to cause the delay or cancellation. [ 17 ] On the other hand, the carrier can prove that they explored all reasonable methods to avoid the "damage" and it was impossible to avoid the delay or cancellation, thus exempting them from any liability.

[ 18 ] Court action Due to the domestic liability system such as the Civil Aviation Act not having specific provisions relating to liability for delayed flights, air passengers in Australia would have to take their matter to court and pursue their own case under the Montreal Convention, instead of the airline. [ 19 ] Additionally, airlines in Australia are not liable for events such as natural disasters. [ 20 ] Many airlines do reimburse passengers for the cancelled or delayed flights but some, however, do not. [ 21 ] Air passengers wanting to make compensation claims can do it under the Montreal Convention based on Articles 19 and 22. [ 22 ] Under Article 33 of the Convention dictates that person can bring a damages action for their loss if they wish in the High Court at the carrier’s place of business or jurisdiction within the place of destination. [ 23 ] Article 19 in relation to delays, stipulates that the carrier is liable for damages if there is a delay in relation to passengers. [ 24 ] However, the carrier may be exempt from liability if it proves that it did everything it could possibly do to avoid the damage or it was impossible under the circumstances for them to take such measures.

[ 25 ] Additionally, under Article 22, the maximum amount of compensation for delayed flights is 4,150 SDR ($6,232 AUD). [ 26 ] In order to obtain additional compensation, the passenger can make applications to the Tribunals for small claims. [ 27 ] This allows for speedy and low cost resolution. For example: the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (hereafter ‘VCAT’). [ 28 ] Under the Australian Consumer Law (Competition and Consumer Act 2010) and Fair Trading Act 2012, passengers can make applications to the VCAT to recover damages not exceeding $10,000 under Section 183 for small claims.

[ 29 ] Additionally, under section 267 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, a person may take action against supplier of services and recover damages for any loss or damage suffered by the consumer because of the failure to comply with "the guarantee if it was reasonably foreseeable that the consumer would suffer such loss or damage as a result of such a failure." [ 30 ] Accordingly, if a passenger wishes to proceed with claims worth more than the cap pricing listed in the Montreal Convention, the passenger may make a claim under Section 160 of the Fair Trading Act 1999 for awards of compensation which the conduct constituting of the offence an amount of up to $10,000. [ 31 ] Passengers who take their matters before VCAT are required to represent their own case unless the applicant necessarily needs a representation or the parties to the proceedings agree. [ 32 ] As noted previously, as there are no laws in Australia governing an airlines behavior in relation to compensation for delayed flights, a passenger’s claim for refund or compensation will depend largely on the particular carrier’s terms and conditions in its contract.

[ 33 ] Most airlines will insert exclusion of responsibility terms into their conditions of carriage, which will exempt them from something that may go wrong in the performance of the contract or limits that responsibility. [ 34 ] Therefore, under the Fair Trading Act, there are also remedies for unfair terms in consumer contracts. [ 35 ] A passenger may also bring a case against the airline for any unfair terms stated in the conditions of carriage. If the term in the contract creates an insignificant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the consumer compared to those of the arline, then the contract may be void. [ 36 ] However, as asserted in Tamplin v James: "If a person will not take reasonable care to ascertain what that person is contracting about, that person must take the consequences." [ 37 ] Accordingly, where the passenger has purchased and accepted the airline ticket that person is deemed to have had a clear understanding of what is entailed in the terms and conditions, and therefore the passenger is prevented from withdrawing from the terms, and is bound by the contract. [ 38 ] In the case of Darrel Winch, where he wanted compensation after his flight was delayed for five hours.

[ 39 ] He was unsuccessful in his attempt to sue the budget Australian airline Jetstar after experiencing a long flight delay. Darrel Winch was unhappy with the airline, which operates thousands of flights a year. [ 40 ] As a result of the delay, Jetstar boarded the passengers onto other Qantas flights but Darrel Winch was unhappy with how long it took them to fix the issue. He claimed that due to Jetstar’s delays, people were missing important meetings and events. [ 41 ] He took his case to the small claims tribunal but the compensation claim was dismissed. Jetstar claimed that it met all its obligations and took all reasonable steps in their conditions of carriage around the delayed issue. [ 42 ] Additionally, another example for which laws in Australia do not oblige carriers to compensate passengers can be seen when Tiger Airline was grounded due to safety concerns – the airline was obviously under no obligation to refund travellers, but the NSW Fair Trading negotiated with the airline to obtain suitable reimbursements for passengers who booked flights with the company.

[ 43 ] Other avenues besides Court action As there are no laws similar to the EU regulations to compensate travellers for delayed or cancelled flights in Australia, it is recommended that a passenger should seek good travel insurance policy before flying. [ 44 ] The insurance policy would increase protection in circumstances where a natural disaster or in this case ‘extraordinary circumstances’ arise, that are not covered in the domestic laws or conditions of carriage. [ 45 ] However, some policies may explicitly state that cancellations caused by the carrier or strikes are not covered. For example, in the specific case of the Qantas strikes in 2011, where insurers noted that policies in relation to cancellations are only covered if purchased before the strikes were broadcasted. [ 46 ] Furthermore, another avenue for which passengers can make complaints without going straight to their local Fair Trading official, is through the newly appointed ‘Customer Advocate’ process, which came into effect in July 2012. [ 47 ] The Airline Customer Advocate (hereafter ‘ACA’) is funded by the major airlines in Australia such as Qantas, Jetstar, Virgin and Tiger Airways.

[ 48 ] This Government initiative provides help to the airline’s passengers in relation to complaints about the services such as delayed or cancelled flights, baggage services and request for refunds. [ 49 ] The aim of this initiative was to reduce and resolve complaints within 20 working days. [ 50 ] It is also an alternative way for passengers to seek help before taking on a court case to their local Fair Trading office. Conclusion All in all, it is clear that the EU has some better laws to compensate passengers as seen in the case of Denise McDonagh v Ryanair Ltd. [ 51 ] It is a shame that these laws are not duplicated in Australia. However, there are avenues, which allows passengers to receive compensation if they are left stranded due to industrial actions or delayed and cancelled flights. In particular the Montreal Convention that was incorporated into the Civil Aviation Act in 2009, allows passengers to seek compensation under this convention through the courts. The passengers however would have to pursue their own case, not the airline. Passengers in Australia may take their claim to their local Fair Trading Office or small claims departments.

More specifically, in Victoria, the passenger may make applications to VCAT under the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 1999. Additionally, it is also vital for passengers to check their conditions of carriage before purchasing their airfare as it may include unfair exemption clauses, which will leave the customer in a difficult position if a situation such as the volcanic eruption occurred. Such unfair terms can also be addressed under the Fair Trading Act. [ 52 ] If the passenger does not wish to pursue lengthy court or tribunal processes, passengers may seek help from the new Government initiative called the ‘Airline Customer Advocate’, which aims to assist airline passengers with complaints in relation to the participating airline’s services. Place your order today Air passengers to get cash handouts if delayed for three hours after EU court victory | Daily Mail Online comments Short-haul air passengers who are delayed by more than three hours can expect to be compensated after airlines lost a legal fight in the European court. A number of airlines, including British Airways and easyJet, had challenged a 2009 ruling that passengers on flights to and from Europe should be compensated if they are delayed for more than three hours.

Today the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg confirmed the 2009 ruling after the airlines had challenged the UK's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) over the matter. Pay and delay: Airlines will have to compensate delayed passengers after losing their legal challenge There will still be exceptional circumstances where compensation will not have to be paid, such as industrial action and extreme weather. But there are a number of compensation cases that have been put on hold since 2009 for which carriers might now have to pay out. Passengers on flights starting or ending in the 27-country European Union are entitled to between 250 euros (£203) and 600 euros for delayed or cancelled flights under EU rules. They also apply to any flight outside the EU which takes place on an airline company based in the Union Today's judgment was welcomed by the CAA which said the situation was now clearer for passengers. CAA regulatory policy director Iain Osborne said: 'Every year around 200million 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.' Reaction: easyJet said it was 'disappointed' with the decision, while British Airways noted it was 'aware' of today's ruling and will comply A British Airways spokesman said: 'We are aware of the ruling and will continue to comply with the regulations.' Travel company Tui, which was involved in the legal challenge, said: 'We note today's ruling by the ECJ. 'We are committed to treating our customers fairly and will continue to work with the European institutions to ensure that the underlying legislation is revised such that it strikes the right balance for passengers and airlines.' An easyJet spokesman said: 'We are disappointed with the outcome but we are pleased we have final clarification and certainty on this issue. We will do everything we can to ensure our passengers do not have delays.

Our priority is to look after our passengers.' The ECJ was ruling in a case involving German carrier Lufthansa and another involving TUI Travel, British Airways, easyJet and the International Air Transport Association (IATA). In 2009 the ECJ ruled that compensation should be payable by airlines at the same rates as for cancelled flights, but not if the delay was caused by 'extraordinary circumstances', in a case involving Air France. At the time, it declared: 'There is no justification for treating passengers whose flight is delayed any differently when they reach their final destination three hours or more after the scheduled arrival time.' The ruling arose from a 2009 case involving Air France. The ECJ found that air travellers delayed for three or more hours should be compensated the same as those whose flights are cancelled In the Lufthansa case, passengers sued the airline for compensation in a German court after a flight delay of more than 24 hours. Judges subsequently sought advice from the ECJ. In the second case, IATA, British Airways, easyJet and TUI Travel challenged the UK Civil Aviation Authority after it rejected their request to be exempted from paying for flight delays.

British judges then asked the Court of Justice in Luxembourg for guidance. The compensation will also apply even if passengers are re-routed by the airline on another flight and still arrive three or more hours late. The ruling arose from cases referred from German and Austrian courts in which passengers claimed compensation after facing delays - but not cancellations - which meant they arrived at their final destinations 25 and 22 hours after the scheduled time.

Question: The European Court of Justice ruled airlines must compensate passengers for delays exceeding how many hours?
Answer: Three