cancelled return flight - non eu airline

[scara]

Hi all I hope someone can advise me with this situation.

I bought a return ticket from London to Zimbabwe with air zimbabwe last October. When I went to their offices in Harare to confirm my booking for the return flight to London I was informed the flight had been cancelled for "operational reasons" (I have a letter from them stating this). I was put on the next available flight (2 days later). This caused me to lose 2 days wages and I arrived back in the UK so late at night (23:00) that the last bus (return bus trip home booked on National Express) had already departed and I had to spend £50 on a taxi to get home (original flight would have got me back at gatwick at 6pm). Furthermore the later flight was scheduled to depart at 09:00 but only took off at approx. 14:30. No explanation or announcement was made for this long delay nor was any meal or refreshment offered. We just sat in the airport wandering what was going on as none of their staff knew anything.

I have written to them asking for compensation for lost wages and extra travel costs and they replied as follows:

 

Reference is made to your email of 19 November 2008 to Mr David Mwenga.

 

Kindly accept our sincere apology for the inconvenience suffered when our flight for 14 November 2008 to London was rescheduled to operate on Sunday 16 November and the delay on the Sunday flight.

 

As per our conditions of carriage, flight schedules are subject to change and we recommend our passengers to take travel insurances to cushion them in case of flight disruptions. Regrettably the airline has limited liability on onwards connections to one’s final destinations. Due to this limited liability, we are not in a position to offer compensation for the extra expenses incurred as a result.

 

We hope the inconveniences suffered will not deter you from choosing to fly with us in future.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Rose Chibvongodze

 

Customer Relations Supervisor

 

Having read the sticky by rjstott it seems the eu regulations will not apply to my case as i flew back on a non-eu carrier.

I have also discovered that Zimbabwe is not a signatory to the Montreal Convention if that would have any bearing on this.

Would I be able to win a small claims case in this situation/would it be worth persuing one?

If not any ideas as to other options to try and recover some of my losses?

Any and all advice would be most appreciated.

Scara

[Thailand]

The regulations do apply, as London was involved; any plane departing or arriving from an EU airport falls into the regs. It matters not that they are not an EU carrier as, if they want to fly to a EU destination, they know full well they are applicable.

 

Zzzzzzz to their terms of carraige, operational reasons is vague and not extraordinary without further explanation or proof.

 

This smacks of a strong case, but it's not very easy unless you are prepared to see it through.

 

I would persue it, have a good read of 261/2004 knowing that it applies and good luck!

[scara]

The regulations do apply, as London was involved; any plane departing or arriving from an EU airport falls into the regs. It matters not that they are not an EU carrier as, if they want to fly to a EU destination, they know full well they are applicable.

 

Zzzzzzz to their terms of carraige, operational reasons is vague and not extraordinary without further explanation or proof.

 

This smacks of a strong case, but it's not very easy unless you are prepared to see it through.

 

I would persue it, have a good read of 261/2004 knowing that it applies and good luck!

 

Thanks for the advice Thailand, I am actively persing them for compensation and have sent a letter to their UK office at Gatwick threatening legal action in small claims court to which they have replied repeating their position of not paying compensation. Before starting the claim I just want to be sure of my legal position regarding their liability in this situation. I've had a read of 261/2004 and my reason for thinking the regulation does not apply to non-eu based carriers is due to the following 2 paragraphs from 261/2004:

 

Article 3

Scope

1. This Regulation shall apply:

(b) to passengers departing from an airport located in a third country to an airport situated in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies, unless they received benefits or compensation and were given assistance in that third country, if the operating air carrier of the flight concerned is a Community carrier.

 

Article 2

Definitions

"Community carrier" means an air carrier with a valid operating licence granted by a Member State in accordance with the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 of 23 July 1992 on licensing of air carriers(5)

 

If I'm interpreting the above 2 quotes from the regulations correctly it would seem Air Zimbabwe would not be considered a Community carrier as it is licenced in Zimbabwe and not in the EU.

I would be most grateful if someone could please clarify that point for me as this would be the basis of my case?

Thanks

scara

[Thailand]

No.

 

The regs definately apply.

 

A) I think I'm reading the above differently, and

 

B) I know, without a shadow of a doubt they apply.

 

There is no 'third country' involved AKAIK.

 

If they want to fly via an EU airport, they fall under the regs.

[Thailand]

1. This Regulation shall apply:

(a) to passengers departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies

 

Game over.

[scara]

Game over.

 

Thanks Thailand. I was searching for more information and came across this:

 

Question 3: Do passengers flying to the EU from a third country who have already

received compensation and/or assistance at the point of departure lose their rights

under the provision of the Regulation?6

The Regulation does not apply to non-EU air carriers' flights into the EU.

The Regulation applies to operating air carriers licensed in a Member State of the EU

(Community carrier) flying from outside the EU into the EU and to passengers (including non-

EU citizens) using such flights.

However, these passengers are not entitled to the provisions of the Regulation where

benefits or compensation and assistance are given on the basis of local regulations in non-

EU countries.7 The legislation of the third country always needs to be respected.

If such local legislation does not exist in a third (non-EU) country, the Regulation will apply in

full.

 

I got that from here:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/passengers/air/doc/neb/questions_answers.pdf_reg_2004_261.pdf

 

What do you think?

Thanks again

scara

[Thailand]

TBH, This goes over ones barnet. In a fashion.

 

Why the 3rd country talk??? We are not talking third world? We are talking a third nation, non? You flew LGW or LHR to Harare, two not three?

 

 

who have already

received compensation and/or assistance at the point of departure lose their rights

under the provision of the Regulation?6

 

Valid?

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you are looking into this far too deeply, the regs are valid, and I have no idea what the above applies to!

 

(Well I do, but I don't think it's relevant)

Edited March 22, 2009 by Thailand

[Thailand]

I was reading some bits on bobs recently, and I thought of this thread.

 

I was wrong all along, not only that, and having re-read it, you were quite right in the information you found.

 

I was thinking about the landing/departing in at least one EU country, but I missed the obvious about the airline having to be an EU carrier. I was completely convinced I was right, but alas. The info was right in front of me.

 

Sorry about that.

[scara]

No problem Thailand I appreciate you were trying to help. I'm still looking at taking them to court though.

I remembered my outgoing flight from Gatwick was delayed by about 5-6 hours. I have written to the Gatwick customer services to get the exact departure time of the flight so I can include a claim for compensation for the delay of the outgoing flight which will definately be covered by the regs.

Additionally I will be claiming for loss of wages and the additional transport costs incurred under the Montreal Convention as "loss occassioned by delay".

I'm still going to try and claim the EURO600-00 compensation under reg. 261/2004 in the hope that they don't attend the hearing and I get a judgement in default.

That's my plan so far if anyone has any advice or suggestions please post it.

Many thanks especially to you Thailand.

 

Scara

[scara]

I'm happy to report back that air zim have agreed to settle without going to court. They accepted my offer to settle for £476.31 and today the money cleared into my bank account.

This goes to show being persistent and sticking to your guns pays.

I hope this gives encouragement to someone out there.

scara