Claims For "Compensation"...

A question about : Claims For "Compensation"...

I don't want to appear to be pedantic, but it's really important that we stop referring to the payment due as compensation, especially when dealing with the air carrier. Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 specifically states that the carrier is not liable for compensation claims, as the situation was not their fault. Use of the term compensation is therefore causing confusion and, more importantly, giving the carriers an excuse not to pay up!

I would suggest using costs incurred or out of pocket expenses instead; what do you guys think?

Best answers:

• ...because the Volcano was extraordinary? is that what you are saying?
• KLM campaigners use the word expenses, you are right never use compensation, to completely different things
• Article 5.3 of EC261/2004
  "3. An operating air carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken."
  so if extraordinary then
  Article 6
  Delay
  1. When an operating air carrier reasonably expects a flight to be delayed beyond its scheduled time of departure:
  (a) for two hours or more in the case of flights of 1500 kilometres or less; or
  (b) for three hours or more in the case of all intra-Community flights of more than 1500 kilometres and of all other flights between 1500 and 3500 kilometres; or
  (c) for four hours or more in the case of all flights not falling under (a) or (b),
  passengers shall be offered by the operating air carrier:
  (i) the assistance specified in Article 9(1)(a) and 9(2); and
  (ii) when the reasonably expected time of departure is at least the day after the time of departure previously announced, the assistance specified in Article 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(c); and
  (iii) when the delay is at least five hours, the assistance specified in Article 8(1)(a).
  2. In any event, the assistance shall be offered within the time limits set out above with respect to each distance bracket.
  Article 9
  Right to care
  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.
  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...4R0261:EN:HTML
• I absolutely agree. With regards to Ash claims, avoid the word compensation. It makes it very confusing as some people actually mean compensation as they have other gripes as well, or are mistaken as to their rights for extraordinary cancellations, whereas others mean paying expenses but use the wrong term. At best is makes it harder for the agents to get to the bottom of what the actual request is for and slows them down, at worst, it gives an excuse for the airlines to reject the claim and make the claimant go round the circle again.
  At a push "recompense for expenses incurred" would work, but expenses, out of pocket expenses etc are the best bet.
  K
• Completely correct. The airlines are generally not liable to pay any compensation and I for one would not argue with that - it's hardly their fault a volcano errupts and that airspace is closed is it?
  However, it's very clear in the regulations that they are liable for providing a "duty of care" as detailed in article 9.
  Unfortunately, because a lot of airlines did not initially offer to provide this duty of care, we have had to resort to claiming money back. Whilst these claims for expenses are legitimate, it is definately not compensation in 90% of cases, just reimbursment of our own out of pocket expenses which if the airlines had followed the law correctly, would have been paid by them in the first place.
  I can see that there may be some claims for compensation that arise because the airline has failed in their duty to provide care under article 9 and is still claming they didn't have to. You could say that by sticking their heads in the sand and saying "it's not our fault" that airlines have left themselves open to claims for compensation because they have obviously gone against what the regulations clearly say they should have done.