Qantas A380 reliability issues creeping up again?

[MEL_Traveller]

What you or I think are extraordinary is irrelevant. There is case law that helps define it and up to country authorities to implement it. Ultimately, carriers make an initial determination and must keep appropriate records to justify decisions. Having been the responsible officer for EU261 at a pretty large airline I can say with confidence is that it really isn't easy to draw a line. Given that the aircraft wouldn't have received an A or B check in SIN and that it was the same flight (despite the stop), I'm pretty certain that this would be within the scope of extraordinary. It wouldn't have been something that they knew at LHR since the same MEL checklist would have applied.

Exactly, and I was trying to work out which case law supports your proposition. Do you have links?

The starting premise should be anything that is within normal airline operations - including mechanical and maintenance - should be covered. A problem discovered at an intermediate stopping point is hardly unexpected, it’s just like any other flight, no different to the aircraft arriving in Sydney for example.

Granted the airline may have a replacement aircraft available at its home base to mitigate subsequent delays, but that’s not of concern to a passenger at a transit stop.

 

[DC3]

Case Law. Good luck.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Case Law. Good luck.

There’s plenty out there, but being so far away makes it difficult to keep up with the latest developments.

Until recently - unless it has changed - mechanical and technical issues were not considered extraordinary unless they were outside the control of the airline.

Finnair successfully argued an inherent manufacturing defect on the delivery of its A50s was outside its control. But something routine breaking down during flight is to be expected.

 

[evanb]

Case Law. Good luck.

Not quite like that. The case law has informed the EC's Interpretative Guidelines which national authorities must implement:

EUR-Lex - 52024XC05687 - EN - EUR-Lex

eur-lex.europa.eu

 

[evanb]

There’s plenty out there, but being so far away makes it difficult to keep up with the latest developments.

Until recently - unless it has changed - mechanical and technical issues were not considered extraordinary unless they were outside the control of the airline.

Finnair successfully argued an inherent manufacturing defect on the delivery of its A50s was outside its control. But something routine breaking down during flight is to be expected.

This is categorically not the case. It depends what the mechanical issue is. Ultimately, they don't want EU261 to generate perverse incentives for airlines to cut corners on safety. The key element is whether it was delay was due to typical line maintenance or things that came up during line maintenance, or whether it was something that comes up in the course of a flight.

One thing that is clear is that if it affected a previous flights (and was an extraordinary event during that previous flight) it can't be carried over to next flight.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

This is categorically not the case. It depends what the mechanical issue is. Ultimately, they don't want EU261 to generate perverse incentives for airlines to cut corners on safety. The key element is whether it was delay was due to typical line maintenance or things that came up during line maintenance, or whether it was something that comes up in the course of a flight.

One thing that is clear is that if it affected a previous flights (and was an extraordinary event during that previous flight) it can't be carried over to next flight.

Appreciate that view, but that differs from the ECJ decision in Van der Lans v KLM?

Agree EU261 should not generate perverse incentives to cut coners on safety, but you could argue that excluding a prior incident does exactly that. If an airline doesn’t have a spare plane, the argument is that there would be pressure to fly one with a fault, That doesn’t happen.

Plenty of things could happen during flight that can reasonably be expected to happen… engine issues, air con issues, electronics issues… all sorts of things. They’re an inherent part of an airline’s operation.

This is not saying the airline is at ‘fault’ for the issue, but it doesn’t absolve them from responsibility for compensation.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

What you or I think are extraordinary is irrelevant. There is case law that helps define it and up to country authorities to implement it. Ultimately, carriers make an initial determination and must keep appropriate records to justify decisions.

You are correct that case law sets the contours for how these laws should be interpreted. However, European case law has found that extraordinary generally means that, something out of the ordinary. So it has to be something that could not be foreseen. For instance, a bird strike causing a delay or a medical emergency on board. But if it is something maintenance related or something they can control like crew scheduling then for all intents and purposes the airline will be held liable under the law. Indeed, courts in Europe have gone so far as to find that a pilot passing away just before a flight is considered within the control of the airline and eligible for compensation.

In the case of this flight, I fail to see how the cause of the delay could be considered extraordinary. It is not about whether or not the airline knew about the problem beforehand, but rather whether it is foreseeable that such an issue could occur. Airplanes break down for all sorts of reasons and there are plenty of parts on a modern aircraft which all have failure modes that can be foreseen.

-RooFlyer88

 

[kangarooflyer88]

This is categorically not the case. It depends what the mechanical issue is. Ultimately, they don't want EU261 to generate perverse incentives for airlines to cut corners on safety.

They won't cut corners because the law penalizes them heavily in the event of an accident. Remember, airlines have unlimited liability in the event of death or injury under the Montreal Convention if it can be shown that the airline was negligent (see section 21 of the convention).

 

[jase05]

They won't cut corners because the law penalizes them heavily in the event of an accident. Remember, airlines have unlimited liability in the event of death or injury under the Montreal Convention if it can be shown that the airline was negligent (see section 21 of the convention).

Love that people apparently know more than someone who actually did this for a living

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Love that people apparently know more than someone who actually did this for a living

To be fair, they were working for the airline, not the passenger.

Almost all the court cases have come out against the airlines.

Passengers need to be informed to take advantage of their rights.

 

[LondonAussie]

Yeah BA is known for routinely denying valid EU 261 claims and making people take them to court arbitration. They'll often pay up before the court date, usually at the last minute when they realise the customer isn't giving up, but they know most people won't bother to take it that far.

Anyway my favourite part of the EU law almost never gets mentioned, the right to free rebooking (to another flight on any airline) in the event of significant delays or cancellation.

 

[moa999]

the right to free rebooking (to another flight on any airline) in the event of significant delays or cancellation.

Which in some cases can result in proactive intervention.

Quite a few years back was booked on a VIE- HEL- HKG flight (QF redemption) on Finnair. About four hours out from the flight whilst on the way to the airport received a notification that the 2nd leg was delayed by 6+ hours.
Less than 20min later received an email that I had been rebooked on Qatar VIE- DOH- HKG departing only 30min later than my original flight and arriving in HKG earlier.

So I'm still yet to fly AY, but had a very nice experience on QR.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Yeah BA is known for routinely denying valid EU 261 claims and making people take them to court arbitration. They'll often pay up before the court date, usually at the last minute when they realise the customer isn't giving up, but they know most people won't bother to take it that far.

Anyway my favourite part of the EU law almost never gets mentioned, the right to free rebooking (to another flight on any airline) in the event of significant delays or cancellation.

That’s a bit I’m not up to date on. I know it’s been mentioned that the rebooking applies to ‘any airline’ but I’m not sure whether that’s concrete ‘law’ or not? Anecdotal evidence suggests BA is more willing recently to reroute on other carriers to avoid paying compensation, but that re-routing is happening at the airport rather than in advance… something which you often had access to anyway once under airport control on the day of travel.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Love that people apparently know more than someone who actually did this for a living

It has nothing to do with knowledge, it has everything to do with stance. The airlines will always take the stance of doing whatever is cheapest and most convenient to them. Passengers generally take what is given to them by the airlines for granted, even if it may not fulfill neither the spirit nor the letter of the law (i.e. airlines rebooking passengers on flights departing more than 9 hours later when obligated to provide a speedier booking under Canada's APPR).

Yeah BA is known for routinely denying valid EU 261 claims and making people take them to court arbitration. They'll often pay up before the court date, usually at the last minute when they realise the customer isn't giving up, but they know most people won't bother to take it that far.

This has been my experience with some airlines (**cough** Air Canada **cough**). To Qantas' credit, I didn't have to fight them to get the 600 Euros compensation owed under EU261 when my Singapore to Sydney flight got delayed. They agreed the following day and paid up.

Anyway my favourite part of the EU law almost never gets mentioned, the right to free rebooking (to another flight on any airline) in the event of significant delays or cancellation.

There is a right to rebooking although the language is somewhat ambiguous as to what sort of rebooking must be offered. For instance, do they need to put you on the next available flight operated by any airline? And what if they only have seats available in business class? One of the bright spots to Canada's APPR is there is clarity here: yes to both questions. With that being said, if the travel is international in nature then you can in effect force an airline to rebook you by virtue of Article 19 of the Montreal Convention which states that airlines are liable for up to $9000 USD in damages occasioned by flight disruptions where they did not take all reasonable measures to prevent the disruption. In such a case, if the airline were to drag their feet on rebooking, you would be within your right to simply buy a new ticket and send the airline the bill. And before anyone brings it up, no I haven't had to exercise that right. So far airlines have followed their obligations to me without having to pull out the big guns. With that being said, I never thought I'd have to chase Air Canada down to get the $1,000 CAD owed to me under the APPR when they cancelled my flight, but pursued them via the Canadian Transportation Agency which ruled that they must compensate me.

As I tell people all the time, in the event of a flight disruption it is the passenger who generally holds all of the cards and the airline who has to open their wallets.

-RooFlyer88

 

[RSD]

Getting back on topic, have arrived into SIN on QF2 in a timely fashion, but I can see that QF1's onward to LHR is a little delayed.

 

[torks]

Then you also have cases like Wizzair in the UK where they get taken to court/claims tribunal as they have refused to pay. Wizzair then doesn't show up, the decision goes against them in there absence, and then they just ignore it and don't pay.

You can have all the rules you want, but if you can't enforce them it means four fifths of bugger all.

 

[muppet]

Then you also have cases like Wizzair in the UK where they get taken to court/claims tribunal as they have refused to pay. Wizzair then doesn't show up, the decision goes against them in there absence, and then they just ignore it and don't pay.

You can have all the rules you want, but if you can't enforce them it means four fifths of bugger all.

Yep and then you send the sheriff to impound a plane….

Man sent bailiffs to Luton Airport for Wizz Air refund

An out-of-pocket dad sends in reinforcements to claim money from an airline over a cancelled flight.

bbc.com

EDIT: Apologies for the OT post, I just replied - but this should all be moved out of the A380 thread

 

[serfty]

...
EDIT: Apologies for the OT post, I just replied - ...

[Moderator Hat]

Agreed!

This thread is about Qantas' A388 reliability issues and while it is somewhat pertinent to discuss whether UK 261 regulation compensation may apply to such an aircraft that goes U/S after it first commercial segment after maintenance, ongoing discussion regarding the regulation is not.

Please refrain from further comment on the regulation beyond it applicability to Qantas A388 aircraft.
​

[/Moderator Hat]