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.