Test Aankoop/Achats launches class action against Thomas Cook Airlines Belgium

[sn26567]

On 23 March, a Thomas Cook Airlines Belgium aircraft had an accident at Tenerife South airport which was not reported here. The aircraft operating flight HQ1509 to Brussels Airport (due to depart at 13:05) collided with another aircraft on the apron. TCAB provided another aircraft, but the passengers left TFS with a delay of more than 8 hours.

Thomas Cook refused to indemnify the passengers (400€) claiming that the delay was due to circumstances beyond its control. But European jurisprudence rules generally in favour of the consumers in such cases. Spanish courts have rules in a similar way.

Therefore Test Achats/Aankoop has started a class action against Thomas Cook, asking for a compensation of 400€ for all passengers of that flight.

[Passenger]

On 23 March, a Thomas Cook Airlines Belgium aircraft had an accident at Tenerife South airport which was not reported here. The aircraft operating flight HQ1509 to Brussels Airport (due to depart at 13:05) collided with another aircraft on the apron. TCAB provided another aircraft, but the passengers left TFS with a delay of more than 8 hours.

Thomas Cook refused to indemnify the passengers (400€) claiming that the delay was due to circumstances beyond its control. But European jurisprudence rules generally in favour of the consumers in such cases. Spanish courts have rules in a similar way.

Therefore Test Achats/Aankoop has started a class action against Thomas Cook, asking for a compensation of 400€ for all passengers of that flight.

It depends on who caused the collision.

To solve the discussion about "what are extraordinary circumstances", the European authorities who have to judge on EU-Rule 261/2004 (= the National Enforcement Bodies - for Belgium the CAA / Bestuur der Luchtvaart) have published a non-official list, in April 2013, about what is and what isn't.

Accepted as Extraordinary Circumstance, Unexpected flight safety shortcoming n° 19: "Damage to the aircraft primary or secondary structure (e.g. metallic or composite structure) caused by third parties on the ground prior to the departure of a flight and requiring immediate assessment and/or repair. For example a collision between an airport vehicle and an aircraft".

Source / list:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/pa ... s-list.pdf

(edited : I have amended the word "list" into "non-official list")

[citybirdva]

Collided with another aircraft? What is your source? As far as I know there was a ground handling vehicle that run into the aircraft (OO-TCT).

[airazurxtror]

Therefore Test Achats/Aankoop has started a class action against Thomas Cook, asking for a compensation of 400€ for all passengers of that flight.

As Freddie Laker used to say : "Sue the bastards !"

What the Airlines are unable to grasp is how bad a publicity they bring to themselves by refusing to indemnise the passengers. How better it would be for their reputation if they willingly did it !
One wonders where they go fish their customer relation managers - not amongst the best and the brightest, obviously.

[Passenger]

As Freddie Laker used to say : "Sue the bastards !"

What the Airlines are unable to grasp is how bad a publicity they bring to themselves by refusing to indemnise the passengers. How better it would be for their reputation if they willingly did it !
One wonders where they go fish their customer relation managers - not amongst the best and the brightest, obviously.

I'm pretty sure that Thomas Cook Airlines Belgium is about a million times more customer friendly then your Irish airline. Allow me to suggest you an amendment to your avatar (or whatever that thing is called) below your posts: Regarding bastardness, U NEVR BEATS D IRISH.

[sean1982]

As Freddie Laker used to say : "Sue the bastards !"

What the Airlines are unable to grasp is how bad a publicity they bring to themselves by refusing to indemnise the passengers. How better it would be for their reputation if they willingly did it !
One wonders where they go fish their customer relation managers - not amongst the best and the brightest, obviously.

I'm pretty sure that Thomas Cook Airlines Belgium is about a million times more customer friendly then your Irish airline. Allow me to suggest you an amendment to your avatar (or whatever that thing is called) below your posts: Regarding bastardness, U NEVR BEATS D IRISH.

Based on what facts is this statement? During the recent black-out of ATC at BRU, my parents friends flight svq-CRL was cancelled. They got 2 extra nights in svq, a flight to pmi, a night in pmi and a flight to BRU. All hotels, food transfers paid for by FR + indemnity. Cant see any belgian airline do that

[sn26567]

First collective class action in Belgium against Thomas Cook

In March, Thomas Cook flight HQ 1509 Tenerife South to Brussels, with left with 8 hrs delay. Yet despite various attempts at amicable resolution, Thomas Cook refuses to pay the compensation due. Test Aankoop/Achats filed a collective class action query, the first in Belgium.

March 23, HQ flight 1509 could not take off at 13:05 local time in Tenerife South because the aircraft had collided with a vehicle on the tarmac. Thomas Cook Airlines Belgium commissioned a replacement aircraft, but it took more than eight hours before it could finally take off.

What is the law?

Normally, airlines are obliged to pay compensation of € 400 per person for any delay of more than three hours (for intra-Community flights of more than 1500 km, or other flights between 1500 and 3000 kilometres). However, despite various letters and reminders, Thomas Cook is hiding behind "exceptional circumstances" for not paying compensation, while a European case law denies the "exceptional circumstances" for such an incident.

A first in Belgium

Since September 2014, Test-Aankoop/Achats has the right to claim through a collective class action for damages on behalf of a group of consumers. The request for collective action for damages for the compensation to which passengers are entitled has been introduced in Belgium. And this is a first in Belgium!

[Passenger]

It was not "a vehicle": it was an ambulift. During the flight, a passenger got sick. The crew therefore asked for an ambulance and an ambulift to wait for them upon arrival, and the handler of the ambulift apparently made a mistake - or the technical system failed.

Poor reaction therefore from Test-Aankoop/Test-Achats to take Thoms Cook Airlines to court for this. So it seems that it's business first for this TA-group with 84,000,000 € turnover (through their cvba/scrl).

[airazurxtror]

From Thomas Cook :
"Certains passagers du vol HQ1509 ont déjà perçu un "geste commercial" et les autres peuvent s'attendre à ce paiement dans les jours à venir."
http://www.lalibre.be/economie/actualit ... b92f5efa36

Some passengers of flight HQ1509 have already received a " gesture of goodwill " and the others can expect this payement in the coming days. "

Questions :
- why have only some passengers got a "geste commercial" ?
- what is the amount of this "geste commercial" ?
- would the other passengers have enjoyed this "geste commercial" if TA had not launched the class action ?

[Passenger]

- why have only some passengers got a "geste commercial" ??

Because it's an amicable settlement (minnelijke schikking), so the amount differs: it's based upon the total package price they had paid, the number of times they've booked with Thomas Cook and a few other facts. Very good THC clients get a very good offer because Thomas Cook doesn't want to loose them. So they are are more willing to accept that compensation offer (not te be confused with the 261/2004 indemnity).

- would the other passengers have enjoyed this "geste commercial" if TA had not launched the class action ?

Yes.

- what is the amount of this "geste commercial" ?

That's none of your business, actually. It's private conversation between Thomas Cook and the client (direct or mediated by their travel agent).

[airazurxtror]

From the message of sn26567 (above at 02.20 pm) :

What is the law?
Normally, airlines are obliged to pay compensation of € 400 per person for any delay of more than three hours (for intra-Community flights of more than 1500 km, or other flights between 1500 and 3000 kilometres). However, despite various letters and reminders, Thomas Cook is hiding behind "exceptional circumstances" for not paying compensation, while a European case law denies the "exceptional circumstances" for such an incident.


There is no mention of good or bad, old or new clients; every passenger has the same right to the compensation determined by the law, no need for an "amicable settlement".
TA is quite right to launch an exemplary class action, that will teach a lesson to Thomas Cook and others. All airline customers should be glad and grateful towards TA.
Freddie Laker is still nowadays : "Sue the bastards !".

[Passenger]

From the message of sn26567 (above at 02.20 pm) :
What is the law?
Normally, airlines are obliged to pay compensation of € 400 per person for any delay of more than three hours (for intra-Community flights of more than 1500 km, or other flights between 1500 and 3000 kilometres). However, despite various letters and reminders, Thomas Cook is hiding behind "exceptional circumstances" for not paying compensation, while a European case law denies the "exceptional circumstances" for such an incident.

To solve the discussion about "what are extraordinary circumstances", the European authorities who have to judge on EU-Rule 261/2004 (= the National Enforcement Bodies - for Belgium our CAA) have published a non-official list, in April 2013, about what is and what isn't. Accepted as Extraordinary Circumstance, Unexpected flight safety shortcoming n° 19: "Damage to the aircraft primary or secondary structure (e.g. metallic or composite structure) caused by third parties on the ground prior to the departure of a flight and requiring immediate assessment and/or repair. For example a collision between an airport vehicle and an aircraft". List:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/pa ... s-list.pdf

So yes, there is indeed a recent EU Court verdict that a delay caused by an inflight technical problem also results into imdenity. So let's wait and see what the Belgian court will accept: that recent EU-court or the detailled list, from aviation experts, about what is and what isn't an extraordinary circumstance.

TA is quite right to launch an exemplary class action, that will teach a lesson to Thomas Cook and others. All airline customers should be glad and grateful towards TA.

Glad and grateful? There is a conflict araising between consumer rights and aviation safety, specially when technical issues automaticly lead to indemnity. The Dutch independent aviation group Degas warned for this escalation a few years ago, but its advise is ignored. We're coming closer to the day that someone at an airline in real financial worries takes the wrong decision not to ground the airline or not to land when a technical problem occures. As a concerned passenger and very frequent flyer, I hate it when the Minimum Equipment List would become a standard tool for operations.

Freddie Laker is still nowadays : "Sue the bastards !".

Actually, there is just one such bastard in aviation: an airline who's CEO recently stated that he always rejects claims for 261/2004 compensation. I'm pretty sure you know which airline that is.

[airazurxtror]

Anyway, somebody caused that accident. It is, it seems, the lorry driver, unskilfull or otherwise.
His employer is responsible for the accidents caused by his personnel, and must be insured accordingly; Thomas Cook should demand a compensation.
Or perhaps Thomas Cook has received such compensation, but want to keep it all, not sharing it with the passengers ?
I am pretty sure that TA doesn't launch a class action - the first in Belgium and thus exemplary - without having evidences and good arguments.

[sn26567]

All the delayed passengers were awarded 400 euros.

https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/thomas- ... tion-suit/

[Passenger]

All the delayed passengers were awarded 400 euros.

https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/thomas- ... tion-suit/

By settling this dispute out of court, Thomas Cook Airlines avoids jurisprudence. Imagine the Belgian judge would have asked the EU Court of Justice to decide if the collision was (or wasn't) extraordinary circumstance. If the EU Court would have said it's no ex.c., the Court would overrule what the National Enforcement Bodies have decided in 2013, in their non-official EU-list, as being an extraordinary circumstance: "Damage to the aircraft primary or secondary structure (e.g. metallic or composite structure) caused by third parties on the ground prior to the departure of a flight and requiring immediate assessment and/or repair. For example a collision between an airport vehicle and an aircraft".

[luchtzak]

Isn't the third provider responsable ? And does he or his insurance has to cover all expenses?