Jump to content

TUI FLIGHT TOM 636 BIRMINGHAM TO MONTEGO BAY 27th MARCH 2018


Recommended Posts

FIRST THINGS FIRST....PLEASE IGNORE MY PREVIOUS POST WHICH HAS THE WRONG DATES ...SORRY!

Anyone on the Tui flight TOM 636 from Birmingham to Montego Bay on MARCH 27th 2018

We were dissembarking Marella Discovery 2 that day and due to fly home at 2.40p.m but at the last minute assembled in the theatre to be told that the incoming flight "had a problem" and had turned back, landing at Gatwick. This obviously impacted on your arrival into Jamaica and our flight home was delayed until about 8.30 that evening.

Does anyone know what the problem was?

On returning home we opened a claim for the delay in accordance with EU regulations and today only 7 days after submitting the claim have been told that the claim is rejected as the "problem" excludes the airline from having to pay any compensation.

I and probably many more would be very interested to know what the problem was, or have TUI just plucked an excluding excuse out of the sky?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone posted a copy of the flight log of the outbound flight from Birmingham on one of the Facebook sites.

It said the flight took off at 0857 bound for Montego Bay.

It then stated the aircraft diverted to Gatwick at 0857 landing at 1021.

The reason for diverting was a cracked window, so probably caused by a birdstrike on takeoff, hence the decision to divert at 0857.

Apparently a replacement aircraft came in from Spain and the flight to Montego Bay took off early afternoon.

Given that information the subsequent delays would have been deemed 'extraordinary circumstance' and outside the airline's control.

I hope this helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, thanks for your reply we have been turned down by Tui......so any help you can give us would be appreciated.:)

I suggest, just to confirm what jake 26 is saying, you contact the independent arbitrator CEDR Tui are signed up with them and the most it will cost is £20 if it hasn't gone up, if you loose. Don't go through one of the agencies who say they can sort it out for you and it will take many months. Tui originally turned us down because they said we were 2 mins under the three hours but CEDR confirmed that the time is taken when the cabin door is opened not touch down so we won our case. The email address is aviation@cedr.com but if you google them you will get the latest info first.

Good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone posted a copy of the flight log of the outbound flight from Birmingham on one of the Facebook sites.

It said the flight took off at 0857 bound for Montego Bay.

It then stated the aircraft diverted to Gatwick at 0857 landing at 1021.

The reason for diverting was a cracked window, so probably caused by a birdstrike on takeoff, hence the decision to divert at 0857.

Apparently a replacement aircraft came in from Spain and the flight to Montego Bay took off early afternoon.

Given that information the subsequent delays would have been deemed 'extraordinary circumstance' and outside the airline's control.

I hope this helps.

 

It would be classed as a knock on effect delay, a birdstrike can be classed as an EC, BUT it was not on Hoops actual flight so compo should be claimable.

Very suprised TUI turned them down within 7 days, usually they will ignore you for at least the 56 days they say they will respond in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be classed as a knock on effect delay, a birdstrike can be classed as an EC, BUT it was not on Hoops actual flight so compo should be claimable.

Very suprised TUI turned them down within 7 days, usually they will ignore you for at least the 56 days they say they will respond in.

It's an interesting case because although it wasn't on Hoop's flight it was on the aircraft designated for that flight, which was then withdrawn from service and a replacement found.

It appears that the airline did all the right things so I doubt if the CAA would consider them responsible for the delays incurred by the occurrence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an interesting case because although it wasn't on Hoop's flight it was on the aircraft designated for that flight, which was then withdrawn from service and a replacement found.

It appears that the airline did all the right things so I doubt if the CAA would consider them responsible for the delays incurred by the occurrence.

 

The problem did not happen on Hoops flight which would be tom637, it happend on tom636 ,IF it was a bird strike it would be an EC and compo would not be payable for flight tom636, it would have been physically possible to fly a plane out to cover tom637 (ok its not very handy) and land back at birmingham under the three hour delay deadline.If it had been impossible to fly a plane out to cover tom637 due to such as ATC strike or weather then it would become an EC and no compo. Did a quick check with Bott's for tom637 and they seem to think compo is due (not always right, but they are the market leaders in flight delay claims and tend to keep tabs on most delays and reasons)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technical problems are not deemed as being extraordinary circumstances Under the EU court ruling. I had similar problem flying from Tenerife two years ago, TUI tried to fob me off several times, eventually I went to Small Claims Court and they paid up within a month.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technical problems are not deemed as being extraordinary circumstances Under the EU court ruling. I had similar problem flying from Tenerife two years ago, TUI tried to fob me off several times, eventually I went to Small Claims Court and they paid up within a month.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

Bird strikes that cause technical problems are a legitimate EC but only on that flight not on planned subsequent flights for the same aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technical problems are not deemed as being extraordinary circumstances Under the EU court ruling. I had similar problem flying from Tenerife two years ago, TUI tried to fob me off several times, eventually I went to Small Claims Court and they paid up within a month.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Many technical problems are within the control of the airline.

A bird strike is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bird strikes that cause technical problems are a legitimate EC but only on that flight not on planned subsequent flights for the same aircraft.

Is that an official CAA ruling?

My guess is that the CAA would side with the airline in that the original cause of the delay was outside their control.

Surely commonsense must prevail above the desire for compensation regardless. From what I gather of the scant details the aircrew and the airline acted in a professional manner with regard to safety and the need to provide a service to the passengers awaiting a flight from Jamaica.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that an official CAA ruling?

My guess is that the CAA would side with the airline in that the original cause of the delay was outside their control.

Surely commonsense must prevail above the desire for compensation regardless. From what I gather of the scant details the aircrew and the airline acted in a professional manner with regard to safety and the need to provide a service to the passengers awaiting a flight from Jamaica.

 

Nothing to do with CAA ,its an EU ruling , the CAA are supposed to make sure airlines comply with the ruling though, so in this case they would have to side with the passenger, on tom636 they would side with the airline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing to do with CAA ,its an EU ruling , the CAA are supposed to make sure airlines comply with the ruling though, so in this case they would have to side with the passenger, on tom636 they would side with the airline.

I very much doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I very much doubt it.

 

OK it can be tough on the airlines , but that is the EU ruling , if they dont have a plane in the right place at the right time they pay, unless as i said before it is physically impossible for them to get a plane there to carry out the flight.

The airlines will always stab you in the back if they can so in a way its bite back time, if they had not treated their customers with total contempt over the years the EU ruling may never have come about

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK it can be tough on the airlines , but that is the EU ruling , if they dont have a plane in the right place at the right time they pay, unless as i said before it is physically impossible for them to get a plane there to carry out the flight.

The airlines will always stab you in the back if they can so in a way its bite back time, if they had not treated their customers with total contempt over the years the EU ruling may never have come about

I agree with much of what you say and certainly the EU ruling is a very positive move for travellers.

However in this case I believe TUI did their utmost. The alternative action would be, if they had a free aircraft in the Caribbean with a crew that was not out of hours and that aircraft was not committed for 24 hours, to fly that aircraft to Jamaica to pick up the delayed pax.

Clearly that was not possible so apparently they flew one in from Spain specifically to solve the problem.

The delay to both flights was caused by a bird strike so 'extraordinary circumstances' applies to both flights.

I'm sure the claims chasers would attack that with much gusto, but I think if it went to the ECJ then my opinion would be that they would rule against compensation on the basis that TUI acted correctly.

It will be interesting to see the outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with much of what you say and certainly the EU ruling is a very positive move for travellers.

However in this case I believe TUI did their utmost. The alternative action would be, if they had a free aircraft in the Caribbean with a crew that was not out of hours and that aircraft was not committed for 24 hours, to fly that aircraft to Jamaica to pick up the delayed pax.

Clearly that was not possible so apparently they flew one in from Spain specifically to solve the problem.

The delay to both flights was caused by a bird strike so 'extraordinary circumstances' applies to both flights.

I'm sure the claims chasers would attack that with much gusto, but I think if it went to the ECJ then my opinion would be that they would rule against compensation on the basis that TUI acted correctly.

It will be interesting to see the outcome.

 

both flights have to be ruled on on their own merits, 636 was directly affected by a bird strike so EC , 637 was not directly affected by a bird strike so not an EC , knock on effects of a technical issue are not an EC ,been there,done it, game over for the airline.

 

as an afterthought the bird strike is not confirmed, just someone guessing, if the window just cracked it would not be an EC and even 636 could be open to claims as well, strange thing is if it was a bird strike it would be at low altitude during take off, normally you would expect the plane to return immediately to where it had just taken off

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FIRST THINGS FIRST....PLEASE IGNORE MY PREVIOUS POST WHICH HAS THE WRONG DATES ...SORRY!

Anyone on the Tui flight TOM 636 from Birmingham to Montego Bay on MARCH 27th 2018

We were dissembarking Marella Discovery 2 that day and due to fly home at 2.40p.m but at the last minute assembled in the theatre to be told that the incoming flight "had a problem" and had turned back, landing at Gatwick. This obviously impacted on your arrival into Jamaica and our flight home was delayed until about 8.30 that evening.

Does anyone know what the problem was?

On returning home we opened a claim for the delay in accordance with EU regulations and today only 7 days after submitting the claim have been told that the claim is rejected as the "problem" excludes the airline from having to pay any compensation.

I and probably many more would be very interested to know what the problem was, or have TUI just plucked an excluding excuse out of the sky?

You must be getting confused with all the replies and everyone's different ideas of what you can and can't claim for just go with the recommended CAA route it worked for us.

 

Sent from my VF-895N using Forums mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

both flights have to be ruled on on their own merits, 636 was directly affected by a bird strike so EC , 637 was not directly affected by a bird strike so not an EC , knock on effects of a technical issue are not an EC ,been there,done it, game over for the airline.

 

as an afterthought the bird strike is not confirmed, just someone guessing, if the window just cracked it would not be an EC and even 636 could be open to claims as well, strange thing is if it was a bird strike it would be at low altitude during take off, normally you would expect the plane to return immediately to where it had just taken off

The time of diversion is the same as the take off time so it does appear to have occurred on take off and the reason given was a cracked window. We are only assuming a bird strike I agree.

The aircraft would have to lose fuel to land, hence the 1 hour 20 mins before landing at Gatwick. It would only land immediately if it was an extreme emergency.

I think Gatwick was chosen because of their engineering base there.

We are off to Montego Bay on Tuesday from Gatwick so I hope it doesn't happen to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was on the flight to Montego Bay. On the flight it was announced that it was due to a cracked cockpit window, the problem being that the heating elements in the glass then don't work and the window was frosting up. We then returned to Gatwick after dumping fuel as there was a spare aircraft available there, but this could not leave quickly as a new crew was required.

 

Subsequent discussion with cabin crew on the new flight suggested that it cracked due to a bird strike.

 

The replacement aircraft was actually a new TUI 787-900 aircraft (only a week old)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I'm surprised that one of the contributors (Pensioncruiser) seems to have already won his case. Good on him, but it seems a bit soon...? Anyhow, I claimed against TUI because the flight was more than 5 hours delayed but they told me that since the reason for the delayed outbound flight was a collision with a 'foreign object' they were not liable. Under aviation rules if a pilot experiences collisions in-flight which affect safety they are obliged to report this under regulation 376/2014. I requested that they send me a copy of the relevant section of the pilot's report for me to examine. TUI declined and referred me to the CEDR process, which I have now begun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have lots of people that can help, we have successfully claimed after being turned down but you must put a claim in to your provider and then if turned down claim through the recommended route. If you have problems I will sort out my paperwork and give details.

 

Sent from my VF-895N using Forums mobile app

 

Any help you could provide would be great. Did you claim against your insurance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any help you could provide would be great. Did you claim against your insurance?

Hi Lycurgas No I did not go through insurance I did as you are doing but it took a lot longer as I had no idea how to start but I firstly must apologise for not being more precise with my earlier post as the flight I was referring to was one we had back from Dubrovnik in Sep 2016 which was delayed over the three hours. The then Thomson turned me down then I went through 'Resolver' who I have used free in the past, that did not work so in Feb 2017 I submitted my case with the CEDR for adjudication which found in my case just six weeks later Thomson paid up within days I think we were the only passengers on that flight to claim. It is a long drawn out process as you have to give the airline four weeks then the CEDR have to give them some time but just stick with it and if you are in the right you are with an independent body who will in the end sort it out and if they don't find in your favour its only a few pounds.

Best of luck and please post the outcome(y)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Pensioncruiser, many thanks for your reply. I will post the outcome (whenever that is). The crux of it is whether TUI wrongly fitted the screen or if it was really down to a bird collision. If it was the latter, I think there can be no claim. But they won't give me evidence, either way. That's TUI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...