Timeline for Norwegian refuses EU delay (4.7 hours) compensation because it turned out there was nothing wrong with the aircraft
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 5, 2019 at 18:35 | comment | added | Fiksdal | I got the money, thanks for the help. More details in OP. | |
| Sep 19, 2019 at 12:49 | comment | added | EpicKip | @Tom Airlines tend to say it was an extraordinary circumstance every dahm time. I work for a claim company or however you want to call it and the amount of customers that get turned down when they send a letter themselves is ridiculous. Most of these customers we will help because it wasn't actually and extraordinary circumstance. | |
| Sep 18, 2019 at 21:02 | comment | added | Tom | Doesn't matter. It wasn't an outside force that grounded the plane, that is the important difference. | |
| Sep 18, 2019 at 20:59 | comment | added | Ángel | Rather that stating that deciding to do an inspection when an alarm is triggered "a decision that the airline made" (seems simple to counter noting that they are obligated to $legislation_protecting_passengers_safety), I would argue that scheduling the plane so that there's not enough time to inspect the aircraft should an alarm be triggered is the decision the airline took (fair enough for them to do, but they already knew they might end up needing to pay EU 261/2004 compensation for that). | |
| Sep 18, 2019 at 12:56 | history | answered | Tom | CC BY-SA 4.0 |