ANZEIGE
Norwegian schrieb mir eben, dass sie einen Claim für eine Verspätung von über drei Stunden ablehnen, da die Verspätung zwar durch einen vermuteten Defekt an der Maschine zustande kam, sich aber am Ende herausstellte, dass die Maschine doch keinen Defekt hatte.
Konkret war die Maschine eh schon zu spät dran, drehte dann während des Taxi in MUC wieder zum Gate um (laut Kapitän wegen eines Problems "am Tail") und stand dort wieder eine Weile, bis es dann endlich nach AGP losging.
Liege ich richtig in der Annahme, dass man hier nur darauf spekuliert, dass ich aufgebe?
Wie seht ihr den Fall?
Konkret war die Maschine eh schon zu spät dran, drehte dann während des Taxi in MUC wieder zum Gate um (laut Kapitän wegen eines Problems "am Tail") und stand dort wieder eine Weile, bis es dann endlich nach AGP losging.
Liege ich richtig in der Annahme, dass man hier nur darauf spekuliert, dass ich aufgebe?
Wie seht ihr den Fall?
Dear alex3r4,
Thank you for contacting us with your claim. We regret the time it’s taken to respond to you and we thank you for your patience.
Unfortunately, Norwegian flight D85101 (MUC-AGP) 11.01.2019 was delayed by 3 hours and 7 minutes due to an earlier disruption within our network that had a direct effect on this flight. The original disruption was caused by an inspection of the aircraft following a possible technical fault. During inspection, no technical defect was found. The aircraft was then released for operation without the need to replace any components. This disruption was caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.
Although we respect your request for compensation, we’re unable to honour your claim as your flight was delayed due to an event, which constitutes extraordinary circumstances.
In most cases, passengers will be entitled to compensation in the event that the disruption is caused by a technical defect. This is in accordance with the European Court of Justice ruling in the case of van der Lans (C-257/14) which states that technical difficulties resulting in the replacement of a defective component on the aircraft may be within the carrier’s control and entitle the passenger to compensation.
Nevertheless, according to this verdict, certain technical problems may constitute extraordinary circumstances and exempt the carrier from its’ liability of compensation. This would apply in cases where the aircraft is released from inspection without the presence of a technical defect or any need to change a faulty component, as well as technical problems that affect flight safety, such as hidden manufacturing defects, and/or damage to the aircraft caused by acts of sabotage or terrorism.