When I take a trip, I make a budget. I allocate money for every anticipated expense. Then I always a

If his had been a domestic flight, then Kivett, an architectural photographer based in Kansas City, Mo., would have been entitled to nothing more than the $15 meal vouchers that American Airlines offered.
But he believed norwegian cruise that under a little-known European consumer norwegian cruise law adopted in 2004, called EU 261, the airline owed him more: specifically, 600 euros (about $775) cash, the set compensation for a delayed flight.
EU 261 established consumer protections not afforded American air travelers, including compensation for delays, denied boarding and flight cancellations. Airlines have pushed back, interpreting the law as narrowly as possible. In Kivett's case, for example, American maintained that EU 261 simply does not apply to him.
We may soon find out. A lawsuit filed this month in a federal district court in Illinois accuses United Airlines of violating EU 261 by failing to compensate passengers whose flights were delayed by more than three hours. It's the highest-profile effort to date to compel U.S. airlines serving Europe to adopt a more consumer-friendly interpretation of the law.
"United has repeatedly failed to compensate passengers as required," says Hank Bates, an attorney in Little Rock representing two United passengers whose flights didn't depart norwegian cruise on time this summer. He's seeking class-action status for the case.
United wouldn't comment on the pending litigation. But a spokeswoman for A4A, a trade group for the domestic airlines that counts United as a member, said that its carriers follow the law. "As with all consumer protection rules, our members carefully adhere to the requirements of Regulation 261," she said.
The case in question centers on United norwegian cruise Airlines flight 949, which was scheduled to depart from Londonat 12:20 p.m. on July 14, according to the complaint. The flight was canceled at 5:42 p.m., and as a result, the two passengers suing United — James Bergman and Kathleen Lynch — didn't land in Jackson Hole, Wyo., their final destination, until 24 hours after their scheduled arrival time.
"The entire trip was a nightmare for us," says Bergman, a Web site editor who lives in London. "The most frustrating thing about the experience was the feeling of being powerless. We'd paid thousands of dollars for our flights, and we had no recourse to collect compensation that we were entitled to under European law."
The complaint highlights a common problem with Europe's air travel consumer protections: EU 261 isn't exactly straightforward. I've argued with colleagues about who's covered under the law and who's exempt. Inevitably, each debate comes down to the definition of two words: "extraordinary circumstances." Under the law, an airline can simply say that a flight was delayed or canceled because of extraordinary circumstances to get itself off the hook.
According to EU 261, extraordinary circumstances could include political instability, dangerous weather conditions, norwegian cruise security risks, unexpected flight safety problems and labor strikes affecting the carrier. But the law leaves open the possibility that other situations could also qualify. Since 2004, most airlines have maintained that mechanical problems are an extraordinary circumstance, norwegian cruise meaning that if a plane breaks down, EU 261 goes out the window.
The European Court of Justice, Europe's highest court, spoke to that interpretation in 2008, ruling that a mechanical failure can be deemed extraordinary only if it involves an act of sabotage or a recently discovered design defect. Yet American air carriers norwegian cruise operating in Europe continue to invoke norwegian cruise simple mechanical delays as reasons to evade compensation, especially norwegian cruise when U.S.-based passengers are involved.
The EU law is not without other loopholes, which is what prompted attorney Bates to launch a business modeled on several European companies that mediate EU 261-related disputes between customers and airlines. His Web site, Euroflightdelays.com , went live just before Bates sued United. "Passengers on flights covered by the regulation have the right to compensation," he said.
Interestingly, the usual response norwegian cruise from an airline when it's confronted with a possible violation norwegian cruise of European consumer law is to make a compensation offer in hopes of reaching a quick settlement. That's what happened when Kivett asked American norwegian cruise about his Paris-bound flight. "This regulation does not apply when travel is from the USA and the aircraft norwegian cruise is operated by an American airline," a representative wrote. "Nevertheless, as a gesture of goodwill, I've sent you and your wife a transportation voucher for $400."
American air carriers could face a huge bill if they're found to be in violation of the law, particularly if a court grants class-action status to Bates's complaint. A simple calculation reveals why. Take the typical number of passengers on an international flight, multiply it by the number of mechanical delays on flights operating in Europe, and you have the makings of a potential blockbuster settlement. Airlines know that their creative definitions of extraordinary circumstances could create a disaster of extraordinary proportions.
Maybe that's why airlines are reluctant to even talk about EU 261. At least that's the impression I was given a few years ago, when I visited the headquarters of a major air carrier and happened norwegian cruise to walk past a section of the office where claims relating to EU 261 were handled. I asked whether I could speak briefly norwegian cruise with the person who manages the department and was told no, the person didn't want to talk about the law, and no, I couldn't talk to anyone in that department, and then I was asked to keep walking, please. Indeed, most of the complaints regarding this European law that I ask airlines to review seem to go into a virtual black hole, with the companies saying nothing beyond their pre-written form letters.
There must be a lot of people who do not have the money you have. Most of the airline hubs (especially overseas) norwegian cruise are in very expensive cities. Imagine a family of four having to spend hundreds of Euros they never budgeted.
When I take a trip, I make a budget. I allocate money for every anticipated expense. Then I always add some for contingencies. I also have insurance. I would be scared to have to depend upon an airline if something happened. If I don t have it, I don t go. When I was growing up, there was not much money around. So I know what it is like to be on a budget. I did not take a commercial norwegian cruise flight until I was 19.
The truth is that in America we treat flying like a bus basic transportation. It s nothing special, it s nothing exotic and we want the best price. Airlines respond to what we want, and we want cheap. Increase the airlines costs and they ll increase the ticket prices. What EU 261 really does is create Euro-style socialism everybody norwegian cruise pays a little more so a few people can rake in $750.00 cause they re flight is delayed.
We need to accept that flying is an imperfect system based on incredibly complex machines and subject to things like weather, norwegian cruise etc. And creating a system where the airlines push flight crews to take off when they re not really comfortable doing so is crazy. Look, if the pilot doesn t want to fly a plane until something norwegian cruise is fixed, I don t want to fly it either. Creating a financial incentive and financial pressure to take off anyway is crazy.
The airlines need to treat us all better and we need to be more understanding. Passengers and airlines should be trying to work together, not trying to screw each other out of the last dollar (or euro)
We re not Europeans. What works over there won t necessarily work over here. Paying people $750 because their flight is delayed isn t a realistic over here. Forcing them to accommodate on another airline if possible (so Southwest can t say, we don t interline doesn t work), compensation in airline script, some cash compensation, etc. is reasonable. Winning the I m delayed lottery doesn t make sense in America
norwegian cruise The question really should be, Shouldn t there be a similar US law to protect US travelers? I am about to file a claim on my European delayed flight out of ZRH, so I will see first hand if this law really norwegian cruise works.
would like to hear opinions on what just happened to me.  i had reservations on Lufthansa for Orlando-Frankfurt-Dresden on Sep 3.  waited 3 hours in Orlando to be told that the flight was canceled due to striking flight attendants in FRA.  2 hours later, we took an $80 cab ride home and were told we would be compensated for the cab as opposed to opting for an overnight at the airport.  we taxied back to the airport the next day for another $80 and caught the same flight, 1 day later.
What s your problem? If you're having trouble with a business - any business - and you've norwegian cruise reached a dead end, maybe I can help. Send me an email and I'll investigate. (I can't promise norwegian cruise a fix, but I take every request seriously.) If you want to connect with other consumers, norwegian cruise why not sign up for my free weekly newsletter , RSS feed or free daily email updates ?
Trending topics on Elliott REFUND | AIRLINE | TSA | HOTEL | TRAVEL | FEE | CRUISE | UNITED AIRLINES | AMERICAN AIRLINES norwegian cruise | CAR RENTAL | CUSTOMER SERVICE | US AIRWAYS | DOT | TICKET | SCAM | LUGGAGE | FEES | DELTA AIR LINES | EXPEDIA | CAR | DAMAGE | SOUTHWEST AIRLINES | HOTWIRE | TRAVELOCITY | CANCEL | RENTAL | INSURANCE | DELAY Essential links