PASSENGERS whose flights are delayed by bird strikes will be allowed to claim compensation from airlines in the latest legal blow to the industry.
A judge at Manchester County Court ruled that bird strikes do not count as an "extraordinary circumstance" which would exempt airlines from paying flight delay compensation, in line with EU law.
The decision was handed down after passenger Timothy Ash took Thomas Cook Airlines to court over a more than five hour delay on a flight from Antalya to Manchester in 2011.
District Judge Iyer ruled in favour of Mr Ash and others, ordering the holiday company to pay the group of four passengers €1600 (approximately £310 each).
He said: "For my part I observe that the word used is "extraordinary" rather than "unexpected", "unforeseeable", "unusual" or even "rare". Extraordinary to me conotes something beyond unusual.
"A motorway collision between two cars on a motorway is unusual but not extraordinary, whereas a motorway collision between a car, and say, a horse would be extraordinary.
"Bird strikes happen every day, in fact many times a day, and would hardly be worthy of comment but for the delay which they cause.
"They do not fall within the same category as a motorway collision between a car and my previous example of a horse, which would be extraordinary, for the simple reason that our skies are populated with birds, whereas our roads are not populated with horses."
Mr Ash, who was travelling with his wife, daughter and son when they suffered the delay, said he was relieved by the ruling.
He added: "I had my disabled son with me at the time of the delay and it turned into a really arduous experience that could have been avoided."
Under EU law, passengers who arrive at their final destination three or more hours late can claim up to €600, as long as their delay was not caused by "extraordinary circumstances" including terrorism, extreme weather or industrial action.
However, a landmark court ruling last year threw out "technical problems" as a legitimate excuse for airlines to avoid paying out - handing the industry a potential bill of £750m a year.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article