Home Nyheder 6.500 kræver 22 millioner kroner af Norwegian

6.500 kræver 22 millioner kroner af Norwegian

13
SHARE

norwegianBag kravet står firmaet ’Travelright’, som tager en fjerdedel af pengene i afgift, skriver Svenska Dagbladet.

Syrelækage, problemer med en hydraulikpumpe og fejl i en luftventil er nogle af forklaringerne på lavprisselskabet Norwegians forsinkelser på langdistanceflyvningerne.

Nu indbringer det svenske Travelright tolv sager mod Norwegian for domstolen. Sagerne berører omkring 250 flyvninger og 1.200 personer. Yderligere 5.300 passagerer er kommet med krav, skriver SvD ifølge travelreport.se.

Ifølge Travelrights adm. direktør Peder Nilsson kommer der omkring 300 nye krav hver uge. Flere af de tolv prøvesager er ført frem til forlig, og det mener han øger mulighederne for, at flere passagerer kan få udbetalt erstatning.

Kravene handler især om forsinkelser langdistancefly. Uanset hvad billetten koster kan en forsinkelse på mindst tre timer give 4.500 kroner i erstatning.

Travelright tager 24% plus moms af erstatningsbeløbet for håndtering af sagerne.

13 COMMENTS

    • You don’t seem to get the point. How can an airline be held responsible for 7 new aircraft that have multiple technical faults from day 1 after delivery? How come that Norwegian operate 90 Boeing 737, without the slightest issue of delays.?To The contrary, on several occassions has been top 3 in Europe/World for on time record? – This Swedish company, is nothing but an “Ambulance chaser” They have collected the “complaints” themselves, just for their own greed.

      • John it’s so true you hit the head on the nail. they just Want to make money. Crew Working for 300pund A month. ???? and IF the aircraft was defect on delivery how the h… Can they even Think of begin flying with it.

      • I totally agree John! It is the customers fault! They shouldn’t have purchased the ticket at DY!

  1. This is completely absurd. This company, and lawyers are just there to make money themselves. Passengers should know where to place The blame, and that”s wit Boeing. A similiar case was flatlly rejected in Norway. -The lawyer of this company has been reportedto the policy by Norwegian already.

  2. Det er vel kun fair at folk som yder et stykke arbejde, bliver betalt for det. Det gælder også advokater.
    Men desværre tror jeg ikke der er noget at komme efter hos Norwegian. Den norske stat holder hånden over firmaet i en sådan grad at fri konkurrence og forbrugerbeskyttende lovgivning sættes ud af kraft. Igen er forbrugeren taberen, når grådige firmaer ikke vil følge gældende lovgivning. Denne gang er det bare med den norske stats accept. Føj for pokker….

    • Den norsk stat holder ikke hånd over noe som helst. De står som en av eierne av SAS. Men de har gjennomskuet de groteske kampanjene, ulovlige bestikkelser av amerikanske beslutningstakere, og har sterk mistanke at konkurrenter som blant annet United og SAS er involvert i ulovligheter for å stoppe US approval. -Jeg er sikker på at de kommer til å få dispensasjon helt til denne saken blir aslørt.—-Føj for pokker….

      • Flot Erik Larssen usaglig som altid. SAS skyld som det plejer når noget går DY imod.
        Norwegian kan bare flytte deres longhaul tilbage fra Irland, og ansætte skandinavisk personale så skal de nok få deres tilladelse.

  3. Hi John.

    What is absolutely absurd is that Lounghaul is unable to follow even the smallest peace of European and international legislation when it comes to passenger rights, not only is Norwegian arrogant to a degree seldom seen in Aviation but they do everything in their power to exploit passengers and crew.
    I recently read that lounghaul have inflicted an estimated loss of 1 billion nok to Norwegian, best news ever, this combined with the probably fact that they wont get the US approval and hence properly will have to move the longhaul AOC back to Norway is brilliant news, because then the companies can compete on a level playing field.

    Do you actually think that there would be any complaints if Dy simply followed the Eu legislation with regards to delays? Matter of fact is Dy have deserved to pay each and every affected passenger the maximum amount.

    There is a reason why Dy in all these cases chooses to settle, else the ruling from the court would suddenly create a rule of thump for all remaining passengers and then we are talking 200-300 million is compensation.

    Please continue to argue Dy case in the media, it is to big amusement to the rest of us..:)

  4. By the way John.

    If you get into a taxi and it brakes down, you don’t call Mercedes to get compensation, you deal with the driver.

    Same with Dy, any other operator in the world would have told you that implementing an untested airframe into any Ops where utilization rate is close to 20 hrs daily is pure madness that combined with no backup plan is just plane stupid.
    As everybody in the business knows, Boeing is compensating Norwegian for the flaws in the 787, Norwegian simply forgets to inform the rest of us of that fact, that you further denies to compensate the passengers is arrogance beyond my wildest dreams.

    If Dy is unable to even inform passengers about delays as so often proven, I wonder what would happen if you had an incident, 12.000 km from Oslo. Normally you can’t even get through on the phone? How many audits have the Irish Caa made in Bangkok, what is your family assist plan and so forth?

    Unfortunately normal passengers newer ask these questions, if they did, they would probably not be flying with you again..:)

    Have a nice weekend.

    • Jens, you couldn’t care less about the passengers. Your arguments are similar to several others, and typical for the ones of employees of competing airline like SAS.If you people started to focus on your business, you might be sucsessful yourself.

      • So You think you are successful in Dy with an estimated 1 billion loss, massive negative publicity in the worlds press, fighting basically most unions in the world, including DOT and Eu, that combined with an Ops where there is no real and toughly tested backup, in any way shape or form, should a delay or incident occur. The Irish Caa have still not visited and audited all Dy”s bases or fields of operation.

        Yes I see what you mean, Norwegian is a massive success!

        Note: I used to work for Dy, where do you think I got all this information from, so please stop drawing parallels to my person and SAS.

        Eric, as always the whole world is evil and against Norwegian, its all an conspiracy, nothing to do with international law, bilateral agreements or simply the old traditions we have in Europe that you don’t dump social welfare as it is like …. In your pants in the long run.

        Dy is just like that weird unadjusted kid in kindergarten that simply didn’t want to follow the rules like the rest of us, when this in a polite manor was pointed out to him, he would go set fire to something or kick on a door.

        There is something really wrong with your company culture when you can stand up and argue that the massive failure of Norwegian lounghaul is the blame of others, sad really, because all you do is ruining the business.

        All the best.

  5. Customers are innocent. They have bought a product with their hard earned taxed money. The producer of the product must deliver. If the producer of the product has problems with their supplier, now, that’s a question that has to be settled between the producer and the supplier. Again. The customers are innocent. The fact that a producer ignores this, is absurd. You are intelligent people. You know this.

Comments are closed.