Claim It is a small Belgian company acting as intermediary between passengers claiming compensation for delays and European airlines. They file claims on passengers' behalf and collect a commission, or they buy claims outright.

Vueling has been a notoriously slow payer when it comes to compensations, so much so that over the summer Claim It received court permission to seize €120,000 in funds earmarked for the airline from IATA's clearinghouse. Vueling's payment record hasn't improved since, so Claim It is now threatening to seize jet fuel inside one of Vueling's aircraft, effectively grounding an aircraft.

Seizing the fuel, clearly an airline property once inside the tank of an aircraft, is a way to go around airlines' claims that assets they do not own but lease cannot be seized.

It does seem that the courts are slow to inforce their own rulings. Well done to Claim it for coming up with this idea of going after the fuel and getting the end result.

They won't find any Vueling plane with 120k worth of fuel in it.

aircatalonia wrote:

They won't find any Vueling plane with 120k worth of fuel in it.

That's not the point. If the plane can't move, it will cost Vueling more than 120k in losses, so it should be a huge incentive for them to pay up.

hOMSaR wrote:

aircatalonia wrote:

They won't find any Vueling plane with 120k worth of fuel in it.

That's not the point. If the plane can't move, it will cost Vueling more than 120k in losses, so it should be a huge incentive for them to pay up.

And if Vueling doesn't pay up it is not like Claim It has to stop at one plane. They can continue "seizing" fuel until they have 120k worth. It also acts as a warning to encourage Vueling to pay up future judgements more promptly.

Surprised with them coming under the IAG umbrella this has gone this far.

It would serve them bl**dy right. They run a shambolic operation... consistently late departures and a high number of cancellations.... If you get stranded by VY just pray your gods, or if you can, just don't bother with them and buy a new ticket (with another airline!) outright!
I am too very surprised that such a company [with such a dreadful, and for that matter well deserved, reputation] are under the IAG umbrella.....

In Italy too they had a close call of losing their operating license last summer. If this summer is a repeat of huge delays there's no doubt they will get into big troubles.

aircatalonia wrote:

They won't find any Vueling plane with 120k worth of fuel in it.

That only means they can ground more than 1 aircraft (thus even worse for Vueling).

So delaying other customers whose journeys would be possibly otherwise not delayed and putting them out is ok?

I know who I'd be more mad at in that instance and it wouldn't be vueling.

Surely fuel ownership only transfers to the airline once it has been paid for, as this is invoiced on a monthly bases the fuel does not belong to the airline.

'Claim It' seems to be an extortionate near-criminal enterprise of a bunch of clever and greedy businesspersons that will get a large cut of the payout for fees and expenses. There should be better laws and regulations as well as enforcement of them so that VY or other airlines promptly pay compensation or properly operate so don't get into having to pay in the first place.

oldannyboy wrote:

It would serve them bl**dy right. They run a shambolic operation... consistently late departures and a high number of cancellations.... If you get stranded by VY just pray your gods, or if you can, just don't bother with them and buy a new ticket (with another airline!) outright!
I am too very surprised that such a company [with such a dreadful, and for that matter well deserved, reputation] are under the IAG umbrella.....

Absolutely, I'm owed upwards of 600 euros in compensation as a result of them cancelling flights for no good reason this summer.

ltbewr wrote:

'Claim It' seems to be an extortionate near-criminal enterprise of a bunch of clever and greedy businesspersons that will get a large cut of the payout for fees and expenses.

Huh? All they do is go after the airlines on the passenger's behalf if the passenger is owed compensation under EU regulations and the airline is not paying up. Entirely voluntary on the part of the passenger. Not Claim It's fault if the airlines stall on compensation hoping passengers don't make a claim.

ltbewr wrote:

'Claim It' seems to be an extortionate near-criminal enterprise of a bunch of clever and greedy businesspersons that will get a large cut of the payout for fees and expenses. There should be better laws and regulations as well as enforcement of them so that VY or other airlines promptly pay compensation or properly operate so don't get into having to pay in the first place.

Such as??? The only only other way is to withdraw their AOC if they don't pay up, but that can only be done by a government and is a very drastic measure (even worse than this). As a customer you can only seize assets, and that's only worthwhile if you combine so many claims that it makes sense (it's not a cheap process). The fact that Vueling is counting on customers not going to court to get the money they're entitled to is a disgrace and will only enforce some politicians to implemenent even worse laws for airlines.

Lofty wrote:

Surely fuel ownership only transfers to the airline once it has been paid for, as this is invoiced on a monthly bases the fuel does not belong to the airline.

Doesn't have to be. I can be the owner of an asset for which I haven't paid for and in some businesses it's customary that settlement 'of payment isn't tied to ownership of an asset (at least in the financial world this is the case). Moreover, I cannot be the owner of something which isn't there anymore (the fuel is gone when the payment is settled). Finally, doesn't the crew sign of for the delivery? I would assume that ownership is tranfered from the oil company to the airline at that moment.

I understand the desire of the EU to protect consumer rights but when they ruled technical issues are still liable for compensation I worry it'll lead to pressure being put to cut corners to avoid big fines.

Hope I'm wrong.

LJ wrote:

Lofty wrote:

Surely fuel ownership only transfers to the airline once it has been paid for, as this is invoiced on a monthly bases the fuel does not belong to the airline.

Doesn't have to be. I can be the owner of an asset for which I haven't paid for and in some businesses it's customary that settlement 'of payment isn't tied to ownership of an asset (at least in the financial world this is the case). Moreover, I cannot be the owner of something which isn't there anymore (the fuel is gone when the payment is settled). Finally, doesn't the crew sign of for the delivery? I would assume that ownership is tranfered from the oil company to the airline at that moment.

In many cases with products, title passes on delivery and the credit comes at that point for the terms provided by the vendor. So once the fuel is in the tanks it could very well be a company asset and seizable. Smart thinking

Vueling is a terrible airline, they should be stripped of their operating license. The fact that they are allowed to codeshare with other IAG airlines such as BA is worrying. I'd rate their service well below Ryanair, who at the very least are reliable and don't cancel flights because of poor planning.

davies2911 wrote:

So delaying other customers whose journeys would be possibly otherwise not delayed and putting them out is ok?

It's unlikely an airline would tell you their aircraft is AOG because they refuse to settle their bills, even more so their legal obligations.

The irony is that if one its aircraft is grounded because it refuses to pay compensation, Vueling may create yet more customers for Claim It.

Lofty wrote:

Surely fuel ownership only transfers to the airline once it has been paid for, as this is invoiced on a monthly bases the fuel does not belong to the airline.

Transfer of ownership can be contractually set at just about any point in the transaction, and is not necessarily tied to payment. Usually, ownership transfers with control of the asset. Fuel in the tank is under control of the airline that operates the plane.

ltbewr wrote:

'Claim It' seems to be an extortionate near-criminal enterprise of a bunch of clever and greedy businesspersons that will get a large cut of the payout for fees and expenses. There should be better laws and regulations as well as enforcement of them so that VY or other airlines promptly pay compensation or properly operate so don't get into having to pay in the first place.

The compensations we're talking about are pretty high, especially compared to the low fares an airline like Vueling asks for, they're supposed to cause exactly what you're asking, airlines to run things well. Also, there is nothing preventing airlines to offer other compensation to the passengers without them having to ask, which would reduce the number of claims.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

I understand the desire of the EU to protect consumer rights but when they ruled technical issues are still liable for compensation I worry it'll lead to pressure being put to cut corners to avoid big fines.

Hope I'm wrong.

The regulation itself has been in place since 2004. A series of subsequent court decisions made it explicit that technical issues were in scope to the compensation scheme. Nobody gets fined. Individual passengers have to claim compensation from the airline, and the amounts payable are laid down depending on distance and amount of delay caused to their journey.
It is possible to argue that airlines are now less likely to defer maintenance than they were before, despatching a plane from home base with inoperative equipment that is still above MEL was and is perfectly legal, but the cost of a delay or diversion should a further inoperative system cause the plane to drop below MEL is much higher than it was.
There's also no evidence that pilots are being pressurised into flying with equipment below MEL, or to exceed legal flying hours. Don't forget this is EASA territory and most flights in Europe travel from one national jurisdiction to another but the basic safety rules are identical in each.