Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Easyjet ONLY

Hi Tyzap,


Thanks very much for the reply much appreciated and glad I'm on the right lines. I totally agree with you that it's got to be down to Operational Decision making rather than anything extraordinary and that will be the focus of my response.


I agree that it wouldn't be reasonable for an airline to know when a passenger would need to be off-loaded but as part of normal operations they should expect some offloads for a variety of reasons, not just fear of flying and plan their schedules accordingly.


I cant believe a court would uphold a 1 hour delay as being extraordinary. If they do then it's a bad show for the industry.


I'm going to try and source some evidence of judgements where courts have said that airlines must build in sufficient time for such delays which although cant be predicted on a flight by flight basis, can be predicted (and expected) in the normal running of an airline service.


Will keep you all posted with further developments.


Thanks again.


Andrew.

araeho wrote: »

Hi Tyzap,


Thanks very much for the reply much appreciated and glad I'm on the right lines. I totally agree with you that it's got to be down to Operational Decision making rather than anything extraordinary and that will be the focus of my response.


I agree that it wouldn't be reasonable for an airline to know when a passenger would need to be off-loaded but as part of normal operations they should expect some offloads for a variety of reasons, not just fear of flying and plan their schedules accordingly.


I cant believe a court would uphold a 1 hour delay as being extraordinary. If they do then it's a bad show for the industry.


I'm going to try and source some evidence of judgements where courts have said that airlines must build in sufficient time for such delays which although cant be predicted on a flight by flight basis, can be predicted (and expected) in the normal running of an airline service.


Will keep you all posted with further developments.


Thanks again.


Andrew.

The judgement you're looking for is Eglitis v Air Baltic:

https://rescommunis.wordpress.com/2011/07/12/the-european-court-of-justice-issues-decision-today-on-extraordinary-circumstances-for-airline-delays/

DrLisa wrote: »

Does anyone know if this is the case or am I incorrect? Many thanks!

Hi DrLisa,

Your diagnosis is correct, as you can see from the following extracts from the EC261 regulation.

Had EJ followed the regulations correctly they would have issued each passenger with a written explanation of the regs and the option on offer at that time. They don't usually like to make things too obvious tho!

CEDR may be your best route if they prove to be intransigent.

I believe that these are the relevant regs applying to your situation...


Article 6
Delay
1. When an operating air carrier reasonably expects a flight to be delayed beyond its scheduled time of departure:
(a) for two hours or more in the case of flights of 1 500 kilo- metres or less; or
(b) for three hours or more in the case of all intra-Community flights of more than 1 500 kilometres and of all other flights between 1 500 and 3 500 kilometres; or
(c) for four hours or more in the case of all flights not falling under (a) or (b),
passengers shall be offered by the operating air carrier:
(i) the assistance specified in Article 9(1)(a) and 9(2); and
(ii) when the reasonably expected time of departure is at least the day after the time of departure previously announced, the assistance specified in Article 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(c); and
(iii) when the delay is at least five hours, the assistance speci- fied in Article 8(1)(a).

Article 8
Right to reimbursement or re-routing
1. Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall be offered the choice between:
(a) — reimbursement within seven days, by the means provided for in Article 7(3), of the full cost of the ticket at the price at which it was bought, for the part or parts of the journey not made, and for the part or parts already made if the flight is no longer serving any purpose in relation to the passenger's original travel plan, together with, when relevant,
— a return flight to the first point of departure, at the earliest opportunity;


Article 7
Right to compensation
1. Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall receive compensation amounting to:
(a) EUR 250 for all flights of 1 500 kilometres or less;
(b) EUR 400 for all intra-Community flights of more than 1 500 kilometres, and for all other flights between 1 500 and 3 500 kilometres;
(c) EUR 600 for all flights not falling under (a) or (b).
In determining the distance, the basis shall be the last destina- tion at which the denial of boarding or cancellation will delay the passenger's arrival after the scheduled time.
2. When passengers are offered re-routing to their final destination on an alternative flight pursuant to Article 8, the arrival time of which does not exceed the scheduled arrival time of the flight originally booked
(a) by two hours, in respect of all flights of 1 500 kilometres or less; or
(b) by three hours, in respect of all intra-Community flights of more than 1500 kilometres and for all other flights between 1 500 and 3 500 kilometres; or
(c) by four hours, in respect of all flights not falling under (a) or (b),
the operating air carrier may reduce the compensation provided for in paragraph 1 by 50 %.
3. The compensation referred to in paragraph 1 shall be paid in cash, by electronic bank transfer, bank orders or bank cheques or, with the signed agreement of the passenger, in travel vouchers and/or other services.

Good luck.

Vauban wrote: »

I'm not sure that there's anything in the Regulation that offers clarity on this point (i.e. if your flight is delayed, but you choose not to take it, whether you're entitled to compensation - beyond a refund (after 5 hours) and expenses).

I think that the OP is NOT entitled, however unfair this sounds. This is because of the wording of the Sturgeon judgement, which established that delays could be treated the same as cancellations under the Regs. However, Sturgeon gives the following criteria for a qualifying delay:

"... passengers whose flights are delayed may be treated, for the purposes of the application of the right to compensation, as passengers whose flights are cancelled and they may thus rely on the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of the regulation where they suffer, on account of a flight delay, a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours, that is, where they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier."

In other words, if the passenger doesn't arrive at the destination on the delayed flight, then they don't get the protection of Article VIII.

It won't be the first or last time that these regs have caused confusion due to their poor wording and lack of clarity. Although in many instances this can be attributed to the fact that an example of each and every situation would be impossible to list.

I'm of the opinion that the op is due compensation for the following reasons.

Under article 3 Scope, it is stipulated that for the passenger to be in scope they must...

(a) have a confirmed reservation on the flight concerned and, except in the case of cancellation referred to in Article 5, present themselves for check-in,

It does not specify the need to have flown, which would surely otherwise be a stated prerequisite to qualify.

Under article 6 Delay, it states
(iii) when the delay is at least five hours, the assistance specified in Article 8(1)(a).

8(1)(a) includes the following wording...

together with, when relevant,
— a return flight to the first point of departure, at the earliest opportunity;

That wording would not be required if, as you suggest, a flight would have be taken to qualify for compensation.

It would be against the spirit of the regs to allow a passenger to be delayed at departure for over 5 hours and not receive compensation when the trip is no longer required.

Without any specific case law to guide us that I know of, this is a difficult question.

I may be 'splitting hairs' here so I would suggest that the op should still refer to CEDR or even MCOL for an adjudication by someone more qualified to answer the question than myself.

Yes, I agree, Bott & Co would be the natural place to take this complaint. However, I'm not sure that there is the commercial volume for them to justify the initial expense if it were to be contested, but maybe.

It's the first time I can recall this question arising on these pages, so not a common complaint.