Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Easyjet ONLY

JPears

They are probably fobbing you off. You seem to have the facts of the delay cause ie there inability to have contingency at a main EHJ hub.
You are due compensation under reg 261/2004 for your outbound flight and a refund of your out and home flights as you were delayed by more than 5 hours.
Download Vaubans most excellent guide. All will be explained then ome back if any further questions.

duckling07

JPears wrote: »

They are probably fobbing you off. You seem to have the facts of the delay cause ie there inability to have contingency at a main EHJ hub.
You are due compensation under reg 261/2004 for your outbound flight and a refund of your out and home flights as you were delayed by more than 5 hours.
Download Vaubans most excellent guide. All will be explained then ome back if any further questions.

Thank you, I'll look at that now.
Do I definitely still get compensation under 261/2004 even though I didn't actually take the rescheduled flight? They said that as I didn't take it and cancelled my seat on it, it was my decision and I'm not deemed to have been negatively affected by the delay... Y'know, apart from missing my cousins wedding and all that.

JPears

If your flight was delayed, or expected to be delayed more than 5 hours, you can claim both a refund in full, as the return part of your journey was pointless, and compensation.
EJ will basically tell you untruths and misinformation to avoid paying out.
google the regulation 261/2004 ( I think there is a link in Vauban's guide)
Read thru you will find the relevant article.

Vauban

JPears wrote: »

If your flight was delayed, or expected to be delayed more than 5 hours, you can claim both a refund in full, as the return part of your journey was pointless, and compensation.
EJ will basically tell you untruths and misinformation to avoid paying out.
google the regulation 261/2004 ( I think there is a link in Vauban's guide)
Read thru you will find the relevant article.

Is this correct? I'm not sure it is.

It would feel (to me) unjust not to give compensation to someone whose flight is delayed by over five hours, and who decide not to travel. But what does the Regulation and the binding case law say?

The original regulation makes provision for a refund, but doesn't talk about compensation for delays - it only allows for compensation for denied boarding and cancellations. It was the Sturgeon judgement that said delays could also give rise to compensation payments, based on the regime outlined in the regulation for rerouted flights that were cancelled. And what was the condition laid down?

"...Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that 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, for the passenger to qualify for the compensation payment (not the refund or duty of care provision) they must travel and arrive three hours late. If this doesn't happen, I don't see there's a right to compensation.

I would be delighted to be shown I am wrong on this point though.

EDIT: Citizens Advice would appear to agree with this interpretation unfortunately:

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/holiday-cancellations-and-compensation/if-your-flights-delayed-or-cancelled/

JPears

Again, in this case, I suspect the passenger's flight was actually cancelled, since their replacement flight was nearly 24 hours later ie placed on next day's flight.
So your reasoned arguement above may not apply here
To your reasoned arguements - the critical part would appear to be one's interpretation of :
" 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."
If the passenger were to be delayed by 3 hours ie remain at the airport, having presented themselves for travel, they have suffered that delay rrespective of whether or not they then actually travel or not?

antonove

Our flight was cancelled because the plane steps put a hole in the plane fuselage. To be fair, we were put up in a good hotel for the night, and provided with a meal, a nice room and then breakfast in the morning. We were given the details of where to claim by the airport staff. In all, we were delayed from time of flight 2030hrs.on 12th., to take-off 1030hrs.approx. on 13th.
Are we due compensation? We missed an important family engagement on 13th! Your help would be greatly appreciated.
Regards
Tony Overend

Vauban

JPears wrote: »

Again, in this case, I suspect the passenger's flight was actually cancelled, since their replacement flight was nearly 24 hours later ie placed on next day's flight.
So your reasoned arguement above may not apply here
To your reasoned arguements - the critical part would appear to be one's interpretation of :
" 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."
If the passenger were to be delayed by 3 hours ie remain at the airport, having presented themselves for travel, they have suffered that delay rrespective of whether or not they then actually travel or not?

I'm not a lawyer, so my view is no more valid than yours. But my reading of the sentence you highlight is that the definition of a three hour delay is defined by the criteria of when the passenger arrives at the destination. The key phrase is "that is".

antonove

Thanks for the prompt reply. There was no scheduled flight on the following day. A plane was flown in specially form Milan. Incidentally, there was no hot food on the plane, only crisps etc., and hot drinks.

Tyzap

antonove wrote: »

Our flight was cancelled because the plane steps put a hole in the plane fuselage. To be fair, we were put up in a good hotel for the night, and provided with a meal, a nice room and then breakfast in the morning. We were given the details of where to claim by the airport staff. In all, we were delayed from time of flight 2030hrs.on 12th., to take-off 1030hrs.approx. on 13th.
Are we due compensation? We missed an important family engagement on 13th! Your help would be greatly appreciated.
Regards
Tony Overend

Hi Tony,

Yes you are due EC261 compensation.

Your situation has been tested in the courts and the airlines must pay. They, in turn, can claim from the 3rd party who caused the fault, if they want to.

At least in this case you were well looked after so some credit to EJ.

Good luck.

JPears

removed as incorrect and confused.