Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Easyjet ONLY

JPears

NBA sent. The countdown begins....

jpsartre

Krunchie20 wrote: »

However we were sent to another airport the next day for a replacement flight, this was them grounded for 6 hours with us on board prior to takeoff, they say this is not eligible for compensation, no where I have read says the compensation is limited to 1 journey... Does anyone have any experience of this?

I know JPears disagrees with me on this but I can see no reason why you shouldn't be entitled to compensation for both events (assuming the delay was for non-extraordinary reasons). It's no different than duty of care which would also apply in both cases.

JPears

jps, I'd like to agree on this one with you! But my reading of the regualtions are that, as the second flight was not paid for, in the sense that only one payment was made and effectively only one flight taken, then only one lot of compensation due.
Krunchie have you contacted Botts or similar to see what their take on this situation is?

jpsartre

I don't agree that there's been no payment for the replacement flight but we've had that discussion before so no reason to repeat it.


Would you also say a passenger can be involuntarily denied boarding on a replacement flight (e.g. due to overbooking) without being entitled to compensation?

NoviceAngel

Krunchie20 wrote: »

Hi. After nearly 2 months of being ignored I finally spoke to a human today! Hurrah!
They have Confirmed that our 2st flight was cancelled and was their fault so will pay the compensation. Great news!
However we were sent to another airport the next day for a replacement flight, this was them grounded for 6 hours with us on board prior to takeoff, they say this is not eligible for compensation, no where I have read says the compensation is limited to 1 journey... Does anyone have any experience of this?

I make the assumption that the 2nd (replacement flight) was not delayed due to a genuine EC.

JPears wrote: »

Hi Krunchie was your flight with easyJet? If so you're on the correct thread.
Compensation is only payable for one journey. This is covered by the detail in the regulation that compensation is only due for a paid for journey. You only paid for one journey.


Unless you obtained a refund for your first flight, booked and paid for the second flight from the different airport, which was also delayed?

jpsartre wrote: »

I don't agree that there's been no payment for the replacement flight but we've had that discussion before so no reason to repeat it.

Blimey, that’s a tough one and I’ve been thinking about this for 24hrs lol. So this is my uneducated take on it.

First of all I’m interested because of the beast from the east weather earlier this year, in brief (detail on the J2 thread) - I was stranded in Paris.

A total of three cancelled flights

First cancelled due to ATC restrictions at LBA, refused re-routing or an alternate flight, only offered a refund.

Second cancelled due to ATC restrictions the previous day, as before - refund only option offered.

Third flight also cancelled due to ??? Still in dispute but was transferred this time FOC onto the next available flight which did fly.

Ok so eventually was refunded the cost of replacement flights and all duty of care costs. So what’s due under EC261.

Flight no1 was a genuine EC after J2 provided evidence.

Flight no2 was not an EC and J2 paid out Compensation under EC261.

Flight no3 is due before the Courts.

So we should have been offered a FOC transfer to our second flight. Are we really saying that if that had been offered and accepted we would be refused due compensation because we made no payment for that flight? Regardless of wether flight no1 was eligible for compo or not?

My take on this is that it should be regarded as a paid for flight because the original flight did not operate.

A ‘free’ flight on ‘non paid for flight’ would be either a free child place for example or perhaps won in a competition to name a couple of examples.

I think it would be stretching it a bit to say that if our flight no4 didn’t fly because we got a ‘free’ transfer then we wouldn’t be entitled to compensation.

So the keywords for me would be free transfer the flight was still paid for as it was not ‘free’ .

I know where JP is coming from, but I don’t think a court would regard the OP’s flight as a ‘free’ flight. I think I know JP well enough that he won’t be offended by me offering an alternate view.

Have I just agreed with jpsartre? That must be a first m8

JPears

I'm in agreement with the reasonings for and you know my belief is that passengers are due everything that may be possible and deserved.

My concern is what the actual legal argument would be in interpreting 261/2004 in such a way when, for once, there is a degree of clarity in the wording?
Another appeal case due?

NoviceAngel

JPears wrote: »

I'm in agreement with the reasonings for and you know my belief is that passengers are due everything that may be possible and deserved.

My concern is what the actual legal argument would be in interpreting 261/2004 in such a way when, for once, there is a degree of clarity in the wording?
Another appeal case due?

I think that’s very true and a reflection of how vague the regs are.

Is a cancelled flight and subsequently a rebooked flight FOC to be regarded as an extension of the original flight and booking or should it be treated as a separate entity and the fee paid for the cancelled flight be treated as payment for the second flight ?

So many questions and even with the knowledge on these forums we don’t always agree, that’s good in a way keeps us debating and discussing.

BTW, your thoughts on EC261 payments due I would never question :beer:

EDIT - We’ve got Blanche to look forward to next year !

Tyzap

NoviceAngel wrote: »

I think that!!!8217;s very true and a reflection of how vague the regs are.

Is a cancelled flight and subsequently a rebooked flight FOC to be regarded as an extension of the original flight and booking or should it be treated as a separate entity and the fee paid for the cancelled flight be treated as payment for the second flight ?

Hope this helps (a bit long winded)

b. Right to reimbursement, re-routing or rebooking in the event of denied boarding or cancellation
Article 8(1) of the Regulation imposes on air carriers the obligation to offer passengers a triple choice, between (i) reimbursement of the ticket price36 and, in the case of connections, a return flight to the airport of departure at the earliest opportunity, (ii) re-routing to their final destination either at the earliest opportunity or, (iii) re-routing at a later date at the passenger!!!8217;s convenience under comparable transport conditions, subject to availability of seats. As a general principle, when the passenger is informed about the cancellation of the flight and is correctly informed on the available choices, the choice offered to passengers under Article 8(1) is to be made once. In such cases, as soon as the passenger has chosen one of the three options under Article 8(1)(a),(b) or (c), the air carrier no longer has any obligation linked to the other two options. Nonetheless, the obligation to compensation may still apply according to Article 5(1)(c) in connection with Article 7.
The air carrier should simultaneously offer the choice between reimbursement and re-routing. In the case of connecting flights, the air carrier should simultaneously offer the choice between reimbursement and a return flight to the airport of departure and re-routing. The air carrier has to bear the costs for re-routing or a return flight, and must reimburse the costs for the flight borne by the passenger where the air carrier does not comply with its obligation to offer re-routing or return under comparable transport conditions at the earliest opportunity. Where the air carrier does not offer the choice between reimbursement and re-routing and, in the case of connecting flights, reimbursement and a return flight to the airport of departure and re-routing, but decides unilaterally to reimburse the passenger, he or she is entitled to a further reimbursement of the price difference with the new ticket under comparable transport conditions.
However, where an air carrier can demonstrate that when the passenger has accepted to give his or her personal contact details, it has contacted a passenger and sought to provide the assistance required by Article 8, but the passenger has nonetheless made his or her own assistance or re-routing arrangements, then the air carrier may conclude that it is not responsible for any additional costs the passenger has incurred and may decide not to reimburse them.
When passengers are offered the option of continuation or re-routing of a journey, this must be !!!8216;under comparable transport conditions!!!8217;. Whether transport conditions are comparable can depend on a number of factors and must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Depending on the circumstances, the following good practices are recommended:
!!!61630; if possible, passengers should not be downgraded to transport facilities of a lower class compared with the one on the reservation (in the event of downgrading, the compensation provided for in Article 10 applies);
!!!61630; re-routing should be offered at no additional cost to the passenger, even where passengers are re-routed with another air carrier or on a different transport mode or in a higher class or at a higher fare than the one paid for the original service;
!!!61630; reasonable efforts are to be made to avoid additional connections;
!!!61630; when using another air carrier or an alternative mode of transport for the part of the journey not completed as planned, the total travel time should, if possible, be as reasonably close as possible to the scheduled travel time of the original journey in the same or higher class of carriage if necessary;
!!!61630; if several flights are available with comparable timings, passengers having the right to re- routing should accept the offer of re-routing made by the carrier, including on those air carriers cooperating with the operating carrier;
!!!61630; if assistance for people with disabilities or reduced mobility was booked for the original journey, such assistance should equally be available on the alternative route.
Any new right to compensation according to Article 7 will apply to the re-routed flight accepted under Article 8(1)(b) or (c) if it is also cancelled or delayed at arrival (see Section 4.4.11). The Commission recommends that options are clearly spelled out to passengers when assistance is to be provided.

From here..
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/themes/passengers/news/doc/2016-06-10-better-enforcement-pax-rights/c%282016%293502_en.pdf

NoviceAngel

Tyzap, I need coffee before I read that lot, I have trouble reading anything longer than a sentence. Can’t you just give your opinion lol.

EDIT,

Yanked up with coffee, and I‘ve read it all, if I’ve read it right then the highlighted part means that the delayed passenger is entitled to compo on any re-routed flight.

Thanks for posting that, it makes mud a bit clearer I think.

JPears

Excellent nugget.
I happily concede and now join jps and others on the more than one compensation train! Toot toot!
Interesting part about re-routing with other airlines and that should be offered.


At least if the re-routing is with another arline and there is a second delay/cancellation at least the original airline is only responsible for compensation once!


Nothing like that all with easyJet, even when I called. Just a re-routing if it could be done on the website. Of course what it didn't offer was multileg re-routing, even if all easyJet.
My pointless but gratifying letter of complaint to CAA being composed today.