Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Easyjet ONLY

eskbanker

launrw said:

Two points: 

- in their evidence, my flight didn't have any CTOTs being applied, and conveniently they didn't show any Target Take-Off Time for this particular day (I was given TTOT for the ones before and after)

Not sure what significance you're seeing here in the absence of those times, and what mileage there is in pursuing that?

launrw said:

- the cancellation was because they couldn't take the plane and crew back from Berlin before the Berlin airport's curfew (9.29pm curfew for departures)

Yes, but that's the effect rather than the cause, i.e. it's because of earlier ATC restrictions that it wasn't possible to beat the curfew, assuming that 21:30 signifies UTC rather than local time (the timetabled arrival of the Luton flight was already after 21:30 local).

If the Berlin legs are so susceptible to the curfew that an hour's delay precludes their operation then have they explained why a spare aircraft wasn't used, given that it's their primary operating base?  Presumably they'll have explained why they wouldn't just fly to Berlin and return the next day?

launrw

eskbanker said:

Not sure what significance you're seeing here in the absence of those times, and what mileage there is in pursuing that?

Thanks for replying!
Just an observation. For example, looking at the rotation, the aircraft was scheduled on 6 flights and the turnaround between each was ~ 30 mins, which didn't really leave much room for delays.
Also, for example, the first flight affected by the ATC (3rd in the rotation) had a CTOT of 12:07 since 9:30am which is 40 mins later than scheduled (STD 11:25)

Yes, but that's the effect rather than the cause, i.e. it's because of earlier ATC restrictions that it wasn't possible to beat the curfew, assuming that 21:30 signifies UTC rather than local time (the timetabled arrival of the Luton flight was already after 21:30 local).

If the Berlin legs are so susceptible to the curfew that an hour's delay precludes their operation then have they explained why a spare aircraft wasn't used, given that it's their primary operating base?  Presumably they'll have explained why they wouldn't just fly to Berlin and return the next day?

Not sure I was clear on this. My flight could have landed in Berlin before the airport curfew, which is 21:29 local time. The cancellation was because at that point the BER- LUT flight was not going to make it back to Luton and they didn't want the aircraft and crew in the 'wrong' place 

Spare aircraft was not available based on the document provided (with screenshot)

launrw

Apologies, made a bit of a mess trying to quote-replying

This was my answer to the first bit

Thanks for replying!
Just an observation. For example, looking at the rotation, the aircraft was scheduled on 6 flights and the turnaround between each was ~ 30 mins, which didn't really leave much room for delays.
Also, for example, the first flight affected by the ATC (3rd in the rotation) had a CTOT of 12:07 since 9:30am which is 40 mins later than scheduled (STD 11:25)

eskbanker

launrw said:

Apologies, made a bit of a mess trying to quote-replying

This was my answer to the first bit

Thanks for replying!
Just an observation. For example, looking at the rotation, the aircraft was scheduled on 6 flights and the turnaround between each was ~ 30 mins, which didn't really leave much room for delays.
Also, for example, the first flight affected by the ATC (3rd in the rotation) had a CTOT of 12:07 since 9:30am which is 40 mins later than scheduled (STD 11:25)

Yes, like many other airlines, EasyJet operates with short turnaround times, which does inevitably lead to delays snowballing, especially for flights later in the day such as yours but the fact that the aircraft was delayed by earlier ATC restrictions is presumably not in dispute?

launrw said:

eskbanker said:

Yes, but that's the effect rather than the cause, i.e. it's because of earlier ATC restrictions that it wasn't possible to beat the curfew, assuming that 21:30 signifies UTC rather than local time (the timetabled arrival of the Luton flight was already after 21:30 local).

If the Berlin legs are so susceptible to the curfew that an hour's delay precludes their operation then have they explained why a spare aircraft wasn't used, given that it's their primary operating base?  Presumably they'll have explained why they wouldn't just fly to Berlin and return the next day?

Not sure I was clear on this. My flight could have landed in Berlin before the airport curfew, which is 21:29 local time. The cancellation was because at that point the BER- LUT flight was not going to make it back to Luton and they didn't want the aircraft and crew in the 'wrong' place 

Spare aircraft was not available based on the document provided (with screenshot)

Likewise I don't think you got my point on the curfew, which was that if the curfew was 21:30 local time then your flight schedule would never work, because even if it operated on time, it would arrive after the curfew had started!  However, I remain convinced that the curfew is actually 21:30 UTC, i.e. 23:30 local, as a number of flights departed after 23:00 local.  Anyway, that's all largely academic....

I could be wrong but suspect that AviationADR will accept EasyJet's argument that ATC restrictions left them unable to fly to Berlin and back before the curfew kicked in and that it's reasonable not to simply operate the outbound leg in such circumstances, given the knock-on effects to the next day's schedule, which EasyJet will no doubt have outlined.

However, what has been your line of argument against that thus far?

launrw

Thanks, much appreciated the input!

I can see what you are saying on the times, the document doesn't make it easy to interpret, and they wrote 21:29 without a timezone reference.

I've only submitted the basics documents for the ArbitrationADR with a brief note on the knock-on effect, as I thought (before reading further, but after submission) it wouldn't be a valid reason - I had found one example but ATC-weather related.

Have been looking for a different angle since easyJet returned their defence, as it's not really something I do often

One thing that annoys me is that we were made to go through boarding and were standing outside the plane. It's only at that point that it got cancelled.

eskbanker

launrw said:

I've only submitted the basics documents for the ArbitrationADR with a brief note on the knock-on effect, as I thought (before reading further, but after submission) it wouldn't be a valid reason - I had found one example but ATC-weather related.

Knock-on effects are a bit of a grey area - some have tried to assert that delays or cancellations caused by issues on earlier flights can't be used as valid reasons for asserting extraordinary circumstances on the complainant's flight, but it's not as simple as that and will depend on circumstances.

I think it's fair to say that if ATC restrictions ultimately cause delays or cancellations later the same day then that allows airlines to cite them as extraordinary circumstances for the latter, but the argument would be weaker on subsequent days - recital 15 of the regulations states:

Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where the impact of an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day gives rise to a long delay, an overnight delay, or the cancellation of one or more flights by that aircraft, even though all reasonable measures had been taken by the air carrier concerned to avoid the delays or cancellations.

so airlines will rely on the bolded wording.

As stated, there is also the requirement for airlines to take reasonable measures in response to extraordinary circumstances (e.g. deploying spare aircraft), so that's another potential angle, but one that airlines seem to be able to defeat without too much difficulty.

launrw said:

One thing that annoys me is that we were made to go through boarding and were standing outside the plane. It's only at that point that it got cancelled.

Undoubtedly annoying when that happens, but it doesn't actually affect the determination of whether the cancellation was ultimately caused by extraordinary circumstances or whether the airline took reasonable measures to mitigate these.

launrw

The point I was trying to make is that, despite the knock-on delays, they carried on with boarding just shy of 8pm, which makes me wonder how hard they tried to mitigate earlier in the day. To me, that looks like they gambled they could operate the last two flights and only when the last flight got a TTOT that was beyond curfew they cancelled. This was at 7.40pm.UK time, based on their records.

I have no proofs to support and probably won't move the needle 

eskbanker

launrw said:

The point I was trying to make is that, despite the knock-on delays, they carried on with boarding just shy of 8pm, which makes me wonder how hard they tried to mitigate earlier in the day.

I don't follow that logic at all, what motivation would there be for an airline not to try as hard as possible to avoid costly delays and cancellations?

launrw said:

To me, that looks like they gambled they could operate the last two flights and only when the last flight got a TTOT that was beyond curfew they cancelled. This was at 7.40pm.UK time, based on their records.

I have no proofs to support and probably won't move the needle 

I would expect an airline to continue to make best efforts to operate flights until it becomes apparent that it isn't going to be practical, so if there's any chance of making it work (e.g. last-minute negotiations with ATC) then they effectively have to carry on with boarding - I couldn't count the number of flights I've been on where boarding completes and only then is the announcement made from the flight deck that departure is to be delayed by ATC, but obviously if there's a slot belatedly available then it's crucial for the airline to be in a position to benefit from it.  Sometimes that happens, but conversely it often doesn't - you could indeed characterise that as a gamble, but it seems a reasonable one to me.

launrw

So they have to show they took reasonable measures but also they can make best efforts to operate the flight. To me the two are in antithesis, because if they carry on hoping the slot moves, I won't have a chance to try and make it to my destination in any other way

It is semantics at this point - my goal was to try and find an angle to rebut their defence, which I will accept it isn't possible on this occasion.
Thanks for the exchange 

eskbanker

launrw said:

So they have to show they took reasonable measures but also they can make best efforts to operate the flight. To me the two are in antithesis, because if they carry on hoping the slot moves, I won't have a chance to try and make it to my destination in any other way

I don't see the conflict - if there's still a realistic chance of being able to operate the flights as planned then it could easily be portrayed as unreasonable not to try?  Obviously the line has to be drawn somewhere eventually, and I can imagine that such decisions won't be easy, as there'll be many moving parts involved, but having said that, knowing what you know now in hindsight, I can of course see why you'd have preferred an earlier cancellation if that would have opened up other opportunities to travel via alternative means, but that doesn't mean that the airline wasn't being reasonable, in the context of the information known to them at the time.

launrw said:

It is semantics at this point - my goal was to try and find an angle to rebut their defence, which I will accept it isn't possible on this occasion.

I'm not saying it isn't possible, but just that I can't really see much prospect, based on what you've shared.