Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Easyjet ONLY

astar86

Hi, does anyone know of a telephone I can use to call easyjet to discuss my claim?

Tim_R

Hello - I think quite a straight-forward question:

Easyjet emailed on 13August2013 to confirm acceptance of liability for compensation under European Law for a delayed flght.

As our group included another family, Easyjet needed confirmation that they were happy for me to receive payment on their behalf. I emailed the confirmation in the format they required on 17August 2013.

The reason for this thread is to ask whether they are required to provide compensation within a defined time frame and when that period starts.

Very grateful for any information on this.

Thank you

Tim

iandv

Vauban wrote: »

Where was the flight to Edinburgh from? If it was outside the UK, the CAA will not touch it.

I'm afraid I must agree with JP on this: the CAA is in almost all cases a waste of time, as numerous posts on this forum will attest to.

The flight was from Bristol in 2008. Is it worth emailing Easyjet back to inform them that they have provided me with incorrect information and the flight was cancelled because of a technical problem, to see what they come back with first?

Vauban

iandv wrote: »

The flight was from Bristol in 2008. Is it worth emailing Easyjet back to inform them that they have provided me with incorrect information and the flight was cancelled because of a technical problem, to see what they come back with first?

That is certainly what I would do: sounds like error rather than conspiracy.

manchesterflyer

Hi...some advice / opinion please...

I'm pursuing a claim v Easyjet for a 16 hour delay on a flight from Tel Aviv to Manchester. I've issued a small claim and the hearing is scheduled for November.

In their defence, EJ say that an issue with the "Blue Hydraulic Pump" during our aircraft's leg TO Tel Aviv from Manchester meant that the aircraft had to turn back. They say this was an unexpected flight safety issue.

They say that only an A320 has the range for this trip, and Tel Aviv is not one of their bases and that a spare A320, was not available. they say it wouldn't have been reasonable to take an A320 off another scheduled flight.

They refer to CAA guidance on what is extraordinary. It is true that the various National enforcement Bodies such as the CAA have met and drafted guidance for the purposes of 261/2004.

(See CAA website for a draft document.)

This guidance does indeed suggest that technical failures which occur in-flight or just before departure (provided maintenance is adequate) should indeed be regarded as "extraordinary" for the purposes of 261/2004, however in this case such an incident did not occur with our flight, but rather with the same aircraft on its outward bound sector.

Notwithstanding that the Courts are of course not bound to follow such guidance, do people think that Easyjet can extend this to what happened on the outward bound sector of the flight?

Any suggestions as to how I counter this? I suppose the answer really is that the cause of delay to MY flight was unavailability of an aircraft due to technical issues on another flight with that aircraft. The purpose of the Reg is to force airlines to organise themselves so as to cope with regular technical issues without massively inconveniencing passengers. The delay to our flight would have been the same with ANY technical issue with the outward-bound flight. The delay was actual a consequence of Easyjet operating this sector with no capacity to deal with any technical issues, something the statutory scheme of compensation was designed to discourage airlines from doing.

Any ideas / suggestions gratefully received.

JPears

Unfortunately this question of knock on effects depends entirely on the judge on the day.
Remember there is a second part to the "test" for REG 261, that of minimising the delay by takingg all reasonable measures..... short of intolerable sacrifice.

111KAB

manchesterflyer wrote: »

Any ideas / suggestions gratefully received.

Airbus planes have (basically) 3 hydraulic systems, yellow, green and blue and if one fails the other two can act as a back up.
Where the failure occurs (normally a chafing, split or crack in a hydraulic pipe causing fluid loss) results in how long a repair/replacement will take. For example if it occurs within certain areas access is difficult.
You should note that aircraft hydraulic failures are commonplace (ie not extraordinary) and indeed that is why Airbus designed the back up system so that if planes experienced a failure of one system they would remain in the air! Almost all the main functions of a commercial aircraft are controlled by some sort of hydraulic system.
In my opinion the airlines should ensure new pipes or the necessary repair kit are available at all major airports and in my case (v Monarch Airlines) the Judge agreed with me. The failure to 'my' Airbus occurred on the incoming flight and it should be noted that in the majority of cases I have perused repair/replacement takes much longer than 3 hours. Incidentally the failure is so common that Airbus Industries have produced a SIL (service information letter) regarding the need for regular inspections.
In your case I do not believe (given the very brief outline you provide) that it was necessary, for safety reasons, for the aircraft to return to base - this was an operational decision by EasyJet due to the lack of parts and/or substitute aircraft at Tel Aviv. Whether a Judge agrees with this (mine did but my delay was at Palma de Mallorca) is obviously subject to conjecture. One of the annoying aspects I find to problems such as this is a) the airlines insist on repairing their own planes (this probably has something to do with their lease terms with the owners) and b) they do not appear to want to obtain parts from their competitors/other service agents. I make this point as in my own case there was a Thomson engineer based at PMI who inspected the problem with the incoming Airbus however he was not authorised to repair and Air Berlin Gmbh who have an engineering workshop at PMI were not approached to provide the replacement pipes which they stock there.
Until the airlines are forced to co-operate with each other more fully virtually every technical problem (particularly of a hydraulic failure) will result in a delay in excess of the three hour threshold.

manchesterflyer

111KAB, thank you so much for the useful post.

I'm just wondering, how did you come to obtain such useful and detailed information re the hydraulic systems? After all, I presume your claim was a small Claim, so expert witnesses aren't usually involved and there is limited scope for disclosure of documents.

In their defence, EJ say "The fault was with the blue hydraulic Pump which controls of (sic) number of flight control systems, without which it would not be possible to operate a flight. This was an unexpected flight safety issue."

Your post suggests this was untrue, but isn't there a danger that the judge will just believe it?

111KAB

manchesterflyer wrote: »

I'm just wondering, how did you come to obtain such useful and detailed information re the hydraulic systems? After all, I presume your claim was a small Claim, so expert witnesses aren't usually involved and there is limited scope for disclosure of documents.

Found out all the information myself generally via the internet. Taught the Monarch barrister a bit as he was floundering. As I say on numerous of my posts understand firstly that a technical problem (hydraulic failure) is not an extraordinary circumstance > it is a common problem. You don't need (like I did) to go into all the detail but when Monarch produced THEIR engineers witness statement I looked to trump it.

manchesterflyer wrote: »

In their defence, EJ say "The fault was with the blue hydraulic Pump which controls of (sic) number of flight control systems, without which it would not be possible to operate a flight. This was an unexpected flight safety issue."

Research the hydraulic system - I seem to recall the blue system is of less importance than the green/yellow. Think the blue is electrically controlled whereas the others are powered from the engine.

manchesterflyer wrote: »

Your post suggests this was untrue, but isn't there a danger that the judge will just believe it?

Yes the Judge may well trust EasyJet and they will no doubt present a biased report. If you think it is worth your while arguing against this find reports where the hydraulic failure has not meant a return to base (there are plenty) and look at where your plane was positioned - did it turn round closer to Tel Aviv or the UK. If the former surely it was safer to continue rather than return however we all know the reason they returned > to inconvenience you but at the same time for their own convenience.

JM1981

Does anyone know the latest way of contacting Easyjet? The link on MSE doesn't work any more. All i can find is an online form which I have submitted but easyjet have just ignored it and I have no proof that I sent them anything. Is there an email address?

JM