Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Easyjet ONLY

stevew48

Hi all,


I was on a delayed flight from LGW to FCO on the 4th Nov and we touched down3hrs 11 mins later than are scheduled arrival. Before the flight we were told that the inbound plane had been delayed by a minor technical fault. However, on arrival the pilot came to the gate and informed all the passengers that the plane had a technical fault with the air conditioning unit and there would be a delay of 2-3 hrs. I have submitted a claim letter to easyjet via email and received the response that the fault was smoke in the cabin which is extra ordinary hence they have dismissed my claim. Since I am already at the court stage with Thomson re a claim from 2011 (technical fault extraordinary circumstances!!!! though they have been granted a stay for the Dawson appeal) I challenged this mentioning Sturgeon and Wallentin-Hermann and I have again be rejected. I am confident in NBA and issuing MCOL. However, can anybody advise if smoke in the cabin would be considered extra ordinary. Also can I ask for proof of the fault via FOA.


Regards


Stevew

Mark2spark

stevew48 wrote: »

Hi all,


I was on a delayed flight from LGW to FCO on the 4th Nov and we touched down3hrs 11 mins later than are scheduled arrival. Before the flight we were told that the inbound plane had been delayed by a minor technical fault. However, on arrival the pilot came to the gate and informed all the passengers that the plane had a technical fault with the air conditioning unit and there would be a delay of 2-3 hrs. I have submitted a claim letter to easyjet via email and received the response that the fault was smoke in the cabin which is extra ordinary hence they have dismissed my claim. Since I am already at the court stage with Thomson re a claim from 2011 (technical fault extraordinary circumstances!!!! though they have been granted a stay for the Dawson appeal) I challenged this mentioning Sturgeon and Wallentin-Hermann and I have again be rejected. I am confident in NBA and issuing MCOL. However, can anybody advise if smoke in the cabin would be considered extra ordinary. Also can I ask for proof of the fault via FOA.


Regards


Stevew

Have you read the EU261/2004 regulation? In the bit about extraordinary circumstances, where terrorism, for example, or air traffic control decisions, for instance as well, are mentioned as events that are beyond the control of the airline, what does it say about smoke in the cabin?

Nothing? Oh, hmmm....


If there was actually a fire in the cabin, *whilst you was in the air*, then I can see that an in-flight safety issue could be successfully argued. But not as you describe.

Read the judges reasoning in the Huzar case (linked in the FAQ's) for more explanation.
It's not the event, it's what the airline *do* to counteract the delay, when faced with the event. A matter, clearly, within the airlines control.

Don_Adam

Thanks for your responses. I'll post my further question(s)/draft email to easyJet in the main easyJet thread.

Don_Adam

My original post/thread is within this forum and excuse my not posting it in this thread originally.

Would someone be willing to read over my reply to easyJet? Thanks

Good evening Easyjet,

Thank you for your reply but I disagree with you on this.

On the evening of 17/10/13 all we had was a text message from you informing us of the cancelled flight. Right there in that moment we (Lucy and I) were hit by an instant stress, not knowing really what to do. Even after following your advice to log on to easyjet.com we were still left completely uncertain as to what we should do and I truly feel, in terms of customer service, completely let down. Yes, it was easy to choose an alternative flight, from an array of airports, but it was totally unclear how/when this strike affected Italy. However, with further digging around of my own doing, we learnt this strike strictly affected the 18/10/13 between 13.00 - 17.00. After learning this, we quickly chose Flight 5252 to Gatwick but at no point where we informed by easyjet that choosing this that you would abandon any responsibility for recompense for this inconvenience.


Ultimately, we were not offered choice of re-routing under comparable conditions and the fact the strike is an extraordinary circumstance has no bearing.


You have failed us, the customer by not following these points of the Regulation and it is on those grounds that you are obliged to reimburse our additional travel expenses.

You will find copies of receipts attached to this email.

Though you have failed us on this occasion, I am not totally against using your company as long as this inconvenience is dealt with quickly and fairly.

Regards

Adam


From: customer.service@easyjet.com
To:
Subject: easyJet Customer Services << Reference ID: 101080998 >>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:41:52 +0000

Dear Adam.
Thank you for contacting easyJet.
I am really sorry for the inconvenience caused to you. I know how frustrating it must have been for you due to the cancellation of your flights. However having checked and verified the records, I can confirm that your flight was delayed due to a extraordinary reason, due to the industrial strike in Italy. This strike was not in our control and as per the European Union law, only if the delay or cancellation of flights was due to non- extra ordinary reason, that is in our control, we give a compensation. Please revert back to back email, if you have any further queries.
Yours sincerely.
Elroy Barbosa
easyJet Customer Services



>> Original Message ...
>> From: customer.service@easyjet.com
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: << Reference ID: 101080998 >>
>> Sent:
>>
>> Hello easyJet, After having issues with your Ask a Question form previously, I posted on your Facebook page. Seeing as you've not given me a worthwhile response there, I return to trying the Ask a Question page. So... Our recent return journey was severely disrupted due to industrial action in Italy. I would like to know the process involved in claiming back the expenses incurred due to this inconvenience. Expecting a swift reply seeing as you've kept me waiting, Adam

stevew48

Mark2spark wrote: »

Have you read the EU261/2004 regulation? In the bit about extraordinary circumstances, where terrorism, for example, or air traffic control decisions, for instance as well, are mentioned as events that are beyond the control of the airline, what does it say about smoke in the cabin?

Nothing? Oh, hmmm....


If there was actually a fire in the cabin, *whilst you was in the air*, then I can see that an in-flight safety issue could be successfully argued. But not as you describe.

Thanks for the confirmation. Not many posts about smoke in the cabin my NBA will be sent tomorrow. Interestingly the replies I got suggested that they were from the Indian call centre.

regards

Steve w

Read the judges reasoning in the Huzar case (linked in the FAQ's) for more explanation.
It's not the event, it's what the airline *do* to counteract the delay, when faced with the event. A matter, clearly, within the airlines control.

Thanks for the confirmation. Not many posts about smoke in the cabin my NBA will be sent tomorrow. Interestingly the replies I got suggested that they were from the Indian call centre.

regards

Steve w

Littlenel

Hi

I am hoping someone can help me? I have written to easyjet and they have initally rejected my claim stating that the Montreal Convention only goes back two years. What do I need to do next? Who should I write to now?

thanks

razorsedge

Littlenel wrote: »

Hi

I am hoping someone can help me? I have written to easyjet and they have initally rejected my claim stating that the Montreal Convention only goes back two years. What do I need to do next? Who should I write to now?

thanks

The Montreal Convention two year defence/rejection is one that has been used many times by Thomson Airways, there are a LOT of posts on the Thomson thread about it. Jet2 have used it occasionally, but I am not sure that Easyjet have used it much.
Perhaps a change of tack from them?

Read the FAQ's on page 1 of this (or any other airline specific) thread if you haven't already.
Check out details of the More case.
Check out the details of the Dawson case, which dismissed the 2 year rule from the MC in favour of the six year rule from the Limitations Act. Then note that Thomson's have appealed against the Dawson ruling.

romanby1

razorsedge wrote: »

The Montreal Convention two year defence/rejection is one that has been used many times by Thomson Airways, there are a LOT of posts on the Thomson thread about it. Jet2 have used it occasionally, but I am not sure that Easyjet have used it much.
Perhaps a change of tack from them?

Read the FAQ's on page 1 of this (or any other airline specific) thread if you haven't already.
Check out details of the More case.
Check out the details of the Dawson case, which dismissed the 2 year rule from the MC in favour of the six year rule from the Limitations Act. Then note that Thomson's have appealed against the Dawson ruling.

I have read the ruling in the Dawson case and it was very interesting to us.
Amongst the defence from Thomsons in our case they mentioned "Mr Dawson on Christmas day", this at the time was very puzzling. We phoned Salford and the response was implied they have made a !!!! up.
Eventually about 5 days before the papers had to be deposited in the court we got a letter making an offer that was acceptable, we insisted the money was paid into our bank account immediately if they wanted to settle out of court. It was there next day.

Jussy373

Hi everyone

My family of 5 (2 adults 3 children)in July had a 5 hour flight delay.We was returning from corfu to manchester, on this day manchester airport experienced some bad weather i believe flights were delayed for a while but not to the extent of 5 hours as my mother and sister were on a earlier flight with Thomson also leaving CFU back to manchester and all in all her delay was less than a hour, we was told by the captain that our flight was so delayed because of the earlier distruption ,he basically said we was the knock on effect...my question is would it be advisable to claim compensation for this or not, I know the bad weather is questionable but is it worth me claiming???

David_e

Jussy373 wrote: »

I know the bad weather is questionable but is it worth me claiming???

If you read the FAQ's, or search for for "weather" on the forum, you'll find your answer and lots of other useful information.