Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Easyjet ONLY

razorsedge

I love the dodgems...

Bumping for Newbies

stevew48

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

I first posted about my delay above in November and after several emails and letters to Easyjet I decided to commenced legal proceedings by issuing a small claim via MCOL. Mark2Spark responded to the above post and in his opinion smoke in the cabin does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance.

Easyjet's defence relies on Sturgeon C-402/07 & C-432/07 as well as Nelson C-581/10 & C-629/10 and also McDonagh C12/11 AG Bot .
Easyjet state that during the cruise phase of the previous flight to LGW the cabin crew reported a smell of smoke in the cabin. They state that this is a non dispatch issue as per Airbus aircraft operational guidance. When the aircraft landed they say that the aircraft was taken out of service for a full investigation to be carried out.

As mentioned above the Captain of the aircraft came the gate to apologise for the delay which he said was caused by a faulty air conditioning unit which had initially started to malfunction on an early flight.

Easyjet further state that
An easyjet engineer investigated and the following action was taken

a) The investigation found that the issue was coming from the engineers
b)A pack burnout was completed and the issue was rectified as 15:00Z


Both the above appear not to make sense to me.

They further say that ;

The safety issue arising from the smoke was totally unexpected, unforeseen and no reasonable measure could identify any problems which would cause an issue before it actually occurs.

They go on to quote the Montreal convention and then para 25 and 26 of Wallentin-Hermann. However, easyjet believe that they have a real prospect of defending the claim because of a number of points.

Briefly these are That the technical defect did not come to light during maintenance, The issue arose during the actual operation of the flight forcing the aircraft to divert to the nearest airport -
The aircraft landed at LGW delayed but as expected from its outbound journey it did not divert back-



Also mentioned is As recently as 12 Apri 2013 European regulators published preliminary list of issues which are deemed to be extraordinary Easyjet are using smoke, fire fumes on board the aircraft unless the problem has been caused by a part not being maintained iaw the required maintenance program or due to a failure to follow appropriate operational procedures.

Easyjet further quote para 67 of Sturgeon in that having recognized the estimate repair was 3-4 hrs they swapped the flight for a spare aircraft. This took 2 hrs to prepare in addition the technical issue which caused the delay. Hence the flight was delayed by 3hrs 18 mins arriving at PFO.

Our flight was to FCO not PFO !!!!

I apologise for the length of this post but I have seen few if any posts about smoke in the cabin and whilst I am grateful of the original response of mark2 Spark I would also appreciate the thoughts of the other legal whiz kids inc Coby Benson and Legal Magpie amongst other esteemed posters.

Many thanks

Steve w

111KAB

stevew48 wrote: »

Also mentioned is As recently as 12 Apri 2013 European regulators published preliminary list of issues which are deemed to be extraordinary

I care not less what legal magpie and Coby Benson say ... a technical problem with a plane is not extraordinary (unless they agree) ... however you have to prove same in Court. The 12th April 2013 preliminary/draft/rejected list is about as useful (to either party) as a single snowflake on the equator. Wait for the esteemed contributions of LM and CB but in my opinion you have a valid claim.

Ich_2

Possibly connected to this serious incident the day before!

http://avherald.com/h?article=46b05d37&opt=0

P.S. Pack refers to one of the air-conditioning units that also help to maintain the pressurisation. An aircraft cannot be legally dispatched unless both are working.

AMG762

I just wanted to post my current situation with an easyjet delayed flight claim in the hope this could help others or that maybe anyone else that had simular experiences could maybe help me further?

My flight was from Faro to Stansted and was delayed over three hours due to thunderstorms in Naples. The weather was fine at Faro, Stansted and the airspace in between. The weather in Naples caused the aeroplane that had been planned for my flight to be delayed. Even though this was two flights before mine and had the knock-on-effect.

When i initially contacted easyjet the reply from them was...

I can confirm that the aircraft planned for your flight was stuck
in Naples due to thunderstorms, this prevented its return to Stansted to operate the flight Stansted
to Faro and then your flight Faro to Stansted. Due to this we found an alternative aircraft to operate
these flights which incurred a delay whilst the aircraft and crew were arranged.

I can confirm that we deem this to be an extraordinary circumstance as it affected the original
planned routing of your aircraft.

After this reply from easyjet i heard about bott and co solicitors and found this on the internet which gave me a little more hope...

http://www.bottonline.co.uk/guides/how-to-claim-compensation-for-flight-delays

If you scroll down it says..

Scenarios Not Classed As Extraordinary Circumstances (Can Claim)

Bad weather that affected a previous flight meaning your aircraft was delayed.

Anyway i instructed Bott and Co (who have been very good so far) but unfortunately easyjet have totally ignored them.

The most recent reply from Bott and Co has been..

The airline has previously denied any liability to compensate the passengers on this flight. We are not yet in a position to issue court proceedings on this claim, however we will continue to review the matter every 28 days. We will continue to update you as and when further developments occur.

I just wondered if anyone else had any luck with weather causing a knock on effect or why should Bott and Co not be in a position to issue court procedings?

Vauban

AMG: Have you asked Bott directly?

AMG762

Vauban wrote: »

AMG: Have you asked Bott directly?

I used the online chat and was told they would update me. They replied by email with what i posted above. I have replied to the email for further clarification. Am waiting for a futher response from them.

Im just a bit confused as i thought things would be easier and more straight forward after reading from there website about being able to claim for bad weather causing a knock-on-effect.

socrates1882

AMG762 wrote: »

I used the online chat and was told they would update me. They replied by email with what i posted above. I have replied to the email for further clarification. Am waiting for a futher response from them.

Im just a bit confused as i thought things would be easier and more straight forward after reading from there website about being able to claim for bad weather causing a knock-on-effect.

Hi AMG762.

What is your flight number?

Mark2spark

stevew48 wrote: »

Mark2Spark responded to the above post and in his opinion smoke in the cabin does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance.

The safety issue arising from the smoke was totally unexpected, unforeseen and no reasonable measure could identify any problems which would cause an issue before it actually occurs.

The issue arose during the actual operation of the flight forcing the aircraft to divert to the nearest airport -

As recently as 12 April 2013 European regulators published preliminary list of issues which are deemed to be extraordinary

Easyjet further quote para 67 of Sturgeon in that having recognized the estimate repair was 3-4 hrs they swapped the flight for a spare aircraft. This took 2 hrs to prepare in addition the technical issue which caused the delay. Hence the flight was delayed by 3hrs 18 mins arriving at PFO.

It's a number of things Steve.
Firstly, smoke in the cabin during mid flight might well be an 'in flight safety issue' - a legitimate EC - however this was not on your flight.
EJ's *job* is to present a plane that is fit for service at the designated gate at the time announced, so that your flight might operate. And if not, they have 3 hours to sort themselves out.
THAT IS THE LAW.
The law is not "...totally unexpected, unforeseen and no reasonable measure could identify any problems which would cause an issue before it actually occurs".
The law grants exceptions in a few cases of circumstances that are *extraordinary*, and beyond the airlines control, such as terrorist attack, ATC strike or orders, weather conditions pertaining 'to the flight concerned', and the like, all of which are beyond the control of the airline.
So, a faulty air conditioning unit, that produces smoke, is certainly within the control of that airline, to get fixed pronto. Or have 'reasonable measures' in place to operate the said flight in due time if the control (rectification) of the problem is going to go over hours.

Ignore the useless guidelines produced elsewhere. Another smokescreen. They are not the law.

Finally, their totting up of hours does not work either. They had; from the moment that the smoke arose on the previous flight, to 3 hours after the published ticket arrival time, to arrange transportation to get you to your destination. They are offering just 18 minutes, which doesn't even come close to just the turn around time from stand.

These are all things that you would argue 'in the alternative' as part of your court response.

Mark2spark

AMG762 wrote: »

I just wondered if anyone else had any luck with weather causing a knock on effect or why should Bott and Co not be in a position to issue court procedings?

The regulation 261 couldn't be clearer regarding weather. It states that it is only an EC when it is set against 'the flight concerned'.

So, ask Bott again.