Multiple reasons

Blackhat5_2

I'm wondering how a court would interpret the regulations where multiple reasons exist for the delay.

In our case there was an initial delay caused by waiting for a landing slot due to fog of 4 hours or so. Subsequent to that we could not leave because the engines could not be started: we missed our slot and whilst waiting for another slot the captain went over his allowed hours. The flight was cancelled and redesignated the next day with a new flight number. We arrived 25 hours after our expected arrival time.

The airlilne website does not mention the technical fault, only the fog and crew unavailability. I did not record the captain saying there was a technical issue but wish I had done so.

The captain said the start cart provided by the airport was not working: I believe this is only used when the aircraft has a fault with its own starting equipment.

Arrangements on the ground were very poor with much confusion: we were kicked off the plane at 1930 but did not reach our hotel room until 2300. Hardly acceptable when travelling with small children. We were coached back to the airport at 0730 for an early departure which did not happen until 1355 or so.

Any ideas about a court will interpret this? I am self employed and suffered financial loss too.

Thanks.

Dave

richardw

So the fog cleared after 4 hours, so how long after that did it take them to solve the engine problem ?

Blackhat5_2

richardw wrote: »

So the fog cleared after 4 hours, so how long after that did it take them to solve the engine problem ?

I'm not aware that the fog had cleared, just that that was the initial delay to scheduled departure (from 1205 to 1630) caused by us having to request a different landing slot at Gatwick. Then the technical issue stopped us leaving at 1630/1640 or so.

Effectively 21 hours after our failed departure we were able to leave, though I don't know whether the aircraft was fixed, or whether we started up using a working start cart second time round.

The aircraft had been moved overnight so I expect the former i.e. the aircraft was fixed.

There was some indication from the captain that due to sickness no other pilot was available any earlier to replace him. Flights were landing at the airport.

So we have a combination of factors: fog, technical problems, and flight crew's working hours.

richardw

If you were delayed 3 hours or more after the fog cleared because of the technical problems and their lack of back up crew then you have a claim.

If they blame the ground handling technical problems as a third party, then ignore this because there's a principal-agent relationship and they aren't a third party.

Blackhat5_2

richardw wrote: »

If you were delayed 3 hours or more after the fog cleared because of the technical problems and their lack of back up crew then you have a claim.

If they blame the ground handling technical problems as a third party, then ignore this because there's a principal-agent relationship and they aren't a third party.

Thanks.

This is where it becomes a bit unclear. Was the later delay due to the technical issues or not. I'd say we didn't reach London due to the technical issue, crew hours limits and the fog, the airline will just blame the fog and crew hours limits.

Just to reiterate, a simplified timeline, local times, is as follows:

1150 boarded bus to aircraft
1205 scheduled departure
1230 returned to gate
1230 informed likely departure 1630 due to lack of landing slots
1500 boarded aircraft
1640 airport's starting equipment unable to start aircraft. (Believe only in use because of fault with aircaft's own starting equipment, i.e. APU). Pilot informed us that the airport had another 'air pressure device' to start the jets but we had now missed our slot. He also said the next slot offered by Gatwick was likely to be past his clock-off time (1855) but we'd wait in case something earlier came up.
1855 Pilot unable to work any longer. Suggested replacement crew likely, possibly by early next day
1930 Back at gate
2300 After much confusion at the airport reached our hotel provided by airline on coach
0730 coach back to airport
1340 departed for London on same aircraft, with same pilot, but with an additional (spare) co-pilot. Aircraft was given a different flight number.

So what caused the delay: the fog, the crew hours issue, or the technical fault?

DrA_Harrogate

Well it seems the 'extraordinary circumstance' (fog) had gone by 1640, to be replaced at that point by equipment failure (not extraordinary). This failure led to a delay of more than 3 hours. The airline will prob argue that without the weather delay the crew would not have gone over time. Tricky. I would be tempted to run this by a nwnf law firm.

richardw

DrA_Harrogate wrote: »

.... without the weather delay the crew would not have gone over time....

Is it not 'reasonable measures' for airlines to have adequate crew standby systems to avoid delays?

Blackhat5_2

After some delay I have an update!

One of the major NWNF claims companies outright said there was no claim because there was fog that day. Fairplane however thought there was a claim and I used them, starting in the spring of 2016.

There was a long delay during which Easyjet did not respond. Eventually Fairplane asked for a judgement in default due to the delay but Easyjet offered to settle.

I now have the payout from Easyjet less Fairplane's charges.

Well done Fairplane.

It seems that where there is a technical problem the airline cannot rely on fog to avoid making a payout, or so thought the airline's lawyers. Perhaps they did not want it tested in court anyway.

The flight was EZY8568 on 2nd November 2015 from Catania to London Gatwick.

Justice13075

Never heard of Fairplane but well done to them. Enjoy your compensation.