Norwegian Air Flight Compensation

DEVPXW

We raised our complaint with Aviation ADR (the appointed adjudicator for Norwegian) and after many delays we eventually had a ruling in our favour, however the airline then went back to Aviation ADR and they then ruled in the airlines favour.

This relates to a flight that was scheduled to leave at 7:30 on 5 August 2018 from Chania, Crete to London Gatwick.

The reason that has been given is as follows:

Viewing the documentation provided, I note that Norwegian Air obtain a member on standby in
order to operate the flight, however due to the length of turnaround time incurred in Chania the
new member of staff would have exceeded her flying hours. I also note that Norwegian Air
considered operating the flight with minimal staff, this was unable to happen due to the
inexperience of the flight crew members, which is considered a safety issue.

Having considered all of the information provided, I do not consider it reasonable for airlines to
maintain bases and standby crew at every destination they operate to. For this reason, I am
satisfied that crew sickness constitutes an extraordinary circumstance within the context of
EC261/2004.

Any advice on what to do next appreciated - the small claims courts looks quite daunting and time consuming.

budgetflyer

Accept the ruling. End of story. I assume you were fed and watered during the delay.

Westin

Another view to accept the ruling. Norwegian will have crew on standby at many base airports but would not be expected to have a pool of standby crew at small airports such as Chania.

Jumblebumble

Westin wrote: »

Another view to accept the ruling. Norwegian will have crew on standby at many base airports but would not be expected to have a pool of standby crew at small airports such as Chania.

Agreed
I don't suppose Norwegian could have predicted that their crew member would become ill
I cannot imagine a District Judge is going to disagree with an ADR
Think of Ryanair who operate to one flight a day to some tiny airports with a 25 minute turnaround
It would be absurd to mandate the they keep a crew there just in case

jacqhale

I’m not sure about having already been to the ADR but we received compensation last year after a TUI flight was delayed due to crew sickness. I believe the ruling is that airlines do need to cover for crew sickness or pay compensation, it’s up to them if it makes more business sense to pay compensation claims rather than costs of keeping crew on standby. We went through Bott and Co.

richardw

Not having crew cover in case of sickness and out of hours risk is just money saving and not sensible airline operation management.

stoneman

Crew sickness is not an extraordinary circumstance. They should be expected to keep standby crew available at all outstations. If an airline wants to operate to small out of the way airports to save money they have to take the rough with the smooth. I would look into one of the companies that deals with EC261 claims

bradders1983

stoneman wrote: »

Crew sickness is not an extraordinary circumstance. They should be expected to keep standby crew available at all outstations. If an airline wants to operate to small out of the way airports to save money they have to take the rough with the smooth. I would look into one of the companies that deals with EC261 claims

Very funny.

stoneman

bradders1983 wrote: »

Very funny.

Why?
Major airlines can call on standby crew at outstations,either straight away or get them there in very short time

Westin

stoneman wrote: »

Why?
Major airlines can call on standby crew at outstations,either straight away or get them there in very short time

You mean like British Airways, Air France, KLM? - none of which have standby crews kicking their heals at Chania or Heraklion airports just on the slim off chance that they might be needed.