Flight delay compensation rejected

Westin

@eskbanker -  I don't but I think it will vary depending on gaps in flying programme. They won't necessarily have a spare and crewed B737 sitting all year at MAN doing nothing. More likely that on day 1 between 03:00-11:00 they have a programme gap at say LTN, day 1 - 14:00-21:00 at say NCL, day 2 between 00:01-08:00 at LGW etc. They will then if they can move things around.  A spare aircraft in the right place with the right crew numbers (2 FD/4CC on the B737) with the required duty hours available, is like a game of Tetris with round shaped blocks.   Add to the mix if this was say a busy weekend day then sare aircraft and crews might not be even an option.

If they move crew by road to another departure point the crew duty hours start from their base rather than the new departure point.  That can throw up further issues when trying to cover disruption at secondary airports.

It seems this flight operated on the inside 'V' of a 'W' pattern flying series MAN-PMI-LBA-PMI-MAN.  If disruption occurs it is likely to carry on all day on that series of flights.  One of the downsides of 'regional' flying from airports that are not airline crewed bases. It is a bit like the down route delays we hear about.  Reasonable perhaps to TOM to have standby crews at bases like LGW/MAN/BHX etc but perhaps understandable why they cant possibly have spare crews sitting around at every down route destination just on the off chance they are needed.

I can understand TOM rejecting this claim for compensation, or at least taking that initial stand. Disruption is not nice for anyone but I would like to think that in the case of a medical issue that the ill passenger receives the right and immediate care needed and that commercial pressures never over ride.  

eskbanker

Westin said:

@eskbanker -  I don't but I think it will vary depending on gaps in flying programme. They won't necessarily have a spare and crewed B737 sitting all year at MAN doing nothing. More likely that on day 1 between 03:00-11:00 they have a programme gap at say LTN, day 1 - 14:00-21:00 at say NCL, day 2 between 00:01-08:00 at LGW etc. They will then if they can move things around.  A spare aircraft in the right place with the right crew numbers (2 FD/4CC on the B737) with the required duty hours available, is like a game of Tetris with round shaped blocks.   Add to the mix if this was say a busy weekend day then sare aircraft and crews might not be even an option.

If they move crew by road to another departure point the crew duty hours start from their base rather than the new departure point.  That can throw up further issues when trying to cover disruption at secondary airports.

It seems this flight operated on the inside 'V' of a 'W' pattern flying series MAN-PMI-LBA-PMI-MAN.  If disruption occurs it is likely to carry on all day on that series of flights.  One of the downsides of 'regional' flying from airports that are not airline crewed bases. It is a bit like the down route delays we hear about.  Reasonable perhaps to TOM to have standby crews at bases like LGW/MAN/BHX etc but perhaps understandable why they cant possibly have spare crews sitting around at every down route destination just on the off chance they are needed.

Agreed that they can't have spares everywhere, but I was suggesting that redeploying spares ought to be a possibility in the event of significant disruption, so nobody would expect there to be anything immediately available at LBA but that's only a short hop from MAN (accepting your point about duty hours) - if airlines were effectively taking the stance that they could only ever avoid knock-on disruption if occurring at their primary bases then I'd have thought that this might not allow them to hide behind extraordinary circumstances in situations like this, in that ultimately it all comes down to the trade-off between the cost of excessive sparing versus the cost of settling compensation claims arising from insufficient sparing.

Westin said:

I can understand TOM rejecting this claim for compensation, or at least taking that initial stand. Disruption is not nice for anyone but I would like to think that in the case of a medical issue that the ill passenger receives the right and immediate care needed and that commercial pressures never over ride.  

Absolutely - I'm sure nobody would criticise the airline for taking however long it takes to deal properly with such issues, but personally I'd see the issues of subsequent schedule adjustments and/or commercial liability as being separate from that, albeit caused by it.  Again, I don't think there's any dispute that medical emergencies are extraordinary circumstances, but there is still the responsibility to take reasonable measures to mitigate the impact.

NoodleDoodleMan

Perhaps I missed it in the narrative - but did the emergency occur on the ground or in flight ?

In practical terms, in terms of overall disruption, the former is the lesser of two evils for obvious reasons.

Having to redirect in mid-air for an unschduled landing outwith the UK clearly has a more significant knock on effect.

That apart, I think TUI could have offered modest compensation to cover a meal etc. due to the hours passengers were delayed. 

sheramber

eskbanker said:

Westin said:

@eskbanker -  I don't but I think it will vary depending on gaps in flying programme. They won't necessarily have a spare and crewed B737 sitting all year at MAN doing nothing. More likely that on day 1 between 03:00-11:00 they have a programme gap at say LTN, day 1 - 14:00-21:00 at say NCL, day 2 between 00:01-08:00 at LGW etc. They will then if they can move things around.  A spare aircraft in the right place with the right crew numbers (2 FD/4CC on the B737) with the required duty hours available, is like a game of Tetris with round shaped blocks.   Add to the mix if this was say a busy weekend day then sare aircraft and crews might not be even an option.

If they move crew by road to another departure point the crew duty hours start from their base rather than the new departure point.  That can throw up further issues when trying to cover disruption at secondary airports.

It seems this flight operated on the inside 'V' of a 'W' pattern flying series MAN-PMI-LBA-PMI-MAN.  If disruption occurs it is likely to carry on all day on that series of flights.  One of the downsides of 'regional' flying from airports that are not airline crewed bases. It is a bit like the down route delays we hear about.  Reasonable perhaps to TOM to have standby crews at bases like LGW/MAN/BHX etc but perhaps understandable why they cant possibly have spare crews sitting around at every down route destination just on the off chance they are needed.

Agreed that they can't have spares everywhere, but I was suggesting that redeploying spares ought to be a possibility in the event of significant disruption, so nobody would expect there to be anything immediately available at LBA but that's only a short hop from MAN (accepting your point about duty hours) - if airlines were effectively taking the stance that they could only ever avoid knock-on disruption if occurring at their primary bases then I'd have thought that this might not allow them to hide behind extraordinary circumstances in situations like this, in that ultimately it all comes down to the trade-off between the cost of excessive sparing versus the cost of settling compensation claims arising from insufficient sparing.

Westin said:

I can understand TOM rejecting this claim for compensation, or at least taking that initial stand. Disruption is not nice for anyone but I would like to think that in the case of a medical issue that the ill passenger receives the right and immediate care needed and that commercial pressures never over ride.  

Absolutely - I'm sure nobody would criticise the airline for taking however long it takes to deal properly with such issues, but personally I'd see the issues of subsequent schedule adjustments and/or commercial liability as being separate from that, albeit caused by it.  Again, I don't think there's any dispute that medical emergencies are extraordinary circumstances, but there is still the responsibility to take reasonable measures to mitigate the impact.

 but that's only a short hop from MAN

But  is there a flying / landing gap  for an extra flight  to fit into?

eskbanker

sheramber said:

but that's only a short hop from MAN

But  is there a flying / landing gap  for an extra flight  to fit into?

To the best of my knowledge, LBA is quiet enough not to be an issue (one departure in the next three hours at time of posting!) but if runway capacity at MAN is too much of an issue to get an extra movement out then I'd argue that it's not a suitable location for siting spare aircraft!

Don't get me wrong though, nobody is saying that such things are trivial and straightforward to arrange from the airline's perspective, but from the viewpoint of the regulations, it seems reasonable that there is some usable spare resourcing, deployable in scenarios where there is (a) a significant delay projected and (b) enough time to do something about it.

Just to reiterate, the issue here is whether compensation is due if there's cancellation or long delay caused by "extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken", so ultimately it would come down to a court (and/or the CAA) to determine how 'reasonable' should be interpreted....

rhf74

NoodleDoodleMan said:

Perhaps I missed it in the narrative - but did the emergency occur on the ground or in flight ?

In practical terms, in terms of overall disruption, the former is the lesser of two evils for obvious reasons.

Having to redirect in mid-air for an unschduled landing outwith the UK clearly has a more significant knock on effect.

That apart, I think TUI could have offered modest compensation to cover a meal etc. due to the hours passengers were delayed. 

It happened on the ground before take off. 

NoodleDoodleMan

rhf74 said:

NoodleDoodleMan said:

Perhaps I missed it in the narrative - but did the emergency occur on the ground or in flight ?

In practical terms, in terms of overall disruption, the former is the lesser of two evils for obvious reasons.

Having to redirect in mid-air for an unschduled landing outwith the UK clearly has a more significant knock on effect.

That apart, I think TUI could have offered modest compensation to cover a meal etc. due to the hours passengers were delayed. 

It happened on the ground before take off. 

Thanks for clarification.