Flight arrived 1 hour 4 minutes late but didn't depart for 7 hours.....no compensation.

joe1606

So last week me and my family were due to fly back from Crete to Manchester at 21:10.
 The flight was delayed a couple of times and finally arrived 1 hour and 4 minutes later than scheduled but for whatever reason we could not board that plane. Jet2 ended up sending a rescue flight to collect us which didn't arrive until 04:10 meaning we arrived back in Manchester 7 hours later than expected.
Over the weekend I submitted a claim for the long delay only to recieve the following reply.

"We’ve reviewed your claim in line with the relevant law which sets out when compensation is payable to passengers who have been delayed. This says that a claim is not eligible for compensation if the flight’s arrival is delayed by less than three hours, regardless of the cause. The law requires us to look at the delay to the arrival of your flight, rather than the delay to your departure.

Our records show that your flight arrived with a delay of 1 hour 4 minutes, meaning your claim is not eligible for compensation.

We understand this is frustrating and would like to apologise again for your experience."

Are Jet2 right in what they are saying or should I take this further??

Alan_Bowen

It seems they think you were on the outbound, not the return flight. You may have inadvertently used the wrong flight number, try again

Caz3121

joe1606 said:

Over the weekend I submitted a claim for the long delay only to recieve the following reply.

did you put additional information into the "Claim Details" box?
It sounds from your post that you were denied boarding (?) from the delayed flight and then travelled on an alternative flight so will be important to add the additional details. I suspect they have just seen the original flight information and thought you were claiming for that flight being delayed.

DullGreyGuy

joe1606 said:

So last week me and my family were due to fly back from Crete to Manchester at 21:10.
 The flight was delayed a couple of times and finally arrived 1 hour and 4 minutes later than scheduled but for whatever reason we could not board that plane. Jet2 ended up sending a rescue flight to collect us which didn't arrive until 04:10 meaning we arrived back in Manchester 7 hours later than expected.
Over the weekend I submitted a claim for the long delay only to recieve the following reply.

You opening comments are confusing because you talk about a plane arriving 1hr late at your destination but you werent able to board it? 

I dont know if you were due to be on flight 1234, you were denied boarding, flight 1234 flew but arrived 1hr late, you were rescheduled onto flight 5678 and that flight landed at 7 hours later than 1234 was scheduled to

Or you were on flight 1234, there was problems with the plane so ultimately you flew on 1234 but just a different plane and were 7hrs late

joe1606

Sorry it is all a little confusing.

So our original flight was scheduled to leave Heraklion at 21:10 but was initially delayed as it had arrived 1 hour 4 minutes late and upon arrival they delayed our departure a further 45 minutes while they worked on technical issues. 

Then they made the announcement that the  plane would not be able to take us (reasons unknown) and that a 2nd plane was being dispatched from Manchester to pick us up which arrived at just after 04:00.

We finally departed at around 04:45 over 7 hours later than scheduled.

Hope that clears things up a little.

eskbanker

joe1606 said:

Sorry it is all a little confusing.

So our original flight was scheduled to leave Heraklion at 21:10 but was initially delayed as it had arrived 1 hour 4 minutes late and upon arrival they delayed our departure a further 45 minutes while they worked on technical issues. 

If Jet2 are rejecting your claim on the basis that "your flight arrived with a delay of 1 hour 4 minutes", it sounds plausible to me that you didn't make it clear enough to them that your references to arriving 1 hour 4 minutes late related only to the arrival of a different flight from the one you travelled on, although obviously any such claim should be validated against the passenger manifest.

To be honest, the delayed arrival of the previous flight isn't actually relevant to them (or the thread) anyway, all that really needs to be said is that the aircraft due to operate your flight was unable to do so, apparently due to technical issues, and the deployment of a replacement aircraft resulted in a delay of seven hours, therefore compensation should be due.

bagand96

Alan_Bowen said:

It seems they think you were on the outbound, not the return flight. You may have inadvertently used the wrong flight number, try again

I'd agree with this, check you've claimed for the correct flight number.  Also perhaps if you talked about the outbound in your claim you've confused whoever looked into it.  Try again, ensuring the correct flight number.  Don't reference the outbound flight at all, just claim for your 7 hour late flight.

Caz3121

+1.....sounds like you have maybe used the outbound flight number (905?) instead of the delayed flight number LS906. - I am assuming that you were due to leave on 22nd and eventually left on 23rd June at 04:40am arriving in Manchester 7hrs and 12mins late.

weby72

I wouldn't rule out anything with Jet2.

My eldest daughter's involved in a similar situation.

She was due to fly back to Manchester from Zante, taking off at 20.30 local time. The plane flying out to Zante from Manchester, which they were scheduled to return on, was delayed leaving Manchester, so only arrived in Zante too late to be turned-round in time to take off before the airport closed at midnight (seriously!).

Jet2 had to put them up in a hotel for the night, and they returned on a flight the following day, the take-off delayed by around 18 hours.

Jet2 have denied a claim for compensation citing 'adverse weather at Manchester Airport' (causing departure of the outbound flight from Manchester to Zante to be delayed - it was raining... in Manchester...).

Her and her friends are appealing this, as surely Jet2 can't hide behind this excuse about the previous flight. 

Westin

It sounds however like it was the night-jet ban and overnight closure of ZTH that lengthen the delay for your return flight.  The ATC/WX issue was the catalyst, the limited airport operating hours stopping the return flight departing.

I suspect Jet2 provided accommodation, transfers and breakfast or lunch the following day. If not she should be able to claim these back.  I don’t however think she will get compensation for the delay.

weby72

weby72 said:

I wouldn't rule out anything with Jet2.

My eldest daughter's involved in a similar situation.

She was due to fly back to Manchester from Zante, taking off at 20.30 local time. The plane flying out to Zante from Manchester, which they were scheduled to return on, was delayed leaving Manchester, so only arrived in Zante too late to be turned-round in time to take off before the airport closed at midnight (seriously!).

Jet2 had to put them up in a hotel for the night, and they returned on a flight the following day, the take-off delayed by around 18 hours.

Jet2 have denied a claim for compensation citing 'adverse weather at Manchester Airport' (causing departure of the outbound flight from Manchester to Zante to be delayed - it was raining... in Manchester...).

Her and her friends are appealing this, as surely Jet2 can't hide behind this excuse about the previous flight. 

Jet2 knew that the airport closed at midnight and should have made sure they were in a position to have a plane able to take-off prior to the closure.

That they had such a tight flight schedule isn't my daughter's problem. Them having the flight before run late isn't my daughter's problem. Them having no contingency isn't my daughter's problem. Jet 2 knew at least seven hours prior to the scheduled take-off from Zante that the plane wouldn’t make the return flight that night. They chose not to make alternative arrangements (substitute plane), putting their profits before passengers. 

I would have thought this was a clear-cut case.

If it's not, then the regulation is severely flawed.