'Knock on effect' caselaw

Agent_C

Our flight was delayed for 24 hours because of severe weather at the airport that the flight was coming in from. The airline are refusing compensation but I understand that the extraordinary circumstances need to apply to the actual flight that was delayed, and there was no severe weather at the airport we were departing from. 

I understand there is caselaw confirming this but I can't find it - can anyone help? 

Westin

I can’t recall such examples in case law.

It would be frowned upon if the airline hid behind a weather delay impacting say two or three days later, but perfectly understandable if it was the aircraft flying out to collect you that experienced the weather delay.

Agent_C

Westin said:

I can’t recall such examples in case law.

It would be frowned upon if the airline hid behind a weather delay impacting say two or three days later, but perfectly understandable if it was the aircraft flying out to collect you that experienced the weather delay.

It's referred to on many sites such as https://paliparan.com/2021/02/18/guide-eu-rights-and-compensation-when-your-flight-is-cancelled/ and I have found caselaw relating to it, but I can't find it again.

In our particular circumstances the weather delayed departing flights by a few hours. The airline had 4 flights departing to the Canaries that day and 3 of them departed late, but they chose to cancel ours because the crew were over their hours. That isn't extraordinary circumstances. 

I missed a day's work and we had to buy new train tickets and extend pet sitting so we did incur some expense. 

eskbanker

I think the situation with knock-on delays and extraordinary circumstances is quite nuanced, rather than being a one-size-fits-all simple answer that they are or aren't valid, but the 2012 judgment in Finnair v Lassooy seems to be mentioned as a possible precedent: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62011CJ0022

The recitals at the start of the regulations can be interpreted in contradictory ways:

(14)

As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier.

(15)

Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where the impact of an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day gives rise to a long delay, an overnight delay, or the cancellation of one or more flights by that aircraft, even though all reasonable measures had been taken by the air carrier concerned to avoid the delays or cancellations.

Agent_C

Thank you - I think this is the one I was looking for. Also that the weather needed to affect the flight in question. Had we caught our scheduled flight then the airport would have reopened by the time it was due to land.

CKhalvashi

Agent_C said:

Thank you - I think this is the one I was looking for. Also that the weather needed to affect the flight in question. Had we caught our scheduled flight then the airport would have reopened by the time it was due to land.

ATC restrictions/traffic management though would only need to affect a flight with that aircraft on that day.

If the airport has put in a handling stop (which does happen in the case of weather that could cause a risk to safety) then this may impact your rights under part 15 of that judgement, as I'd deem that to be traffic management. It's also possible that the airport has determined there is insufficient fire cover for fuelling in these circumstances, which can cause knock on delays outside the control of the airline.

The safety of airport staff, crew and passengers on a previous flight has to be a priority here.

Agent_C

Part of my argument is that the airline was operating 4 flights to the Canaries that day, and 3 departed, albeit a bit late. They chose to cancel ours even though it was due to depart earlier than some of the others. 

We were successful in getting compensation years ago for a similar reason - flights were unable to land at our departure airport due to weather, but they could take off. So the incoming flight couldn't land therefore the airline did not have a plane to take us back home. In that instance I used solicitors Bott and co but I'm trying to do it myself this time! I thought it was a bit more tenuous than the current situation, but I'd asked the airline to cover our costs (new train tickets, food and a night in a hotel) and they refused so I tried for the compensation. 

CKhalvashi

Agent_C said:

Part of my argument is that the airline was operating 4 flights to the Canaries that day, and 3 departed, albeit a bit late. They chose to cancel ours even though it was due to depart earlier than some of the others. 

We were successful in getting compensation years ago for a similar reason - flights were unable to land at our departure airport due to weather, but they could take off. So the incoming flight couldn't land therefore the airline did not have a plane to take us back home. In that instance I used solicitors Bott and co but I'm trying to do it myself this time! I thought it was a bit more tenuous than the current situation, but I'd asked the airline to cover our costs (new train tickets, food and a night in a hotel) and they refused so I tried for the compensation. 

But it would come to the circumstances of that particular flight.

At some point there will have to come a point where Captains discretion will have to come into FTLs (take the time of the departure and remove an hour from this approximately for start of duty). Discretionary choices are not made by a Captain, but are made by the whole crew. If one crew member is not fit to fly an extended duty then that aircraft will not leave until a suitable replacement is found. This is for safety.

It is expected under EASA rules (and also by UK rules as the CAA haven't changed the guidance, many UK-based crew are dual-licensed at the moment anyway) that the decision to use/exceed discretion must not generally be used while the aircraft is at a base airport.

If an earlier flight was cancelled due to this reason, that won't stop later flights departing, which due to the length of a Canarias flight will generally be done after a crew change in any event.

There's nothing to stop you trying to argue the case (I often advise to have a go anyway), but that doesn't stop the airline arguing that there were restrictions preventing the aircraft from arriving/departing on that day under reasonable control of another authority on safety grounds. Weather is not a catch all argument for either party and it may be worth asking the airport for detailed METAR reports (if you're happy to post these I'm happy to translate them into plain English) and any ground/handling stops or ATC restrictions imposed by them or NATS on that day.

The airline must cover costs in the event of a delay (especially an overnight one) in any event, regardless of 'blame'.