How to challenge "Air Traffic Control Restrictions"

samtheman1k

Hi all, I've had 2 flights cancelled this week, both by EJ at different airports (LGW and CDG).  Both reasons for rejecting the compensation were "Air Traffic Control Restrictions", but with little other reason given. 

This makes it very difficult to go to arbitration, as there's very little information to challenge it on, e.g. was it due to lack of staff, IT failure, strikes (justified) etc.  Many of these reasons would not technically fall under 'exceptional circumstances', even if the final reason given is 'ATC restrictions'.  It feels like ATC restrictions is being given as a general excuse for when a flight is cancelled (e.g. one flight was ultimately cancelled for this reason, despite arriving from previous destination late - currently in arbitration). 

So my question really is when ATC restrictions is given as a reason, how do you actually challenge it when all you have is the airline's word for it?

samtheman1k

For info, this is the second reasoning given by EJ:

"To further explain what happened on the day; air traffic control restrictions at CDG substantially regulated the air space, which resulted in long delays to flights as aircraft waited for air space ‘slots’ to operate, sometimes for several hours. This delay pushed your flight into the night curfew at CDG which meant we had no option but to cancel your flight. We do take reasonable measures to avoid delays and cancellations to our flights by having replacement crews and spare aircraft available in our network. However, in the circumstances, these options would not have helped as your flight was cancelled due to air traffic control restriction."

There's nothing in there to state 'why' the restrictions where in place, and thus difficult to claim whether they were due to 'exception circumstances' or not.

eskbanker

But from the airline's point of view, it doesn't matter why there were ATC restrictions, the only thing needed from their perspective is the ability to offload the responsibility to a party outside their control, which allows them to deny liability to pay compensation.  In other words, the root cause of ATC restrictions doesn't in any way affect eligibility for compensation from the airline, so there isn't any bar about whether they themselves were caused by extraordinary circumstances....

samtheman1k

Is the root cause of the restrictions taken into account though? E.g. if it's due to a shortage of ground staff, then I understand that that is claimable...but it's difficult to find out the root cause to create an argument, so the airline is just giving a 'not our problem' response. 

An example of this, is the first flight, which arrived 30min late...I've argued to the adjudicator that if it was on time, it would of had an earlier slot and not been subjected to these restrictions.  

eskbanker

samtheman1k said:

Is the root cause of the restrictions taken into account though? E.g. if it's due to a shortage of ground staff, then I understand that that is claimable...but it's difficult to find out the root cause to create an argument, so the airline is just giving a 'not our problem' response. 

An example of this, is the first flight, which arrived 30min late...I've argued to the adjudicator that if it was on time, it would of had an earlier slot and not been subjected to these restrictions.  

If there's a shortage of airline ground staff then the airline is on the hook for compensation, but regardless of the root cause of ATC restrictions they're effectively extraordinary circumstances in their own right, as they're outside the airline's control.