Denied boarding , cancelled new flight . 18hrs + arrival delay

troubled_newbie

Here are the Facts.  

1. Present for check in for flight 123 with confrmed reservation at 18:30 , Dep - 20:55 .

2. Given new boarding passes for flight 123(0) Dep:20:55 . No prior notification given . 

3. Flight 123 departs 22:30 with 1hr 35 delay . 

4. Flight 123(0) is cancelled at 20:30 . Taken to hotel until next day . 

5. New boarding passes issued for flight 123(0) the next day . Dep 15:00 . Arrival delay of 18hrs 20minutes . 


Thd airline  argue that flight 123 and 123(0) are the same . 

Original reservation was for AIRBUS 330 aircraft . Reality saw B757 and B737 aircraft to accommodate.  With 2 different outcomes . As above . So a technical issue must have occurred with the Airbus 330 , doesn't make  sense to send 2 aircraft and 2 crews otherwise .   IMHO.    


The court claim would be for Denied boarding only  . This was rejected by the airline who asserted " you were not denied boarding ,   you were only delayed 18hrs + due to extraordinary circumstances no compensationis payable" .  The header on the airlines reply was Flight 123 , which was misleading as that flight was delayed1hr 30 mins .  

Westin

troubled_newbie said:

Here are the Facts.  

1. Present for check in for flight 123 with confrmed reservation at 18:30 , Dep - 20:55 .

2. Given new boarding passes for flight 123(0) Dep:20:55 . No prior notification given . 

3. Flight 123 departs 22:30 with 1hr 35 delay . 

4. Flight 123(0) is cancelled at 20:30 . Taken to hotel until next day . 

5. New boarding passes issued for flight 123(0) the next day . Dep 15:00 . Arrival delay of 18hrs 20minutes . 


Thd airline  argue that flight 123 and 123(0) are the same . 

Original reservation was for AIRBUS 330 aircraft . Reality saw B757 and B737 aircraft to accommodate.  With 2 different outcomes . As above . So a technical issue must have occurred with the Airbus 330 , doesn't make  sense to send 2 aircraft and 2 crews otherwise .   IMHO.    


The court claim would be for Denied boarding only  . This was rejected by the airline who asserted " you were not denied boarding ,   you were only delayed 18hrs + due to extraordinary circumstances no compensationis payable" .  The header on the airlines reply was Flight 123 , which was misleading as that flight was delayed1hr 30 mins .  

I would agree with the airline. 

I think you muddled the waters with thoughts of three claims and three lots of compo. It seems your no-win legal advisor thought the same.

It might have been better to have established the reason for the original downgrade of the A330 and simply pushed for one compensation claim for an 18+ hour delay. 

What reason was given to you for the A330 aircraft not being able to operate your flight?

You may have ONE claim for a delayed arrival back in the U.K.  Your one claim needs to be clear and you should have indicated that you were placed on to the second replacement aircraft LSxxx0 that arrived back 18hours after your scheduled arrival time.

eskbanker

troubled_newbie said:

Original reservation was for AIRBUS 330 aircraft . Reality saw B757 and B737 aircraft to accommodate.  With 2 different outcomes . As above . So a technical issue must have occurred with the Airbus 330 , doesn't make  sense to send 2 aircraft and 2 crews otherwise .   IMHO.

I don't believe that it's viable to conclude that the cause of the aircraft substitution was a technical issue within the airline's control, unless you have evidence to the contrary?  There could be any number of reasons for the substitution, including plenty outside airline control/liability, e.g. damage from lightning or bird strike, either of which would typically be considered extraordinary circumstances.

In terms of operating two aircraft instead of one, presumably at short notice, it would surprise me if the mere act of rebooking a subset of passengers onto the second was considered to be denial of boarding as such, but that's not to say that a court would agree.  However, as above, if you were unable to convince the airline and (more importantly) the CAA of this, why would you believe that a court would see the matter differently?

troubled_newbie

Thanks for the replies, it is very much appreciated . 

bagand96

I'd also be going for delayed arrival compensation over denied boarding.  The A330 was unavailable (you think technical reasons but do you know that for a fact?) so Jet2 replaced that flight with 2 aircraft because they don't have another A330 available.

I can see on a technicality you may argue that you were denied boarding because you were issued boarding cards for  flight "1230" when booked on "123".  However I can also see the argument that it's not denied boarding because 2 aircraft were replacing one on the same flight.  For a host of reasons they can't operate 2 aircraft at the same time with the same flight number so they had to differentiate somehow.

You were unlucky that your aircraft was so heavily delayed.  But I think going for delayed arrival is the easier claim.  What exactly did the CAA say in their decision? It would be harder (maybe not impossible) to continue with a denied boarding claim when the regulator has sided with the airline.

I do note that a NWNF Solicitor has said your Denied Boarding claim is the better one, and I am not a Solicitor or have any Legal training.

troubled_newbie

Here is the reply from CAA .it took 4 months . 




 Thank you for your patience with us while we investigated your complaint about the disruption of flight  LS918 on the  21st September 2023. During our investigation, we received information from  Jet2 about the flight concerned, which we have considered in the light of the 'extraordinary circumstances' exception of UK Reg (EU) 261/2004.

After considering all the information provided to us, it is our view that the disruption of your flight is of a type which means that the airline does not need to pay compensation. It appears from this information that there was multiple disruptions on this date which caused the overall departure delay of over 3 hours, including an on-board disruptive passenger which consequently was offloaded and bags were removed. In addition, there was a security alert due to a suspicious package on a virgin Atlantic flight, which resulted in the aircraft being given a 100m exclusion zone and there were forced closures on some apron roads, increasing travelling times . This means that, under these specific circumstances, the disruption could be considered as outside the airline's control and could not have been avoided. It is our view, therefore, that this disruption falls under the 'extraordinary circumstances' exception of UK Reg (EU) 261/2004 and, as such, we believe that you are not entitled to compensation in this case.

 

In any event, in accordance with CJEU case law, Peskova vs Travel Services, when a delay has multiple causes, the duration of the delay attributed to extraordinary circumstances should be deducted from the total length of the delay. If the remaining period is less than three hours, the claim is not eligible for compensation. In this instance, had not been for the disruptive passenger incident, the delay to LS9170, and the passenger's Flight, would have been less than 3 hours.

Unfortunately, we are unable to take your case any further. Our opinion that, in this case, the disruption was due to extraordinary circumstances is based on the information available to us. Please be aware that this is not a legally binding opinion and only relates to the flight concerned.

It is, of course, still open to you to issue a claim in the Court but, in our opinion, we believe that the airline has a case not to pay compensation. As such, it is entirely up to you to decide whether you wish to pursue this further.

Please be advised that the legal limit to issue claims at Court is 6 years in England and Wales and 5 years in Scotland from the date of the incident. If your claim is nearing the legal limit, you may wish to consider legal action. If you are considering legal action, it will be important for you to bear in mind that Court action has to be started within the relevant time limit. The Court will not hear claims that have been lodged outside of this period.

troubled_newbie

And initial rejection for compensation from J2. 

Thank you for contacting us about your claim for compensation following the delay to your Jet2.com flight, LS918/0, Tenerife to a Manchester on the 21st September 2023.

 

We’re really sorry for the disruption to your flight. I must explain that LS918, scheduled to operate on 21 September 2023, was not cancelled however it did experience a total arrival delay of 18 hours and 19 minutes. For the avoidance of doubt, as there was a scheduled ‘918’ service on the 22 September 2023 and no two flights are able to operate with the same flight number, the flight operated with a suffix, as LS9180.

 

We’ve reviewed your claim in line with the relevant law which sets out when compensation is payable to passengers who have been delayed. Under the rules for airlines, compensation is not payable if the delay was caused by what are known as ‘extraordinary circumstances’. You can read more about this and other details on our website: www.jet2.com/delays-and-cancellations.

 

Your flight was delayed over 3 hours because the preceding outbound flight, from Manchester to Tenerife, did not arrive into Tenerife as scheduled due to a security alert involving another air carrier which caused disruption and delays on the ground, including exclusion zones and apron and taxiway closures. During this time, in an unrelated incident, a disruptive passenger was required to be offloaded from the outbound flight and their hold luggage removed which caused a further delay. Once the outbound flight arrived in Tenerife, in legal compliance with crew flight time limitations, the crew could not perform your flight to Manchester without first undergoing a minimum rest period. Your flight was subsequently operated as soon as possible on the following day. The security incident at Manchester Airport involving another air carrier and the disruptive passenger, which caused a further delay to your flight, constitute extraordinary circumstances under the relevant law and your claim is therefore not eligible for compensation.

 

troubled_newbie

2nd attempt rejection for compensation . 

Thank you for your further correspondence.

Firstly, please allow me to reiterate my apologies for the disruption to your flight and for any inconvenience this caused.

As previously outlined, the root cause of the delay was due to a security alert involving another air carrier, which was beyond our control, and therefore, your claim is ineligible for compensation under the EC Regulation 261/2004. Had it not been for the security alert, your flight would have operated as scheduled.

Please note that you were not denied boarding from your flight, you were delayed overnight. Whilst your flight operated as LS9180 on the following day, I would like to clarify that if a flight operates on a different date than originally scheduled, a prefix or suffix is added for Air Traffic Control safety reasons and your flight was therefore operated as LS9180. This does not constitute as a different flight.

I do understand that you were disappointed with the level of communication provided, and with the way the delay was handled. However, this does not alter the cause of the delay, which was beyond our control.

If you don’t agree with our decision, you can appeal to the Civil Aviation Authority’s Passenger Advice and Complaints Team (PACT) at: www.caa.co.uk/passengers/resolving-travel-problems/how-the-caa-can-help/how-the-caa-can-help/.

Thank you once again for taking the time to contact us, and I do hope that despite the disruption we can welcome you on board in the future.

Yours sincerely,
Lauryn Clarke

Legal Services Team

eskbanker

Those responses make it clear that there's a solid justification for the 18 hour delay being caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond the airline's control, so I can't see any merit in pursuing that any further.

However, they all seem to focus specifically on delays to the outbound aircraft, without any reference to this being the second of two flights replacing a single original one, i.e. I don't see any mention of the issue of replacing the larger A330 with two smaller Boeings, so if you're asserting that none of the delay would have happened if that substitution hadn't occurred (i.e. that this wouldn't have been affected by the disruptive passenger and security issues) then are you able to support this with the timings involved, i.e. when was the original outbound flight due to depart MAN, when did the disruptive passenger and security incidents occur, when did the 757 and 737 depart, etc?  What do you believe to be the root cause behind the substitution and to what extent can you evidence this?  How much, if any, of this has been discussed in claims with the airline or the CAA, if there's no apparent mention of it above?

bagand96

Just summarising... 21/09/23 LS917/918 MAN-TFS-MAN were supposed to be operated by an Airbus A330 but it didn't operate that day for unknown reasons. Jet2 had 3 leased A330s, two operated as normal on 21/09 but the third didn't fly at all.

- Jet2 replace A330 with 2 aircraft: 757 as LS917/8 and a 737 as LS9170/9180
- LS917/8 operates a couple of hours late on the 757
- LS9170 on the 737 gets caught up in a security incident at MAN resulting in a delayed departure. Then a disruptive passenger needs removing delaying departure further.
- LS9170 arrives TFS 5 hours late, by which point the crew don't have enough legal duty hours left to operate LS9180 back to MAN.
- LS9180 is delayed until the next day resulting in the 18 hour total delay. 

EC261 doesn't cover every eventuality, and certainly isn't specific in this case when 1 aircraft is replaced by 2 smaller ones.

Jet2 point of view is denied boarding isn't payable as LS918 was operated by two aircraft and the difference in flight number is a technicality. And that delay compensation not due either as LS9180 was delayed due to exceptional circumstances outside their control on the outbound LS9170. 

So your argument is either that it was denied boarding, or as @eskbanker says, that the root cause of the delay was the A330 not operating (although the actual reason for that hasn't been addressed). Jet2 would probably counter that the A330 issue is irrelevant as they'd got substitute aircraft ready to operate. 

Your next steps are either AviationADR or* legal, via small claims yourself, or if a NWNF solicitor would take it on. 

*edited to correct erroneous info - thanks @eskbanker