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

eskbanker

bagand96 said:

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

Jet2 don't participate with AviationADR, which is why the CAA/PACT entertained a claim (they don't take these on if there's an ADR alternative)....

troubled_newbie

@eskbanker again thank you very much for your reply . 

Here are the aircraft  flight Data /details used by Jet 2 . on 21st September.  

LS917 scheduled Dep : Man 14:55 Arr TFS 19:35 . 
              Actual.      Dep : 17:41 Arr  TFS 21:26

LS918.  Scheduled Dep : 20:55 Arr : 01:30 22/9
   
               Actual.        Dep : 22:55 Arr: 02:50 22/9 

Arrival delay of 1hr 20 minutes . Into Manchester. 

Aircraft used G-LSAN B-757 Jet 2.com . Only operations of the day . 



LS9170. Scheduled Dep : MAN 14:55 Arr . 19:35 
                    Actual.    Dep:  Man  20:40 Arr 00:30 

LS9180 21/9.   Scheduled depTFS  20:55 Arr 01.30 
This was Cancelled by P/A announcement.  

LS9180 22/9.  Scheduled. 15:00 Arr 19:43 
                           Actual.         15:01 Arr 19:31 

Arrival delay of 18hrs 1minute  approx . 

Aircraft used G-DRTY B-737  JET2.COM.

 Operated earlier on 21/9 . As LS 791 MAN TO FCO ( ROME ) and LS792 FCO TO MAN . 

LS792 ARRIVING MAN  19 minutes early AT 13:56 . During the Security alert that was stood down approx 15.50 .

 The  unruly passenger was offloaded this aircraft operating LS9170 . I have no further details of this , other than Jet2 version of events . 


I believe the original designated aircraft had a technical problem . i have no data to back this up . I have tried to find Data but could not find any .

Data shows G-DRTY was designated LS9170 /9180 before it operated the Rome to Manchester Flight . So before noon on 21/9 . No communication from J2 until 18:30 CHECK IN FOR LS918 . 

All the data in this thread was used in the claims to Jet2 and Caa . Presenting at check in and  Denied boarding LS918 at 18;30 21/9  , allocated LS9180  21/9 which was  Cancelled by PA . Allocated LS9180 ON 22/9   arriving MAN  18hr + delay . 

troubled_newbie

Here is the data of G-DRTY designated operations on 21/9 . 

bagand96

The flight data backs up Jet2's version of events.  The scheduled landing from FCO at 14:15 and departure to TFS at 14:55 is very ambitious and tighter than Jet2's normal turnaround.  However their point will be that they had an aircraft ready to operate, that subsequently got caught up in a security event and a disruptive passenger which caused the delay.  If there was no security event/disruptive pax then LS9170 would have departed to TFS probably with a small delay, but within allowable crew duty hours to allow the return LS9180 - both flights well within 3 hours before compensation is triggered.

If you wish to persue this further you're going to need to go with the legal route.  Either small claims court yourself, or with a solicitor.  

troubled_newbie

bagand96 said:

The flight data backs up Jet2's version of events.  The scheduled landing from FCO at 14:15 and departure to TFS at 14:55 is very ambitious and tighter than Jet2's normal turnaround.  However their point will be that they had an aircraft ready to operate, that subsequently got caught up in a security event and a disruptive passenger which caused the delay.  If there was no security event/disruptive pax then LS9170 would have departed to TFS probably with a small delay, but within allowable crew duty hours to allow the return LS9180 - both flights well within 3 hours before compensation is triggered.

If you wish to persue this further you're going to need to go with the legal route.  Either small claims court yourself, or with a solicitor.  

If your claim , what would you do ?? 

bagand96

troubled_newbie said:

bagand96 said:

The flight data backs up Jet2's version of events.  The scheduled landing from FCO at 14:15 and departure to TFS at 14:55 is very ambitious and tighter than Jet2's normal turnaround.  However their point will be that they had an aircraft ready to operate, that subsequently got caught up in a security event and a disruptive passenger which caused the delay.  If there was no security event/disruptive pax then LS9170 would have departed to TFS probably with a small delay, but within allowable crew duty hours to allow the return LS9180 - both flights well within 3 hours before compensation is triggered.

If you wish to persue this further you're going to need to go with the legal route.  Either small claims court yourself, or with a solicitor.  

If your claim , what would you do ?? 

Well it's not my claim so maybe I'd feel different, but going on what is here:

- Denied boarding: I'm not convinced there's a claim.  EC261 doesn't cover in specific details.  Would a judge agree you were denied boarding of LS918, or agree with Jet2 and the regulator that the 918/9180 issue is a technicality?

- Delay:  The security event and disruptive passenger are extraordinary events outside of Jet2's control.  So you'd have to further establish the reason the A330 didn't operate and then convince a judge that the A330 issue was the root cause of the delay, and had it not been for that everything would have been fine.  Question: How do we know the A330 wouldn't have been caught up in the security event anyway?

It's a difficult one, but there's a couple of grey areas and question marks and to be honest it would come down to a judge's view.  Coupled with the fact that the CAA have backed up the airline I think it would be a hard fight.  There's the chance that once legal proceedings begin they may just back down and pay up as it's cheaper than fighting it.  Although Jet2 do have a track record of going to court and defending.

Obviously a NWNF Solicitor would take a lot of the work and all the risk out of your hands - nothing to lose.  But would cost you a large chunk of your compensation if successful.

troubled_newbie

bagand96 said:

troubled_newbie said:

bagand96 said:

The flight data backs up Jet2's version of events.  The scheduled landing from FCO at 14:15 and departure to TFS at 14:55 is very ambitious and tighter than Jet2's normal turnaround.  However their point will be that they had an aircraft ready to operate, that subsequently got caught up in a security event and a disruptive passenger which caused the delay.  If there was no security event/disruptive pax then LS9170 would have departed to TFS probably with a small delay, but within allowable crew duty hours to allow the return LS9180 - both flights well within 3 hours before compensation is triggered.

If you wish to persue this further you're going to need to go with the legal route.  Either small claims court yourself, or with a solicitor.  

If your claim , what would you do ?? 

Well it's not my claim so maybe I'd feel different, but going on what is here:

- Denied boarding: I'm not convinced there's a claim.  EC261 doesn't cover in specific details.  Would a judge agree you were denied boarding of LS918, or agree with Jet2 and the regulator that the 918/9180 issue is a technicality?

- Delay:  The security event and disruptive passenger are extraordinary events outside of Jet2's control.  So you'd have to further establish the reason the A330 didn't operate and then convince a judge that the A330 issue was the root cause of the delay, and had it not been for that everything would have been fine.  Question: How do we know the A330 wouldn't have been caught up in the security event anyway?

It's a difficult one, but there's a couple of grey areas and question marks and to be honest it would come down to a judge's view.  Coupled with the fact that the CAA have backed up the airline I think it would be a hard fight.  There's the chance that once legal proceedings begin they may just back down and pay up as it's cheaper than fighting it.  Although Jet2 do have a track record of going to court and defending.

Obviously a NWNF Solicitor would take a lot of the work and all the risk out of your hands - nothing to lose.  But would cost you a large chunk of your compensation if successful.

Great feedback , thank you . 

Any advice on building a small claim ?  

bagand96

troubled_newbie said:

Great feedback , thank you . 

Any advice on building a small claim ?  

I don't I'm afraid, never done it myself.  You would need to build your claim around the points in the law itself.  EC261 legislation can be found here EUR-Lex - 32004R0261 - EN (europa.eu) and I believe the adoption into UK law is here The Air Passenger Rights and Air Travel Organisers' Licensing (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (legislation.gov.uk) although it appears it needs to be read in conjunction with the EU law. 

(happy to be corrected if that's the wrong link to the UK adoption of the law - I find the UK GOV Legislation website hard to use and quite confusing!)

eskbanker

troubled_newbie said:

LS917 scheduled Dep : Man 14:55 Arr TFS 19:35 . 
              Actual.      Dep : 17:41 Arr  TFS 21:26

[...]

LS9170. Scheduled Dep : MAN 14:55 Arr . 19:35 
                    Actual.    Dep:  Man  20:40 Arr 00:30

[...]

LS792 ARRIVING MAN  19 minutes early AT 13:56 . During the Security alert that was stood down approx 15.50 .

 The  unruly passenger was offloaded this aircraft operating LS9170 . I have no further details of this , other than Jet2 version of events . 

I believe the original designated aircraft had a technical problem . i have no data to back this up . I have tried to find Data but could not find any .

I'm still unconvinced that this leaves you with a case to be honest, if they're effectively saying that the security alert and the disruptive passenger caused the 5.75 hours of delay for the 737 leaving MAN, and implicitly asserting that the same would have occurred if the original A330 had been available, so can't really see how you can make a viable claim, but perhaps the NWNF option gives your best chance.

bagand96 said:
EC261 legislation can be found here EUR-Lex - 32004R0261 - EN (europa.eu) and I believe the adoption into UK law is here The Air Passenger Rights and Air Travel Organisers' Licensing (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (legislation.gov.uk) although it appears it needs to be read in conjunction with the EU law. 

(happy to be corrected if that's the wrong link to the UK adoption of the law - I find the UK GOV Legislation website hard to use and quite confusing!)

The UK regulations (including changes applied in December 2023) are at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2004/261/contents