We're aware that dates on the forum are not currently showing correctly, and that mobile users may see some extra spacing between threads. Please bear with us while we get this fixed.
We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
We're aware that dates on the Forum are not currently showing correctly, and that mobile users may see some extra spacing between threads. Please bear with us while we get this fixed, and see Site Feedback for updates.
Easyjet Edinburgh to Nice, Mon 12th June, Cancelled - Crew Out of Hours. Compensation Due?

totallyaberdeen
Posts: 6 Forumite

Hi - this relates to an Easyjet flight EZY3245, Edinburgh to Nice on Monday 12th June 2023, 1800hrs (local time). The flight was initially delayed and subsequently cancelled. Easyjet then booked myself on a Edinburgh / Gatwick / Nice flight on Tuesday 13th June and provided overnight accommodation. So although not ideal, this was all OK.
I then tried to claim EU261 compensation directly with Easyjet. They rejected the claim, citing 'exceptional circumstances', with air traffic control delays and weather taking the blame. The information provided by Easyjet was vague and seemed like a generic response. I then raised a complaint with Aviation ADR. As part of the process Easyjet issued a 15 page defence statement, with considerable detail. I challenged the Easyjet defence via Aviation ADR, but ultimately the adjudicator rejected my complaint, siding with Easyjet, citing 'exceptional circumstances', with air traffic delays and weather taking the blame. They provided no detail to the points that I challenged - again it seemed like a very generic response.
So, my first question - has anyone successfully claimed EU261 compensation for this flight, either directly or via a third party?
I am now considering raising a small claims court action based on the following (info taken from Easyjet defence statement). All times are UTC;
1. Due departure time was 1700.
2. Aircraft was in Edinburgh, arriving 1705 (35min late).
3. Eurocontrol issued a communication at 1805 with a take off time of 1928 (this would be a 2hr 28min delay).
4. A 1928 takeoff would have the flight arriving Nice 2208.
5. Crew flight duty period (working hours) expired at 2340.
6. Easyjet cancelled the flight at 1844.
Therefore in my mind, even though there were air traffic control delays, these in themselves gave no reason to cancel the flight - the facts show that. So not 'extraordinary circumstances' - Easyjet had the option to fly to Nice or cancel the flight - a decision very much within their control. The flight was actually cancelled by Easyjet because the crew could not complete the return Nice to Edinburgh leg within their permitted working hours. Flying to Nice would have resulted in the aircraft being out of position for Tuesday morning with subsequent disruption. Although I understand the decision from a business point of view, I feel that they should compensate those passengers involved, on the basis that the flight could have gone ahead.
I should also mention that Easyjet made no attempt to have passengers board the aircraft, even though Easyjet staff and passengers were all assembled at the departure gate. Not sure why - maybe they had already decided to cancel the flight ahead of actually doing so.
So my second question, has anyone successfully claimed EU261 compensation for a situation similar to the above?
I think that I can also put forward the argument that Easyjet are using a high risk operational strategy, trying to operate four flights (aircraft and crew had already been to Jersey, so EDI / JER / EDI / NCE / EDI) within the limits of crew operating hours. This schedule has very little float to accommodate delays - fine provided they have suitable contingencies in place, such as reserve aircraft and crews OR they accept that compensation will have to be paid in the event of cancellation.
Any thoughts or comments on the likely outcome of a court case would be very welcome.
I then tried to claim EU261 compensation directly with Easyjet. They rejected the claim, citing 'exceptional circumstances', with air traffic control delays and weather taking the blame. The information provided by Easyjet was vague and seemed like a generic response. I then raised a complaint with Aviation ADR. As part of the process Easyjet issued a 15 page defence statement, with considerable detail. I challenged the Easyjet defence via Aviation ADR, but ultimately the adjudicator rejected my complaint, siding with Easyjet, citing 'exceptional circumstances', with air traffic delays and weather taking the blame. They provided no detail to the points that I challenged - again it seemed like a very generic response.
So, my first question - has anyone successfully claimed EU261 compensation for this flight, either directly or via a third party?
I am now considering raising a small claims court action based on the following (info taken from Easyjet defence statement). All times are UTC;
1. Due departure time was 1700.
2. Aircraft was in Edinburgh, arriving 1705 (35min late).
3. Eurocontrol issued a communication at 1805 with a take off time of 1928 (this would be a 2hr 28min delay).
4. A 1928 takeoff would have the flight arriving Nice 2208.
5. Crew flight duty period (working hours) expired at 2340.
6. Easyjet cancelled the flight at 1844.
Therefore in my mind, even though there were air traffic control delays, these in themselves gave no reason to cancel the flight - the facts show that. So not 'extraordinary circumstances' - Easyjet had the option to fly to Nice or cancel the flight - a decision very much within their control. The flight was actually cancelled by Easyjet because the crew could not complete the return Nice to Edinburgh leg within their permitted working hours. Flying to Nice would have resulted in the aircraft being out of position for Tuesday morning with subsequent disruption. Although I understand the decision from a business point of view, I feel that they should compensate those passengers involved, on the basis that the flight could have gone ahead.
I should also mention that Easyjet made no attempt to have passengers board the aircraft, even though Easyjet staff and passengers were all assembled at the departure gate. Not sure why - maybe they had already decided to cancel the flight ahead of actually doing so.
So my second question, has anyone successfully claimed EU261 compensation for a situation similar to the above?
I think that I can also put forward the argument that Easyjet are using a high risk operational strategy, trying to operate four flights (aircraft and crew had already been to Jersey, so EDI / JER / EDI / NCE / EDI) within the limits of crew operating hours. This schedule has very little float to accommodate delays - fine provided they have suitable contingencies in place, such as reserve aircraft and crews OR they accept that compensation will have to be paid in the event of cancellation.
Any thoughts or comments on the likely outcome of a court case would be very welcome.
0
Comments
-
totallyaberdeen said:I think that I can also put forward the argument that Easyjet are using a high risk operational strategy, trying to operate four flights (aircraft and crew had already been to Jersey, so EDI / JER / EDI / NCE / EDI) within the limits of crew operating hours. This schedule has very little float to accommodate delays - fine provided they have suitable contingencies in place, such as reserve aircraft and crews OR they accept that compensation will have to be paid in the event of cancellation.
Situations such as ATC restrictions will usually be legitimately categorised as extraordinary circumstances, but it's the other part of that clause that needs the analysis, namely "cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken", i.e. you need to establish whether their response was reasonable.
Did EasyJet comment on their (in)ability to deploy alternative aircraft and/or crew in their defence? Were you able to suggest how you feel they should have reacted on the day with the resources they had in place, or are you making the more generic point that they should have enough to accommodate such situations?0 -
Aviation ADR have reviewed the facts presented and ruled in the airline's favour. I would of thought a Court would take in mind the decision of that ruling that an independent adjudicator has already made.
Apart from the desire for some Compo are you due any further out of pocket expenses? EasyJet rerouted you and provided overnight accommodation I believe from your post.1 -
Westin said:Aviation ADR have reviewed the facts presented and ruled in the airline's favour. I would of thought a Court would take in mind the decision of that ruling that an independent adjudicator has already made.0
-
Westin said:Apart from the desire for some Compo are you due any further out of pocket expenses? EasyJet rerouted you and provided overnight accommodation I believe from your post.
Regards EU261 compensation, my original Monday flight had a duration of 2hrs 40min, getting into Nice late Monday evening. My replacement Tuesday flight had a duration of 6hrs 35min (via Gatwick), getting into Nice early evening Tuesday. So the cancellation cost me a full day of my 7day holiday.
Hence I think some compo, if I am lawfully entitled to it, would be nice.
Note that Easyjet initially wanted to rebook me for Wednesday travel. I requested that they book me on the next available flight, irrespective of carrier - it was stated by the ground staff that they did not have the authority to do this. Even the Easyjet rebooking for Tuesday was the second flight of the day and because of the extra leg, the booking required the input of a manager.
0 -
eskbanker said:totallyaberdeen said:I think that I can also put forward the argument that Easyjet are using a high risk operational strategy, trying to operate four flights (aircraft and crew had already been to Jersey, so EDI / JER / EDI / NCE / EDI) within the limits of crew operating hours. This schedule has very little float to accommodate delays - fine provided they have suitable contingencies in place, such as reserve aircraft and crews OR they accept that compensation will have to be paid in the event of cancellation.
Situations such as ATC restrictions will usually be legitimately categorised as extraordinary circumstances, but it's the other part of that clause that needs the analysis, namely "cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken", i.e. you need to establish whether their response was reasonable.
Did EasyJet comment on their (in)ability to deploy alternative aircraft and/or crew in their defence? Were you able to suggest how you feel they should have reacted on the day with the resources they had in place, or are you making the more generic point that they should have enough to accommodate such situations?
Easyjet did include information regards reserve aircraft and crews, but stated that nothing was available, neither at EDI or NCE. I would suggest that their level of reserve / standby aircraft / crews quoted by Easyjet would probably be considered as acceptable and reasonable. The EDI / JER / EDI / NCE / EDI tour has a scheduled time duration of 9hrs 55min (a tough gig for a pilot). Maximum flight duty hours (so maximum working hours) for the crew is 10hrs 45min. These are figured taken from the Easyjet defence statement. In other words, this only allows for a maximum delay of 50min over 4 flights. That seems pretty tight. Hence the reason I refer to it as a high risk operational strategy which should have contingencies in place to prevent cancellation or accept that compensation should be paid in the event of cancellation. Alternatively, they could have a lower risk operational strategy - less flights or a different mix of flights. This again is something entirely within their control. I did put this to Aviation ADR - but they provided no response to this.0 -
Westin said:Aviation ADR have reviewed the facts presented and ruled in the airline's favour. I would of thought a Court would take in mind the decision of that ruling that an independent adjudicator has already made.
0 -
It's been 8 months or thereabouts since my original post and I though worth posting an update. This may be useful for anyone else finding themselves being refused compensation under similar circumstances. In January this year (2024) I raised a claim against easyJet using the online MoneyClaims service (small claims court service for England). The claim was for £350 compensation as per EC261/2004, interest on the compensation and court costs (£50 for MoneyClaims application). The claim for interest was prompted by the MoneyClaims online service (which is maybe intended for an outstanding invoice rather than compensation payments) which includes the functionality to do this.easyJet responded to MoneyClaims and myself, stating that they would defend the claim. They issued a short defence statement (only 3 pages versus the 15 page statement issued as part of the Aviation ADR process). I felt that this short defence statement was weak regarding paying compensation but strong against paying interest, including quoting a previous court case where the judge ruled that interest should not be paid on compensation sums. They also completed a court directions questionnaire, requesting an in court hearing stating that their defence was complex. I was happy with mediation or a review by written submission (no court hearing). Both easyJet and myself requested Luton County Court as our court of choice, although I believe the claimant choice takes preference.Subsequently the claim was assigned to Luton County Court (small claims track) who advised a hearing via telephone conference call mid July.With everything in place for the hearing, easyJet got in touch (early June) asking if I would accept a settlement out of court (with no admission of liability on their part); £350 compensation and £50 for costs (no interest payment was included). This I accepted and after payment was received issued a notice of discontinuance to close out the court case. I think this outcome was in everyone's best interest - although I would have been keen to have a judge rule on the case as I felt that I had a strong claim.I am unsure why easyJet chose this route. It may be that their legal team had a high workload and my claim being only £350 was a good candidate to get off their books. So a larger claim (say a family of 4 for £1400) may have gone to hearing. Or it may have been commercial which they alluded to in their settlement offer. For them to have a paralegal / lawyer prepare and then attend the hearing may have cost more than £350. So even if they won the case, they would have been out of pocket. If they had lost the case then they would have been even further out of pocket. Worth also considering easyJets position had it gone to hearing and they had lost the case - this could have resulted in loss of reputation and possibly set a precedent for others on the flight / similar cases in the future. So from their point of view, better just not to go to hearing.Did I think it was a worthwhile exercise - no, not really considering the relatively small sum of £350. From the date of the cancelled flight (12th June 2023) to the hearing date / closing the claim took over 13 months and was very stop / start. The level of effort taken in researching info and getting familiar with regulations / processes / documentation (first time using small claims court) was time consuming. The costs involved were relatively small - £50 for MoneyClaims application and £59 for court hearing (but recovered from the defendant via costs if case won). I am fortunate that I am retired so can spare the time and an interesting side project. For others, maybe more worthwhile and viable for a larger claim - a group or family claim.For anyone unfamiliar with the county court process, it may be worth mentioning the need for an electronic document bundle as part of the court submission. I took it upon myself to create this although I think the onus was actually on easyJet, based on my documents (9 in total). The court issue specific guidelines regards document submission, requiring access to Acrobat Pro to create the bundle. The bundle included a witness statement from myself. I actually created a draft of this ahead of the MoneyClaims application to clarify in my mind that I had a strong case and it was worth proceeding. I think my chance of winning the case was based on the strength of this statement, so took a fair bit of time to pull together and went through several iterations. All in the electronic bundle (a single document) was 33 pages long.As mentioned, hopefully this will be helpful for someone else in a similar situation.2
-
totallyaberdeen said:For anyone unfamiliar with the county court process, it may be worth mentioning the need for an electronic document bundle as part of the court submission. I took it upon myself to create this although I think the onus was actually on easyJet, based on my documents (9 in total).
Good result in the end!0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 348.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 452.4K Spending & Discounts
- 240.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 617.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 175.6K Life & Family
- 254.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards