Departure time 6 hours later EU 261/2004

MeteredOut

mdann52 said:

MeteredOut said:

steve1500 said:

I know about the 14 day rule, which is specific to cancelations.

Was hoping that there maybe something similar to re-routing, which if necessary, can be another Airline.

No chance Easyjet will re-route you on another airline.

Over 14 days out, accept, cancel for full refund or alternate flight with same airline are your options, unfortunately.

Erm, no. 

The flight is legally considered cancelled as the scheduled departure time has been changed more than 4 hours. This means that have to offer rerouting at the earliest available opportunity.

The CAA guidelines are very clear that this involves rebooking on other airlines if the times offered do not work for passengers. The regulations are silent on the question of who operates the replacement flights.

The "14 days" are only significant for the question of compensation. The rest of the rights are unaffected

Link/citation please, otherwise...

Erm, yes.

Grumpy_chap

steve1500 said:

Our Easy Jet flight in April now departing at 1200 as against the original 0600, which is now problematic

steve1500 said:

refund or the new flight time, which is no good

How problematic is the later departure time?
Why is it problematic?
The choices are accept the later departure time, or take the refund and book a flight at a more suitable time with another airline.
Alternatively, you may be able to change your flight with EasyJet to the day before, for example.

mdann52

eskbanker said:

mdann52 said:

The flight is legally considered cancelled as the scheduled departure time has been changed more than 4 hours.

I wasn't aware that advance rescheduling of a flight (as opposed to significant delay from the most recently published schedule) is deemed equivalent to cancellation - do you have any citations for this?

Sturgeon and Others v Condor, as well as the interpretation of this case in AzurAir and others, seems to indicate that a 3 hour rescheduling counts as a cancellation. AzurAir specifically interpreted the Sturgeon case as applying to an advanced rescheduling, not just a rescheduling or delays on the day.

Art 2 defines “scheduled arrival time” as "the time of arrival at the final destination which is fixed in the flight schedule and indicated on the reservation or other evidence held by the passenger" - Article 6 covers a delay in 3 hours to the scheduled arrival time. By definition, the airline changing the arrival time of the flight is a delay to the time stated on the reservation.

It's the same reason the courts found that a change in schedule counts as an "offer of rerouting" - so it may well satisfy the EU261 cancellation rights, but gives the customer the option to get a refund if the revised timings do not work for them

eskbanker

mdann52 said:

eskbanker said:

mdann52 said:

The flight is legally considered cancelled as the scheduled departure time has been changed more than 4 hours.

I wasn't aware that advance rescheduling of a flight (as opposed to significant delay from the most recently published schedule) is deemed equivalent to cancellation - do you have any citations for this?

Sturgeon and Others v Condor, as well as the interpretation of this case in AzurAir and others, seems to indicate that a 3 hour rescheduling counts as a cancellation. AzurAir specifically interpreted the Sturgeon case as applying to an advanced rescheduling, not just a rescheduling or delays on the day.

The post-Brexit AzurAir case still doesn't seem relevant to UK courts and I'm not seeing anything in Sturgeon itself that relates to advance rescheduling?

mdann52 said:

Art 2 defines “scheduled arrival time” as "the time of arrival at the final destination which is fixed in the flight schedule and indicated on the reservation or other evidence held by the passenger" - Article 6 covers a delay in 3 hours to the scheduled arrival time. By definition, the airline changing the arrival time of the flight is a delay to the time stated on the reservation.

It still seems to me that a schedule can be changed without it constituting a delay as such, in that it has the effect of adjusting the reservation, thereby resetting the times.

I know that independent bodies such as MSE can't be held as reliable but if a schedule change of more than three hours always automatically granted refund rights, then this would surely be made clear in articles such as https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/travel/flight-changes/ (albeit this admittedly doesn't just cover flights within UK/EU 261)

mdann52

eskbanker said:

mdann52 said:

eskbanker said:

mdann52 said:

The flight is legally considered cancelled as the scheduled departure time has been changed more than 4 hours.

I wasn't aware that advance rescheduling of a flight (as opposed to significant delay from the most recently published schedule) is deemed equivalent to cancellation - do you have any citations for this?

Sturgeon and Others v Condor, as well as the interpretation of this case in AzurAir and others, seems to indicate that a 3 hour rescheduling counts as a cancellation. AzurAir specifically interpreted the Sturgeon case as applying to an advanced rescheduling, not just a rescheduling or delays on the day.

The post-Brexit AzurAir case still doesn't seem relevant to UK courts and I'm not seeing anything in Sturgeon itself that relates to advance rescheduling?

mdann52 said:

Art 2 defines “scheduled arrival time” as "the time of arrival at the final destination which is fixed in the flight schedule and indicated on the reservation or other evidence held by the passenger" - Article 6 covers a delay in 3 hours to the scheduled arrival time. By definition, the airline changing the arrival time of the flight is a delay to the time stated on the reservation.

It still seems to me that a schedule can be changed without it constituting a delay as such, in that it has the effect of adjusting the reservation, thereby resetting the times.

I know that independent bodies such as MSE can't be held as reliable but if a schedule change of more than three hours always automatically granted refund rights, then this would surely be made clear in articles such as https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/travel/flight-changes/ (albeit this admittedly doesn't just cover flights within UK/EU 261)

If this is a flight operated by EasyJet (as opposed to EasyJet UK), it's an EU airline so EU261 and Azurair is in play. Given the wording of Art 2 and 6 is unchanged by the APR, I could see a UK court taking it into account still for a claim under UK261.

Regardless, the fact the definition of Article 2 includes the time "on the reservation" in the definition, to me, signals the intention of it included changes in flight times. I will admit this has never made it to court however, as I suggest the no compensation is in play, and any amounts in question are small, so it doesn't make it worthwhile litigating over. If it gets in front of a court, I can't see them ruling any other way personally (but happy to disagree)

That MSE article also doesn't mention that a flight cancelled allows you to be rerouted on another carrier, so it's not exactly an in-depth look at UK261 

jimi_man

The Azurair case is not binding on U.K. courts though CEDR will still respect it. It’s also mainly concerned with schedule changes that are brought forward by an hour and an increased level of compensation. 

And lastly, and most importantly, it’s concerned with those cases that are eligible for compensation in the first place; ie those ones that are affected under 14 days to departure. Further out than that then they are just schedule changes and other than rerouting/cancelling in accordance with the airline’s T’s and Cs (which the OP is aware of) then the Azurair case has no material effect in this instance. 

eskbanker

mdann52 said:

eskbanker said:

mdann52 said:

eskbanker said:

mdann52 said:

The flight is legally considered cancelled as the scheduled departure time has been changed more than 4 hours.

I wasn't aware that advance rescheduling of a flight (as opposed to significant delay from the most recently published schedule) is deemed equivalent to cancellation - do you have any citations for this?

Sturgeon and Others v Condor, as well as the interpretation of this case in AzurAir and others, seems to indicate that a 3 hour rescheduling counts as a cancellation. AzurAir specifically interpreted the Sturgeon case as applying to an advanced rescheduling, not just a rescheduling or delays on the day.

The post-Brexit AzurAir case still doesn't seem relevant to UK courts and I'm not seeing anything in Sturgeon itself that relates to advance rescheduling?

mdann52 said:

Art 2 defines “scheduled arrival time” as "the time of arrival at the final destination which is fixed in the flight schedule and indicated on the reservation or other evidence held by the passenger" - Article 6 covers a delay in 3 hours to the scheduled arrival time. By definition, the airline changing the arrival time of the flight is a delay to the time stated on the reservation.

It still seems to me that a schedule can be changed without it constituting a delay as such, in that it has the effect of adjusting the reservation, thereby resetting the times.

I know that independent bodies such as MSE can't be held as reliable but if a schedule change of more than three hours always automatically granted refund rights, then this would surely be made clear in articles such as https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/travel/flight-changes/ (albeit this admittedly doesn't just cover flights within UK/EU 261)

If this is a flight operated by EasyJet (as opposed to EasyJet UK), it's an EU airline so EU261 and Azurair is in play. Given the wording of Art 2 and 6 is unchanged by the APR, I could see a UK court taking it into account still for a claim under UK261.

Even for flights within EU261 rather than UK261, I'm still not seeing the flow of logic you seem to be relying on, in terms of clear guidance on advance rescheduling as opposed to delay from published scheduling (that may already have been revised).

mdann52 said:
Regardless, the fact the definition of Article 2 includes the time "on the reservation" in the definition, to me, signals the intention of it included changes in flight times. I will admit this has never made it to court however, as I suggest the no compensation is in play, and any amounts in question are small, so it doesn't make it worthwhile litigating over. If it gets in front of a court, I can't see them ruling any other way personally (but happy to disagree)

Happy to agree to disagree on personal interpretation of what's documented, but was challenging your opinion being presented as fact ("The flight is legally considered cancelled as the scheduled departure time has been changed more than 4 hours").

mdann52 said:

That MSE article also doesn't mention that a flight cancelled allows you to be rerouted on another carrier, so it's not exactly an in-depth look at UK261 

....which to me endorses the view that advance schedule changes are regarded as something entirely different from UK261 delays and cancellations, as these are covered in a separate MSE guide:

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/travel/flight-delay-compensation/

mdann52

eskbanker said:

mdann52 said:

eskbanker said:

If this is a flight operated by EasyJet (as opposed to EasyJet UK), it's an EU airline so EU261 and Azurair is in play. Given the wording of Art 2 and 6 is unchanged by the APR, I could see a UK court taking it into account still for a claim under UK261.

Even for flights within EU261 rather than UK261, I'm still not seeing the flow of logic you seem to be relying on, in terms of clear guidance on advance rescheduling as opposed to delay from published scheduling (that may already have been revised).

mdann52 said:
Regardless, the fact the definition of Article 2 includes the time "on the reservation" in the definition, to me, signals the intention of it included changes in flight times. I will admit this has never made it to court however, as I suggest the no compensation is in play, and any amounts in question are small, so it doesn't make it worthwhile litigating over. If it gets in front of a court, I can't see them ruling any other way personally (but happy to disagree)

Happy to agree to disagree on personal interpretation of what's documented, but was challenging your opinion being presented as fact ("The flight is legally considered cancelled as the scheduled departure time has been changed more than 4 hours").

I did mean 3 hours in the original post, not 4 hours. 

I'm happy to cede the point, especially as EasyJet regard this as a significant change - I think if a case ever got to court on this point, they would follow the judicial path in  AzurAir case and rule the flight is effectively cancelled. Why bother defining the "scheduled arrival time" as the time on the reservation if not to prevent the airline unilaterally changing the flight time and inconveniencing the consumer?

eskbanker

mdann52 said:

eskbanker said:

mdann52 said:

eskbanker said:

If this is a flight operated by EasyJet (as opposed to EasyJet UK), it's an EU airline so EU261 and Azurair is in play. Given the wording of Art 2 and 6 is unchanged by the APR, I could see a UK court taking it into account still for a claim under UK261.

Even for flights within EU261 rather than UK261, I'm still not seeing the flow of logic you seem to be relying on, in terms of clear guidance on advance rescheduling as opposed to delay from published scheduling (that may already have been revised).

mdann52 said:
Regardless, the fact the definition of Article 2 includes the time "on the reservation" in the definition, to me, signals the intention of it included changes in flight times. I will admit this has never made it to court however, as I suggest the no compensation is in play, and any amounts in question are small, so it doesn't make it worthwhile litigating over. If it gets in front of a court, I can't see them ruling any other way personally (but happy to disagree)

Happy to agree to disagree on personal interpretation of what's documented, but was challenging your opinion being presented as fact ("The flight is legally considered cancelled as the scheduled departure time has been changed more than 4 hours").

I did mean 3 hours in the original post, not 4 hours. 

I'm happy to cede the point, especially as EasyJet regard this as a significant change - I think if a case ever got to court on this point, they would follow the judicial path in  AzurAir case and rule the flight is effectively cancelled. Why bother defining the "scheduled arrival time" as the time on the reservation if not to prevent the airline unilaterally changing the flight time and inconveniencing the consumer?

It seems to me that the regulations weren't particularly well drafted, and in particular there wasn't even a concept of a delay of three hours being regarded as equivalent to a cancellation until the Sturgeon case, i.e. it's not defined within the regulations themselves (except belatedly in the UK version).

It does, however, seem clear to me that the entire scope of the regulations relates only to denied boarding, cancellations and delays, i.e. there's no mention of advance schedule changes at all, so it still seems to me that the reference to scheduled arrival time on a reservation doesn't in itself literally mean that changes to that time (notified in advance) are to be treated in the same way as delays from it (at the time of travel).

Having said that, I agree that there isn't a clear definition of how to delineate advance schedule changes and delays - as you say, the 14 day window relates specifically to compensation.  Clearly it would be unreasonable for an airline to seek to avoid delay liabilities by advising of a significant schedule change on the morning of a flight, but conversely it isn't obvious that a change notified months in advance actually falls within scope of UK/EU261 at all.  However, no such demarcation is actually spelt out anywhere that I'm aware of?