EasyJet decline compensation claim due to airport collision

Beaniepop

Mid August my family and I were due to fly from Manchester airport to Paris CDG when our Easy Jet plane collided with another Easy Jet plane whilst taxiing to the runway, resulting in wing damage to both airplanes. We had to disembark the airplane and return to the terminal where EasyJet sourced another plane and crew but with a 5 hour delay.

Today I have received an email from Easy Jet declining my claim for compensation due to the delay, here is their response;

To further explain what happened on the day; a third party supplier at the airport caused damage to the plane that was schedueled to take you to Paris Charles de Gaulle.Once parked in the gate area, the damage to the aircraft had to be assessed. Unfortunately, there was significant damage found which we were unable to repair, we had no option but to delay your flight. We do take reasonable measures to avoid cancellations and delays to our flights by having replacement crews and spare aircraft available in our network. In the circumstances, these options were not possible as higher than expected levels of disruption to our network meant that our replacement crew and spare aircraft had already been deployed.


Can anyone advise on the next steps I should take for this? Are EasyJet correct in rejecting the claim?. I’m not sure I agree with the ‘third party supplier’ causing the damage as both of the planes that collided were EasyJet planes 

la531983

Third party supplier was likely ATC directing one plane towards the other, so yes a third party.

Westin

Agree with la531983 as it stands today.

Easyjet I expect will have given assistance with rebooking passengers and provided welfare under a duty of care whilst waiting to travel, but no massive compo payment automatically due.

Aircraft ground collisions are thankfully rare. Aircraft move around airfields with permission rather than at random.  There will no doubt be an investigation as to the incident. Only if once this investigation is completed it is found that one of the Easyjet flight deck crew did not follow ATC or ground marshals instructions thereby causing the incident, can Easyjet ‘fault’ be determined.  

Perhaps monitor reports in months to come to see what the outcome was and reassess at that time if you wish to contact EZY again. 

Brisfit

It could have been an error by ATC, it could have been a misjudgement by either pilot. But until the necessary investigations have been completed by AAIB the cause won't be known. 

BikingBud

Utter tosh. Bear in mind the claims agents probably do not understand all the obligations of Commercial Air Transport Operations and are trying to fob you off.

The aircraft is commanded by the pilot and their obligation is for safe conduct include separation during all phases of flight.

Reply advising that in all circumstances their employees, the pilot(s), are responsible for the safe conduct of the flight operation quote as follows:

CAT.GEN.MPA.105 Responsibilities of the commander
(a) The commander, in addition to complying with CAT.GEN.MPA.100, shall:
(1) be responsible for the safety of all crew members, passengers and cargo on
board, as soon as the commander arrives on board the aircraft, until the
commander leaves the aircraft at the end of the flight;
(2) be responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft:
(i) for aeroplanes, from the moment the aeroplane is first ready to move for
the purpose of taxiing prior to take-off, until the moment it finally comes to rest
at the end of the flight and the engine(s) used as primary propulsion unit(s) is
(are) shut down;
(ii) for helicopters, when the rotors are turning;

Safety margins were eroded, that lead to the ground collision, due to a failure in the execution of that responsibility both at least one of their employees.

Further, the Operator, Easyjet, are obliged to:

CAT.GEN.MPA.124 Taxiing of aircraft
The operator shall establish procedures for taxiing of aircraft in order to ensure safe operation and in order to enhance runway safety.

(6) if the pilot taxiing the aircraft is unsure of his/her position, he/she should stop the aircraft and contact air traffic control;

If the pilot in command was sure of their position it is a failure of positional awareness if the pilot in command was unsure they should have stopped to ensure safe separation could be maintained.

I would offer that the Regulations indicate it is wholly within their remit and that of their staff. 

BikingBud

la531983 said:

Third party supplier was likely ATC directing one plane towards the other, so yes a third party.

Nope, that doesn't work:

Air Traffic Control (ATC) ground instructions are mandatory unless the instruction poses a risk to the safety of the aircraft or the pilot is unable to comply, in which case the pilot must maintain the aircraft's safety and, if possible, inform ATC of the situation. The Pilot in Command (PIC) has the final authority for the aircraft's safe operation, which includes the ability to deviate from ATC instructions in an emergency

bagand96

Let's hope easyJet and the CAA haven't been so quick to hang the Captains out to dry!

The regulations quoted above are taken from the requirements for Commercial Air Transport Operators, not sure if they've been relied on in respect of EC261 regulations in the past or whether there's any test case for that?

The ground collision at Manchester will be investigated and if it's an AAIB Investigation findings will be made public, note the AAIB don't apportion blame, they look for causes and contributory factors.

I think at this stage you won't get easyJet to agree it was their fault, they will be relying on extraordinary circumstances.  If you wish to continue with that argument you may need wait until any report is published, and even at that point it won't be an easy claim.

TELLIT01

What would be the situation if the aircraft which caused the collision was still attached to a tug?  Presumably that would be 3rd party cause.

bagand96

TELLIT01 said:

What would be the situation if the aircraft which caused the collision was still attached to a tug?  Presumably that would be 3rd party cause.

As the airline contract handling agents (and some airlines have their own handling agent) then I believe generally in EC261 a handling agent issue would be considered within the airline control.  Although any collision would be investigated and blame might not be easy to prove.

It's not clear cut when aircraft accidents are involved.  Sure I recall a thread after the 2023 TUI aircraft accident in Leeds discussing whether a pax due on the next outbound TUI flight would be entitled to compensation.  The investigation to that accident reported a mechanical failure, although also suggested the aircraft could have remained on the runway.  Not sure if anyone was able to prove TUI liability in an EC261 claim though.

prowla

Beaniepop said:

Mid August my family and I were due to fly from Manchester airport to Paris CDG when our Easy Jet plane collided with another Easy Jet plane whilst taxiing to the runway, resulting in wing damage to both airplanes. We had to disembark the airplane and return to the terminal where EasyJet sourced another plane and crew but with a 5 hour delay.

Today I have received an email from Easy Jet declining my claim for compensation due to the delay, here is their response;

To further explain what happened on the day; a third party supplier at the airport caused damage to the plane that was schedueled to take you to Paris Charles de Gaulle.Once parked in the gate area, the damage to the aircraft had to be assessed. Unfortunately, there was significant damage found which we were unable to repair, we had no option but to delay your flight. We do take reasonable measures to avoid cancellations and delays to our flights by having replacement crews and spare aircraft available in our network. In the circumstances, these options were not possible as higher than expected levels of disruption to our network meant that our replacement crew and spare aircraft had already been deployed.


Can anyone advise on the next steps I should take for this? Are EasyJet correct in rejecting the claim?. I’m not sure I agree with the ‘third party supplier’ causing the damage as both of the planes that collided were EasyJet planes 

Well, that may be factually correct, and it's good of them to give an explanation; however, it's got nothing to do with compensation.

I'd also suggest (though I am not by any means an expert) that your contract is with EJ and not any 3rd parties they interact with.

As an amusing aside, did their reply really have the word "schedueled" (sic)???

If so, that may explain why the aircract had contretemps. :-)

Ordinary_Yet_Unique

Personally I would be grateful that I was safe and well with EasyJet getting me to my destination albeit with a delay. The idea of compensation would not enter my head  in such a situation. However, that is just my opinion. We are all different I guess. 

Several years ago I was involved in an emergency landing after a fire onboard. I was really relieved to jump out the aircraft door and get to safety. The professionalism shown by the crew was exemplary. It didn’t cross my mind to expect or seek any monetary compensation. I was alive and well!  A few weeks later the airfare was returned, which I saw as a nice unexpected gesture.