EasyJet decline compensation claim due to airport collision

eskbanker

Grumpy_chap said:

Collyboy84 said:

Arrival time (when doors first opened) for my flight was 18:14, not 18:04.

The timing you quote of arrival time 18:14, as also confirmed by your Solicitor, do not align with the graphic that has also been posted:

Collyboy84 said:

That clearly quotes an arrival time of 18:10.
As I understand it, compensation is assessed based upon arrival time and not departure time.
I also understand that the trigger for compensation is "over 3 hours", not "3 hours", so that arrival at 3 hours late arrived 18:10 would seem to indicate that the compensation trigger has not been met.

The FlightAware extract relates to landing time, but for compensation purposes, it's the time of first door opening that matters, hence the variance between landing at 18:10 and opening first door shortly afterwards at 18:14.  Even though the FlightAware image doesn't display the gate time, it's not unreasonable to assume that there will be multiple minutes involved in even the shortest of taxiing distances, together with actually being ready to open the doors after engines are switched off, steps positioned, etc.

saajan_12

Grumpy_chap said:

Collyboy84 said:

Arrival time (when doors first opened) for my flight was 18:14, not 18:04.

This has been confirmed by my solicitor. 

If Arrival time had been under 3 hours late why have Easyjet not given this as the reason for denying my claim?

Given that you have employed the services of a Solicitor to advise and manage the case for you (which many might think is unusual), your best advice and guidance as to how to proceed must come from that Solicitor rather than random strangers on the internet.

The timing you quote of arrival time 18:14, as also confirmed by your Solicitor, do not align with the graphic that has also been posted:

Collyboy84 said:

That clearly quotes an arrival time of 18:10.
As I understand it, compensation is assessed based upon arrival time and not departure time.
I also understand that the trigger for compensation is "over 3 hours", not "3 hours", so that arrival at 3 hours late arrived 18:10 would seem to indicate that the compensation trigger has not been met.
What was the scheduled arrival time for your flight?

Obviously, with regard to the trigger for compensation having been met or otherwise, your Solicitor will be able to provide very sound advice and indicate to drop the claim if the delay has not elapsed past the trigger point.

I hope you can get this resolved amicably and without incurring too much cost for legal fees (which are likely not recoverable).  Please do report back with the outcome.

Well no, it clearly shows a landing time. I believe the Flight Aware site shows two separate times: landing time and gate arrival time, so its disingenuous to base arguments on just one. 

[When I had a flight delay issue, the gate arrival time is what the airline used and, correctly per the legislation. The scheduled times also had different landing v gate times, so each was measured against the respective expected time.]

Collyboy84

eskbanker said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Collyboy84 said:

Arrival time (when doors first opened) for my flight was 18:14, not 18:04.

The timing you quote of arrival time 18:14, as also confirmed by your Solicitor, do not align with the graphic that has also been posted:

Collyboy84 said:

That clearly quotes an arrival time of 18:10.
As I understand it, compensation is assessed based upon arrival time and not departure time.
I also understand that the trigger for compensation is "over 3 hours", not "3 hours", so that arrival at 3 hours late arrived 18:10 would seem to indicate that the compensation trigger has not been met.

The FlightAware extract relates to landing time, but for compensation purposes, it's the time of first door opening that matters, hence the variance between landing at 18:10 and opening first door shortly afterwards at 18:14.  Even though the FlightAware image doesn't display the gate time, it's not unreasonable to assume that there will be multiple minutes involved in even the shortest of taxiing distances, together with actually being ready to open the doors after engines are switched off, steps positioned, etc.

You are correct that the time relevant to a compensation claim is when first door is opens, which was 18:14.
Original scheduled arrival time was 15:10. This is why Easyjet have not denied my claim on the basis that arrival was within the acceptable limit in my opinion. 
I have only got a solicitor involved as my claim was denied claiming "exceptional circumstances "
Given that there is evidence on this thread that Easyjet had 3 separate planes damaged on the same day, I fail to see how they can claim it's "exceptional".
They really ought to take more care with their fleet.

eskbanker

Collyboy84 said:

I have only got a solicitor involved as my claim was denied claiming "exceptional circumstances "
Given that there is evidence on this thread that Easyjet had 3 separate planes damaged on the same day, I fail to see how they can claim it's "exceptional".
They really ought to take more care with their fleet.

The test in the legislation is "extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken", and EasyJet will presumably deploy their standard reference to case law, which clarifies that it's nothing to do with frequency but inherency:

In respect of extraordinary circumstances, the Airline relies on the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) in Pešková and Peška v Travel Service A.S (Case C-315/15) in which it was held that:

“In the present case, a collision between an aircraft and a bird, as well as any damage caused by that collision, since they are not intrinsically linked to the operating system of the aircraft, are not by their nature or origin inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are outside its actual control. Accordingly, that collision must be classified as ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004.” 

However, Siewert and Other -v- Condor Fulgienst (Case C-394/14) may offer a more relevant judgment, depending on the exact circumstances:

"Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a situation where, as in in the case before the referring court, an airport’s set of mobile boarding stairs collides with an aircraft cannot be categorised as ‘extraordinary circumstances’ exempting the air carrier from its obligation to pay the passengers compensation in the event of a long delay to a flight operated by that aircraft."

BikingBud

@Beaniepop

Any updates?

Beaniepop

@BikingBud

Currently in the process of going through ADR as easyJet refused the claim.

easyJet posted their defence a couple of days ago basically stating that ATC are at fault due to the clearances they gave to the aircraft. I’m currently in the process of writing a reply ready for the ADR adjudication.

interestingly in the easyJet defence report they included the incident report from the pilots. It states both the PF and captain were sure of the clearance and that the captain was shouting out clearance as they passed the other aircraft. They also took the decision to run to the right of the centre line of the taxi way. My opinion is that they identified the risk but still pushed it and ultimately should have stopped and contacted ATC.

Im not a pilot or in anyway involved in aviation but I do work in a safety critical role where identifying risk and mitigating consequences are a huge part of the day to day.

I have spoken to other passengers who were on the same plane who have already been through the ADR process and their claims were put in favour of easyJet and ‘extraordinary circumstances’ basically putting the fault onto ATC. I’m certain my claim will go the same way.

BikingBud

This is not about blame but there appears to be clear human performance issues here.

ATC would have given them a clearance to taxi to a point. As I mentioned before, the safe conduct, collision avoidance, of that passage remains the responsibility of the aircraft captain, even if the clearance is unsafe. 

See:

SERA.3201 General
Regulation (EU) No 923/2012
Nothing in this Regulation shall relieve the pilot-in-command of an aircraft from the responsibility of taking such action, including collision avoidance manoeuvres based on resolution advisories provided by ACAS equipment, as will best avert collision.

SERA.3205 Proximity
Regulation (EU) No 923/2012
An aircraft shall not be operated in such proximity to other aircraft as to create a collision hazard.

SERA.3210 Right-of-way
Regulation (EU) 2020/469
(d)     Surface movement of aircraft, persons and vehicles.
(1)      In case of danger of collision between two aircraft taxiing on the movement area of an aerodrome or equivalent part of an operating site, the following shall apply:
(i)      when two aircraft are approaching head on, or approximately so, each shall stop or where practicable alter its course to the right so as to keep well clear;
(ii)     when two aircraft are on a converging course, the one which has the other on its right shall give way;
(iii)    an aircraft which is being overtaken by another aircraft shall have the right-of-way and the overtaking aircraft shall keep well clear of the other aircraft.
(2)      At a controlled aerodrome an aircraft taxiing on the manoeuvring area shall stop and hold at all runway-holding positions unless an explicit clearance to enter or cross the runway has been issued by the aerodrome control tower.
(3)      An aircraft taxiing on the manoeuvring area shall stop and hold at all lighted stop bars and may proceed further in accordance with (2) when the lights are switched off.

Even:

SERA.3212 Uncertainty as to the position on the manoeuvring area at aerodromes where air traffic services are provided

a)       Except as provided for in point (b), a pilot in doubt as to the position of the aircraft with respect to the manoeuvring area shall immediately:
(1)      stop the aircraft; and
(2)      simultaneously notify the appropriate air traffic services unit of the circumstances (including the last known position).
(b)     When a pilot is in doubt as to the position of the aircraft with respect to the manoeuvring area, but recognises that the aircraft is on a runway, the pilot shall immediately:
(1)      notify the appropriate air traffic services unit of the circumstances (including the last known position);
(2)      if able to locate a nearby suitable taxiway, vacate the runway as expeditiously as possible, unless otherwise instructed by the air traffic services unit; and then,
(3)      stop the aircraft.

Bear in mind Risk contains 2 elements. Break out hazard (outcome) and likelihood and consider with the incorrect assessment that had they passed the hazard they expected the likelihood and therefore Risk of an occurrence to have been mitigated, whereas it was still very real. 

They did not get an accurate hazard assessment. That is crew judgment and not ATC responsiblity.If they contest it is an ATC issue ask for the reference where it states responsibility for safe operation of aircraft on the ground lies solely with ATC.

What was the basis of argument for the other passengers?

What competences of the ADR assessor enable them to make a sound judgment?