EZJ deny compensation - aborted takeoff

Hache442

Hi all, I'm in a bit of a pickle and don't know the best way to proceed.

I was on a flight from LGW to Spain earlier in August when the pilot rejected take off and we were put on a remote stand whilst easyjet maintenance made a repair. Captain stated the generator to one of the engines was faulty, and later updated that it had been replaced. We were put back into the flow and took off, arriving over 3 hours late. Lateness not disputed by Easyjet.

I have been through the Easyjet compensation portal - Easyjet have stated the reason for delay was ATC restrictions and have made no acknowledgement of the fact there was a rejected take off and subsequent repairs. I have asked for evidence of which ATC restrictions affected the plane and was given no answer. A final response has been provided only stating ATC restrictions.

Can they simply lie like this? How can I prove that there was an aborted take off and this was a technical issue? Surely there will be logs, but I rather suspect not offered to the public.

Would the ADR simply take Easyjets word on this or do they actually investigate?

Thanks

la531983

Quite possibly the repair was done within, say, two hours, but the rest of the delay was due to slot not being available.

You probably need to provide flight details (date, number, time), there are people on here who could dig out further details.

Hache442

Thankyou very much.

the flight was to Valencia, on thursday 6th August and was due to leave at 0610 and arrive 0940.

If the slot wasn't available due to the technical delay, surely that's all consequence of the technical fault? Had we taken off successfully at first attempt, we would have arrived on time.

Just seems a bit grubby by easyjet not to acknowledge any of thos in their responses.

la531983

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82120653#Comment_82120653

The argument would be (as an example) that the repair took 2h and at that point it was good to go, any further delay wasnt caused by them.

eskbanker

In my experience, and that of others on here, if you escalate to AviationADR after the final response from EasyJet, you'll ultimately see a substantial EasyJet document putting their case forward, in much more detail than they make available during the initial claim process.

You then get the opportunity to address their points and AviationADR will then adjudicate based on the balance of the evidence.

Perhaps worth noting that the flight landed 2 hours 57 minutes late, according to public domain info at https://www.flightera.net/en/flight_details/easyJet-London-Valencia/U28009/EGKK/2026-08-06 - it will presumably have been slightly over the three hour threshold by the time the first door opened (the measurement point) but all the airline needs to do is to 'find' a few minutes of ATC-related delay to take their liability below three hours and to deny the claim accordingly…

Hache442

Ok thankyou all. My screenshot from EZYjet app shows 3hrs and 2 mins total delay from expected arrival, and easyjet havent argued this point . Maybe pedantic but if I'm 1 min late for checkin, or bag is 0.1kg over, I'll have to pay more, so if I can hold them to account I will.

However, because it was quite close to the 3 hr mark, and if they can make up minutes and claim it was ATC then would you consider there is any point in pursuing this? Seems like the chips are stacked in Easyjets favour.

la531983

To be fair ive been .something over baggage with a number of airlines and never had to pay more so that bit isnt entirely true 😎

But yes sounds like they only have to find 3 minutes of ATC restrictions. This summer has been an absolute binfire for them across Europe.

eskbanker

However, because it was quite close to the 3 hr mark, and if they can make up minutes and claim it was ATC…

I wasn't suggesting they'd 'make up' minutes, just that all they need to do is to quantify the effect of the ATC restrictions, which will be recorded within their logs, and if this was more than three minutes then that would suffice, as they can then point to less than three hours of delay being directly attributable to matters within their control, and hence reject the compensation claim.

Hache442

Ok thanks all, I'll probably not bother as it seems pretty futile. Thanks all for the advice.