PDA

View Full Version : When does a delay become a cancellation?


A2QFI
18th Jun 2009, 17:59
Posting on behalf of a colleague.

Last Sunday we were booked to fly with a well known budget airline from East Midlands to Prague. For reasons I won't go into were told by the Captain that the flight was cancelled and we were all off loaded. We were all then transferred by coach to an hotel in Luton for an overnight stay and loaded onto a flight the next morning from Luton rather than East Midlands. Now we were given a piece of paper by the airline detailing compensation we could claim. One of the claims is in respect of cancellation and we can claim EUR 250 per passenger if a flight is cancelled. Now here comes the sneeky bit; I rang the airline as soon as we got back from Prague and asked how we go about putting in a claim for compensation. They replied over the phone that the original flight wasn't cancelled at all just re-arranged. Now to me the fact that it flew from a different airport on a different day with a different flight number would indicate to me that this was not the original flight. The original flight never left the ground. So battle is about to commence. Any Ppruners experienced any similar problems and how did you resolve it?

ExXB
18th Jun 2009, 18:42
From your explanation I would say that your original flight was cancelled and you were re-accommodated on a different flight.

However, that in itself doesn't mean that you are entitled to compensation under the EU Regulation. For very good reasons Compensation doesn't apply in cases of 'extraordinary circumstances', which has no specific definition, but generally means outside of the airline's control.

If, for example, your original flight did not operate because the airport was closed - you are not entitled to compensation.

Now, if you don't mind going into the reasons why the Captain didn't operate as scheduled we may be able to comment if you are entitled to compensation.

The EU Regulation is a 'dog's breakfast' very poorly written with very big holes in it.

Edited to say: "When I say 'you' I mean, your colleague. Sorry!"

geoff1248
18th Jun 2009, 19:17
The original flight was an hour late arriving from Spain to East Midlands due to "crewing problems" in Spain so the Captain informed us. We were boarded and the plane left the stand approx. 1hour 10 mins behind schedule. We then "parked up and the Captain informed us that he would be returning to the stand as there was a problem with the air con and as this was a safety issue he could not fly until an engineer had inspected the fault. Within half an hour the fault had been repaired and we all cheered the blast of cold air. However, the Captain then informed us that because the flight crew may possibly be "out of hours" because of these delays a replacement crew was being sought. Within 15 mins. the captain announced that a replacement flight crew was not available so the flight was being cancelled.
We were transfered by coach from East Midlands to Luton for overnight accommodation and finally left for Prague the following morning from Luton.

radeng
19th Jun 2009, 08:54
ExEB

Can anyone find an EU Regulation or Decision or Directive which isn't a dog's breakfast (although one very rough on the poor dog!), often with different meanings in the various languages?

Kelly Hopper
19th Jun 2009, 09:05
'Had a situation on Thai last year when there was a 20 hour tech delay going to Sydney. I got myself checked on the next days flight as I would have to wait in Bangkok for the connection anyway so acheiving nothing. EU regs state quite catagorically a €600 compensation is due to me. Months of fighting Thai and they just stick two fingers up at the regs. Reported them to the EU and they thanked me for letting them know! It's a useless piece of legislation.

ExXB
19th Jun 2009, 18:33
Geoff,
What you describe is;

1. Inbound aircraft 1 hour late due to 'crew problems'.
2. Aircraft pushed back, but returned to gate due to problem with air con (which isn't just about cooling the cabin air). This likely was a 'safety' issue. You want air with your flight, don't you?
3. With the delay your crew was close to, or would end up, 'out of hours'. Again a safety issue. (Fatigue being a significant topic of discussion here)
4. Couldn't find a replacement crew. Flight was cancelled.

If this is correct the flight was likely cancelled due to 'extraordinary circumstances'. I doubt that you would have wanted the aircraft to have been operated with u/s air con. and you probably wouldn't want the crew to be operating the aircraft without proper rest. I can tell you I wouldn't.

It appears that the airline did handle the 'care' requirements. i.e. fed and bed you, and rerouted you to your destination. The only real question is if this cancellation warrants compensation.

The airline has also tried to deceive you, which raises the suspicion level. Now it could be some min. wage guy who ise paid only to say no, no, no to every request, but then again ...

What I would do, is to put my complaint in writing to the airline, and copy the AUC (The UK's Consumer Watchdog for the Aviation Industry | AUC Home (http://www.auc.org.uk)) who is the UK N.E.B (National Enforcement Body). If you don't get a satisfactory reply in 30 days then follow up directly with the AUC. If the AUC agrees that the airline has an obligation to pay you compensation for the cancellation then they will push. No guarantee though, I would say your case is weak because your flight appears to have been cancelled for safety reasons, but we obviously don't know the full story - which the airline must give to AUC.

You can also consider (after submitting your original request and not getting a good answer) going to EU Claim (EUclaim | Startpage (http://www.euclaim.co.uk)). These guys have always seemed to me to be bottom feeding sharks, they do take a commission, but it might work for you.

I mentioned that the EU regulation is a 'dog's breakfast' because it is poorly written. I should have added that it is also a 'Zebra's lunch' as well because the EC raised SLF's expectations so high that may expect compensation for all flight cancellations. The original intent was to compensate passengers if/when flights are cancelled for commercial reasons - say only 10 pax booked - not to encourage airlines to operate when safety issues suggest that they should not.

Good luck, and keep us in the loop on what happens next!

ExXB
19th Jun 2009, 18:44
Kelly,

Don't complain to the Commission - Implementation of the Regulation is the responsibility of the Member State - the AUC in your case. Brussels has no authority and frankly they have no competence what-so-ever!

However in my post to Geoff I mentioned that the intention of the payment of compensation for cancellations was to dissuade airlines from cancelling flights for commercial reasons. It was never intended that compensation should be paid if the flight was cancelled for technical reasons.

You mention your flight was delayed (for 20 hours) and you chose to rebook yourself onto another flight. The EU regulation does not provide for compensation in case of delays. Since the flight wasn't cancelled the two fingers that Thai showed you, although rude, were correct. Compensation is not applicable in your case.

Mr @ Spotty M
19th Jun 2009, 20:32
The way l read it is as follows.
1. A/C departed late.
2. A/C returned to stand due Tech.
3. Crew then went out of hours or could not operate round trip.
4. Flight cancelled due to shortage of crews (no replacement crew avail), so it was not cancelled due Tech or 'extraordinary circumstances'.
5. If the airline concerned had enough crews on Standby or maybe even one crew on standby the flight would have operated.
Please pray tell how it is not the airlines fault.

Avman
19th Jun 2009, 22:19
Depends if the flight left the gate or not. If the a/c came off the blocks you could argue that it operated, albeit for a short period. As I understand it, pax were given free transportation and accommodation to LTN and put on the next available flight within a (relatively) short period of time. Frankly, under these circumstances I wouldn't even bother to claim as in my opinion the airline did everything possible under the prevailing circumstances. If you want dozens of a/c and crews to be standing by all around the country Spotty M, you might expect fares to increase ten fold!

geoff1248
20th Jun 2009, 09:31
Thanks for your responses thus far. On our return to the UK I contacted Easyjet by phone who immediately seemed to adopt a default position and deny everything. It was this that really got my back up. The crux of the matter is that they considered the flight to have been re-scheduled not cancelled. But a flight that has been moved to a different airport on a different day with a different flight number must surely be considered a replacement of a cancelled flight.
The a/c problem is something of a red herring as the Captain confirmed that it had been repaired and they were awaiting a replacement crew.
The solution to the problem was staffing not technical. Get a new crew and off we could have gone.
I have written to Eastjet and await their reply with some interest. Hopefully they will do the "right" thing and bring the matter to an end. However, being retired I have plenty of time to persue this as far as necessary should needs be.

ExXB
20th Jun 2009, 17:33
I see what you are saying Mr. @ Spotty M, but we don't have all the information to say either it was, or was not extraordinary. For example the operator could have had the same day weather delays, atc delays, headwinds, etc causing them to call on their six or seven stand-by crews, then this one came along and they didn't have an eighth crew. IF that was the case I would say that it was extraordinary for them to require eight stand-by crews.

Situation is obviously different at an airlines hub and a non-hub. At EMA, which is not a hub for Squeezy, the airline won;t have the same level of maintenance support to fix a/c packs and they are less likely to have access to stand-by crews.

Geoff should get a response from Squeezy within the month. If he doesn't like it, or doesn't get it he should then go to the AUC. They will look at all of the facts (and Squeezy has to give them) and determine if indeed compensation is payable under the regulation.

From what we do know it appears to me that Squeezy wanted to operate, made a good effort to operate, but failed because of the circumstances some of which were outside of their control. Do they need to take care of their customers? Yes - and it appears that they did. Now had it been Cryanair ...

The SSK
22nd Jun 2009, 11:29
Seems on the face of it that the crew would have been comfortably within hours to operate the outbound but possibly or probably not to do the return trip - requiring aircraft on the ground in Prague while the crew had their statutory rest. Therefore the flight was cancelled for purely commercial reasons. Qed

WHBM
22nd Jun 2009, 13:29
Many delays are due to multiple reasons, the example above being typical.

1. Inbound aircraft scheduled for immediate departure again. That's what Low-Cost operators choose to do for their own cost efficiencies. So how can that be "outside the airline's control" ?

2. Mechanical fault, in this case with the AC, but it can be anything. Airlines are fully responsible to provide serviceable aircraft for the flight. So how can this be "outside the airline's control" ?

3. Crew scheduled tightly, so they now cannot complete the trip in hours remaining. No relief crew provided for such an eventuality. This is what Low-Cost operators choose to do. So how can this be "outside the airline's control" ?

4. Carrier chooses, in this case, not to cancel just the return sector, the only one where the crew would actually be out of hours, but the complete round trip, because it is more convenient to them to do so, and avoids costs of the aircraft standing overnight at an outstation. It also minimises any knock-on delays, all of which has to be reported to the relevant aviation authority in the periodic statistics. Better to report one cancellation than multiple delays. But all of this is an operational choice. So how can this be "outside the airline's control" ?

ExXB
22nd Jun 2009, 18:34
WHBM and The SSK
You may have missed the point I was trying to make. That was that we, out here in internet land, simply do not have all of the facts. Geoff, the victim doesn't have all of the facts to determine if, or if not, his situation qualifies for Compensation under the Regulation. The only one with all the facts is the airline.

Remember the Regulation is very poorly drafted (a direct quote from the German High Court) and it does not define many of it's terms.

An example. A network airline has an A321 to operate an evening European Flight. Just before departure a technical fault is found with the aircraft which can not be fixed before the airport closes. By chance an A319 is available and the original crew is qualified on this sister aircraft. The challenge? An A321 has 180 seats while a A319 has 124. Let's assume you had a full load of 180 passengers booked.

You are the airlines manager on site. What would you do? Put on the A319 and bump 46 passengers or simply delay the flight to the next morning? The answer may surprise you.

In the first case you deny boarding to 56 passengers and the Regulation does not provide for a extraordinary circumstances defence in such a case. Cost EUR600 x 56 = EUR33,600. These passengers also entitled to a re-routing on next available flight or a refund.

In the second case, you need to cover passengers hotel and meals but not compensation (which never applies in cases of delays). Let's be generous and assume a cost of EUR100. EUR100 x 180 = 18,000.

There is a third choice, simply cancel the flight. Passengers likely not entitled to compensation only a choice between refund or re-routing on next available flight. Those that choose re route entitled to hotac and meal, but no other direct expenses.

Now obviously a reputable airline is hopefully going to decide on the best choice for it's customer - option 1. Although 56 passengers are inconvenienced that's a lot less than 180. But not all airlines see it the same way.

This is one example of how through poor drafting this Regulation is not in the interest of the passenger, I've got others if you are interested.

mzgoo
23rd Jun 2009, 12:53
I think you will find the flight was re-scheduled to go form ltn becuase there wasn't enought hotel rooms in the ema area. That is why your flight numbers first number had changed to a 9 from what ever it was before, because it was reschedued.

The SSK
23rd Jun 2009, 13:28
ExXB, it's clear that the law assumes that commercial decisions which leave passengers behind on the ground constitutes come form of misconduct, which must be punished through the DBC scheme (and make no mistake - the second DBC package was intended to be punitive, not just compensatory).

What the law overlooks, as in the example you quote, is that a commercial decision to deny boarding may be actually be made so as to inconvenience the smallest number of customers. If you provide a 124-seat aircraft for 180 passengers then you are 46 overbooked and you must bear the full weight of DBC which at its core is an anti-overbooking instrument.

If you provide no serviceable aircraft at all for 180 passengers, then in the spirit of the legislation at least, you haven't overbooked them.

AlpineSkier
23rd Jun 2009, 17:40
Because of the differing interpretations that airlines have been using for "exceptional circumstances" and the many complaints this has engendered, the Brussels intelligentsia has now clearly stated that aircraft faults/lack of crew etc which are completely controlled by the airline
( whether they can do anything about them or not ) are absolutely not "exceptional circumstances" and compensation is due.

Believe this was in "Der Spiegel" during the past couple of months..

Don't know if their saying it makes any difference or if they have to actually get the regulation re-written.

I would think the OP has a cast-iron case if he wishes to pursue it.

geoff1248
24th Jun 2009, 09:55
Very interesting info. but it still does not answer the question of just what is a cancellation and what is a re-scheduling? Is there a definitive answer?

The SSK
24th Jun 2009, 10:32
In the distant past, when I worked in operatios, every flight had a trip number which, while not unique, was only repeated once every 1000 flights. If a flight was cancelled, that trip number was not used, there was a gap in the sequence.

I have no idea whether that system was peculiar to the (very large) airline I worked for, and whether it is still in use.

geoff1248
26th Jun 2009, 15:57
I have received an e-mail from the carrier in which they refuse compensation and state that the flight was not cancelled but re-scheduled "due to Technical issues".
So the battle lines have been drawn and the following few weeks should be quite interesting.

ExXB
27th Jun 2009, 20:13
Geoff,
As a first step I would try the Airport Users Council. They are the UK's NEB (National Enforcement Body). They may already have a handle on your particular flight (or is it flights?).

Re-scheduled implies that the flight did operate, but late and from a different departure point - rather than Squeezy reaccomodating you on another, already scheduled flight from Luton. If this is what happened I think your argument (and least in terms of what the Regulation says) is weak.

IF (and I admit it's a big IF) what they say is correct, the Regulation requires them to cover the costs of your 'care' - food, communication, hotel, transfer between airport and hotel and airport. But 'compensation' is not applicable.

Their view is that they did operate the flight, some hours late and from a different departure point.

geoff1248
29th Jun 2009, 17:29
Yes, I will be following this course of action as a first point of call. The AUC are already quite interested to hear the locos take on this.
"Re-scheduled implies that the flight did operate"; this is not the view of the AUC so it will be interesting to see what happens once the AUC formally make contact with the carrier on this issue.
I will keep the forum informed of progress.

ExXB
29th Jun 2009, 19:52
Any chance you kept your boarding card(s) for the flight(s)? Or do you know if your flight the next morning had a different flight number to the one the evening before?

It could be this nuance that determines if your original flight was operated the following day from a different airport, or not.

I can pretty well guarantee that the Regulation doesn't come close to this particular situation. I can tell you that had you not been diverted to Luton, but had operated ex EMA the following morning that would have been classed as a 'delay'.

The question of when does a delay become a cancellation, if ever, is currently before the ECJ - some NEBs think that a delay MUST be considered a cancellation after a certain period of time. On the other hand the Regulation has a number of references that indicate that delays of more than 24 hours were contemplated when the regulation was drafted. If you ask a charter operator they will tell you that then never cancel a flight - they are contractually obligated to operate even with significant delays. (their obligations are to the wholesalers, not the passengers).

They have some very good people at the AUC, if anyone can help they can. I personally have my doubts that you will succeed in getting compensation - and I do note that it could have been a lot worse. They could have simply cancelled the flight (for technical reasons, no compensation) and then offered to put you on the next AVAILABLE flight whenever that might be. Instead they appear to have put on an extra section (from LTN), put you up at a hotel and fed you.

Good luck!

geoff1248
29th Jun 2009, 20:29
ExXB
Yes I (we) have retained our boarding cards for both flights and they do show different flight numbers. The original flight is 6xxx and the "re-scheduled" flight 9xxx.
Surely the simple question is "Did flight 6xxx take off?". The answer is no.
I also understand that "technical reasons" is not classed as "exceptional circumstances" under which the loco can avoid compensation.
However, having spoken to the AUC it seems that they are most interested in progressing this. We shall see what transpires.

ExXB
30th Jun 2009, 16:40
The problem here is that the Regulation defines 'exceptional circumstances' very poorly. It is mentioned twice in the Preamble:(12) The trouble and inconvenience to passengers caused by cancellation of flights should also be reduced. This should be achieved by inducing carriers to inform passengers of cancellations before the scheduled time of departure and in addition to offer them reasonable rerouting, so that the passengers can make other arrangements. Air carriers should compensate passengers if they fail to do this, except when the cancellation occurs in extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.and(14) As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier.However the preamble isn't actually part of the Regulation, although the courts have referred to it in their judgements - reflecting what they believe the intent might have been.

Extraordinary circumstances is only mentioned once in the Regulation itself in Article 5, dealing with cancellations paragraph 3. An operating air carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.Now in your specific case if the flight is considered to have been delayed, compensation is not applicable. If the flight was is considered to be cancelled compensation would be applicable unless squeezy can prove the cancellation was caused by extraordinary circumstances.

I realise that the media has picked up on the ECJ judgement related to an AZ flight from VIE where they claimed a technical was an extraordinary circumstance. The ECJ ruled that, in this particular case, that claim was not valid. The aircraft was returned to service late out of a regular maintenance check resulting in the cancellation. They were of the view that a delay in return from regular maintenance could have been avoided if all reasonable measures had been taken. The judgement doesn't mean all technical faults don't qualify only those in the circumstances described. This hasn't made the situation any clearer but if you read the media you would believe that you are going to get compensation if your flight is cancelled for any technical reasons.

Hope this helps.

Ppod
7th Jul 2009, 19:45
We had the same experience. The thought of being bussed to Luton was too much for me-we went home!!!
I have been fobbed off by Easyjet-but they CANCELLED the flight due to lack of an aircrew-the fault was fixed in a few minutes.
My advice is to take them to the County Court-fortunately I am a Solicitor so have issued proceedings for the 500 Euro.:O

Ppod
7th Jul 2009, 19:56
I assume Spuzzum works for Easyjet ? The EU Reg 261/2004 is quite clear-it applies "if you have been denied boarding or your flight is delayed by more than 2 hours"-the replacement flight was 16 hours later...
Easyjet really should stop shirking their responsibilities-or (heres an idea) have enough replacement crews available ? A colleague of mine had a similar experience and got her money-so keep fighting guys.

geoff1248
8th Jul 2009, 08:31
Why County Court rather than Small Claims?

A2QFI
9th Jul 2009, 19:14
Because,SFAIK, it is correctly known as the Small Claims Track in the County Court ie it is County Court internal procedure.

ExXB
9th Jul 2009, 21:02
Ppod. No I don't work for Squeezy, never have, never will. Haven't worked for an airline since the mid-80s and that was long ago, and far far away.

I've tried to keep my opinions neutral - and provide input regarding the poorly written, poorly understood regulation 261/2004.

Of course the Regulation applies if your flight is delayed. In which case the airline must provide 'care'. Which means food, lodgings and transfers to/from such lodgings (all of which Squeezy appears to have done). What I've been trying to say is that COMPENSATION i.e EUR250~600 is only applicable when a flight is cancelled, or if you are denied boarding. It does not apply when your flight is delayed (even if delayed 7 billion hours). Compensation, in cases of cancellations, is also not applicable in cases of extraordinary circumstances - which is NOT defined in the regulation (beyond what I mentioned in a previous post). Some consider this to be a 'loophole' but if I was a shareholder in an airline I'd want to hear from the CEO if an airline was paying out money the Regulation doesn't require them to.

IMHO in this particular case, Squeezy is not required by the Regulation to pay compensation. I'm not saying that Squeezy shouldn't take care of their customers, I'm saying that I don't think the Regulation - as written - requires payment of compensation, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

Next time you (I mean the 30%, or less, of you that participate) vote for the European Parliament - would you please vote for somebody with half a brain or more. If you don't you'll see more of this crap.

Based
9th Jul 2009, 21:17
I really hate the compensation culture that has creeped into modern day society. On reading this thread I understand that you didn't get to Prague until the following day. What I also take from it is that the company got you there at no extra expense at the next practicable opportunity. As a matter of interest, what exactly are you claiming compensation for? I personally feel it's a pity that this is what your retirement time is being spent on, and don't get me started on solicitors!

geoff1248
10th Jul 2009, 10:37
ExXB
This is exactly my point and the reason for the original post. Just when does a flight become a cancellation rather than a reschedule? No one has yet managed to answer this question.
It is just because the EC regs are so woolly that each case must be treated on its merits and that is why we have courts. If it was all black and white we would need neither courts nor solicitors. You obviously have one view on my particular claim while I and a number of fekkow passengers have another view. Hence I am happy for the court to make a ruling on this case. Your view may well be the correct one we shall see.
What happened was not "extraordinary circumstances";' it was foreseeable and the remedy was within Easys power.
Based
Don't worry I'm not a Victor Meldrew type. I can fully accept that from time to time things can go wrong, sometimes they can seriously inconvenience you. Usually you let them go because of work/family or other commitments you just don't have the time to complain. This doesn't mean that a complaint wasn't warranted. However retirement puts a different scope on things. Grumpy old men---maybe---but still a warranted complaint. Maybe you never complain and your life is just fine. Naturally you cannot have any idea of just how inconvienent this delay was to us and the likely consequences. I would not consider it compensation think of it as a fine for failing to adhear to the regs.
Funny thing is that talking to a number of other passengers had Easy apologised and given everyone a free flight as compensation it would have been great PR and also have ended the matter. However their default position is to deny and thus continue the problem.

ExXB
11th Jul 2009, 12:53
Geoff,
I wasn't trying to have a dig at you. The EC and other politicians have spun the 'passenger rights' button so hard and have literally lied to their electorate. The posters that the EC had put up at airports all of Europe were wrong and they only fixed them once the ombudsman told them they had to. The problem with the posters? They said that compensation would be paid if your flight was delayed. Because of this passengers' expectations are very high, but regretfully the regulation doesn't actually give passengers everything they have been led to believe.This is exactly my point and the reason for the original post. Just when does a flight become a cancellation rather than a reschedule? No one has yet managed to answer this question. I don't suppose you will like the answer, but it is actually quite simple. It is when the airline says the flight is cancelled. There are no fixed times in the regulation, and as I pointed out earlier some aspects of the regulation suggest that delays longer (and even MUCH longer) than 24 hours were foreseen when it was drafted. If squeezy says the flight wasn't cancelled then (in respect of the Regulation, as written) then it wasn't.

Stick with the AUC though. These guys are actually quite good. It probably won't come as a surprise that the Brown Government wants to put the AUC out of business and transfer the responsibility to the some other guys that currently deal with complaints against the bus companies and the railroads. Good luck to everyone then.

the flying scot
12th Jul 2009, 01:14
Geoff,

The reason no one has answered the question about cancellations, is because it is a very complex answer.
Generally a flight is cancelled, when it no longer operates as originally planned. However, there are several exceptions to this:-

1) Re-route. Your flight might need to operate from or to a different airport due to several reasons. Mostly not being within the airlines control.
2) Diversion. Your flight might need to deviate from its planned destination due to several different reasons. Mostly not being within the airlines control.
3) Delay. I don't think I need to explain this one!!!

A Re-schedule is wording that is often used loosely within the industry. This could apply to a Delay, Re-route or Schedule change.
You're getting too engrossed in the wording, which I think was wrongly used by the EZY customer service department.
Just because your flight was re-scheduled, and there was a change in flight number, it doesn't mean your planned flight was cancelled. What you really need to find out, and you won't be able to because of commercial confidentiality; was there an extra aircraft operating your flight out of LTN just for the passengers who were due to fly out of EMA the previous evening - OR - were you re-booked onto an existing EZY flight that was operating anyway. The only people who will have this data are the airline and it will be passed over when requested from the authorities. The change in flight numbers is a red herring, this is only so the airline can keep track of internal and flight planning data. If your flight was an additional sector that was added due to the problems experienced the previous evening, then EZY could argue that your flight was delayed and re-routed. All perfectly legal.
The technical problem will be EZY's defence for the hefty delay, and rightly so, safety should come first. Although all aircraft are maintained according to and beyond the CAA's regulations, components often breakdown. Any reputable airline will be able to prove a technical issue is an exceptional circumstance, assuming their maintenance is acceptable in the first instance. Crewing is the next issue. A lot of people state that EZY are responsible for making sure they have enough standby crew to recover the flight, but as an above post states, what if an exceptional amount of standby crews were used that day? If EZY can prove (and they can) that they only need 2 standby crews(fictional figure) to cover the rotations out of EMA, and they use both of those crew due to disruption that day, then not having enough crew for further disruption will be classed as an exceptional circumstance. Again all this information will be passed to the authority by EZY.

These EU rules and regulations were written to stop airlines:-
a) Overbooking.
b) Cancelling flights for commercial reasons.
c) Protecting passengers rights during prolonged delays.

They were not written to try to bankrupt as many airlines as possible, the current economic climate is making a good headway into that....
I wish you every success with your claim; however I wish EZY even more success with their counter claim. You were fairly well looked after when the airline could not operate the flight you boarded, and you arrived in your destination the following morning. You received everything you were entitled to. You probably were not put up in a 5* hotel, but did you really expect that? I don't expect you to say, but I would love to know what you paid for your tickets? I would imagine that quite a few of your fellow passengers who were put up in a hotel for the night paid less than £50 for the flight in total. EZY have just paid out for the bus transportation to LTN, hotel rooms and food for how many people? Probably equates to over £100 a head. As well as getting you to your destination as safely as they possibly could, and now you want to fine them as well! With the retired proportion of the population now increasing steadily, is this really what we have to look forward to?

I should state that I have no relation to EZY, never have and never will, actually I can't stand them. I always travel full service; however that might be difficult this summer without the cabin crew!!!!
Sorry Geoff, nothing directly aimed at you, just think the whole “let's get cash back because we didn't get there on-time” is nonsense. It'll force airlines to either fly unsafely or plead Chapter 11 (forget that we don't have that privilege!). Saying that when I retire and I've had enough of airline disruption, I'll probably be quite happy to pester airlines until I get 500Euros in my pocket so I can buy another 10 tickets with them, only to do the same again, and again, and...........

The SSK
13th Jul 2009, 13:15
The question has been answered – by me at #19 – at least in respect of my previous employer’s operational procedures.

These EU rules and regulations were written to stop airlines:-
a) Overbooking.
b) Cancelling flights for commercial reasons.
c) Protecting passengers rights during prolonged delays.

The law is trying to legislate the unlegislable (is that a word?). Imagine a flight which is very heavily delayed because of a major mechanical defect, or crew running out of hours. Is it better (for all concerned) to cancel that flight and make alternative arrangements to reroute the passengers with a minimum of hassle, or to insist that it is just a delay and require passengers to wait until it is fixed? The prospect of statutory compensation of €250 (or €400, or €600) per passenger will help the airline make it’s decision, but it won’t necessarily be the right one.

There is a case of a UK airline having to cancel one of its daily services because of an a/c unserviceability problem. They chose to cancel the service which would involve the least amount of passenger disruption, claimed ‘exceptional circumstances’ and were ruled against – this was not the service that the particular aircraft was due to operate, and therefore the cancellation was commercial, not operational.

I recently had it put to me by a TV interviewer that aircraft maintenance problems were ‘within the control of the airline’. I asked him if, in the event that his car didn’t start in the morning, or broke down en-route, was that his fault? If it was improperly maintained, he said. Well then, I replied, aircraft operators are required by law to properly maintain their aircraft – and subject to frequent and rigorous inspection.

WHBM
13th Jul 2009, 13:38
I asked him if, in the event that his car didn’t start in the morning, or broke down en-route, was that his fault?
Of course it is. It is my car and I am responsible for it. Who else is responsible for it ?

geoff1248
13th Jul 2009, 13:53
I suppose at the end of the day it all comes down to semantics- define cancelled. With the EU being involved things are bound to become complicated and I guess there are times when an EU NO actually can be seen as a YES in certain circumstances. Reminds me of the General who said "We are not retreating we are just advancing in a different direction".
It is amazing that whenever there is a possibility for misinterpretation the misinterpretation always seems to favour the big boys rather than the customer.
We shall be advancing this claim and are quite happy to let the legal system give a ruling.

geoff1248
23rd Jul 2009, 10:04
Have just received some advice from the AUC that the terminology used by Easyjet i.e. re-scheduling, is just a smoke screen. Flights are either delayed or cancelled, no other option exists. Apparently this term has only recently been introduced by Easyjet (and no other airline) and is seen as a means of confusing complainents.
AUC are on the case

ExXB
24th Jul 2009, 18:42
Well, the AUC is correct - there is nothing in the Regulation that mentions re-scheduled but isn't that actually what happened? Your original flight couldn't operate to sked, they put on another aircraft, from another airport and got you to your destination as quickly as possible? Squeezy dealt with this as a delay and are calling it re-scheduled.

miauk1
29th Jul 2009, 18:20
Geoff 1248, I'd be very interested to know how you get on with this as the same thing happened to us when our weekend break from EMA - PRG on 24th July 2009 was cancelled due to crew not turning up / crew timing out - both excuses were given. We were offered compensation not to travel as the replacement flight which was proposed for the following day at 2pm from Luton was smaller than the original flight and could not take all the passengers. However, when I contaced EZY on Monday they said the flight was cancelled due to exceptional circumstances (adverse weather) and that no compensation was payable! Today, they are saying that since the flight was actually rescheduled they are not obliged to compensate passengers even though the replacement - sorry - rescheduled flight was with a smaller aircraft.

At least now I know there is no such thing as 'rescheduled'.

However, I found the following information whilst researching my options which you may find useful. It also means that when an airline cancels your flight they have to provide you with the evidence to support their reasons for cancelling under the exceptional cirumstances clause but only if it ends up going to court.

Since this appears to be a common occurrence and airlines are arrogantly using the exceptional circumstances clauise to wriggle out of compensating passengers, I'd be interested to hear from any other passengers on that flight or any other cancelled EZY flight with a view to initiating a class action against EZY.


The Harbord case
In August last year, Mr Harbord, an economist and former Oxford university lecturer, arrived at Stansted airport with his son to board a flight to Vancouver, Canada, with Thomas Cook. On arrival, they were told that the flight had been "delayed" and would fly from Manchester the following day. Thomas Cook even used the same flight number in order to seek to convince passengers that the flight was delayed and, ultimately, to deprive them of their rights under the Regulation. Mr Harbord and his son refused to board the coaches bound for Manchester and booked flights with another airline instead. No compensation was paid to passengers. Mr Harbord took his case to Oxford County Court in February this year, and won.
The court found as follows:
Mr Harbord's flight was cancelled, not delayed. This was because:

A flight from Manchester to Vancouver is not the same thing as a flight from Stansted to Vancouver.
A time differential of 24 hours is indicative more of cancellation than delay.
The fact that the flight had the same flight number had no bearing on the case. Thomas Cook was unable to rely on Recital 14 to the Regulation, which discusses the circumstances in which the "extraordinary circumstances" defence might be applicable on cancellation. In particular, they were unsuccessful in arguing that the reference to "unexpected flight safety shortcomings" in Recital 14 could apply to a technical defect in one of their fleet, but not the aircraft scheduled to fly from Stansted to Vancouver, and thereby avoid paying compensation to passengers scheduled to fly to Vancouver from Stansted. Airlines often shuffle their aircraft when one breaks down and then cancel the flight that will cause the least disruption to their schedule. It was clear from the court's judgment in Mr Harbord's case that this strategy will not entitle airlines to avoid paying compensation to passengers on flights that did not actually suffer the relevant defect. The Judge noted, further, that the Regulation's purpose is to protect the consumer; therefore the Recitals would be interpreted restrictively, to ensure the stated purpose is given effect.
No light touch for airlines
Mr Harbord's advice to passengers is that it is possible to take on airlines and to win and that no-one should go to the airport without a copy of the Regulation in their back pocket. The judgment will be a rude awakening for airlines, who had hoped that the CAA's "light touch" approach would be mirrored by the courts. It remains to be seen whether the approach taken by the Oxford County Court persists in future as more passengers bring similar claims to Mr Harbord's. It is likely that airlines will increasingly pay passengers a minimum sum by way of settlement, and avoid the adverse publicity of going to court. Yet clarification of the extent to which the courts are prepared to open up claims in the name of passenger protection is needed by the airlines. Only when that clarification is provided will the rights of those passengers, who lack the time and inclination to take the airlines to court, be properly protected.

ExXB
30th Jul 2009, 17:53
Miauk

The Harbord case is a couple of years old. 2006 at least. I believe it has been appealed and is working its way through the UK judicial system.

On the face of it, it looks like a victory for the common man, but you need to look and the impact on all consumers, not just this one guy (and kid).

TC had an aircraft go tech (let's assume it was unforeseen) and they decided that in order to impact on the fewest possible passengers they would juggle their aircraft about (I'm assuming that the 'least disruption to their schedule is also the least disruption to their customers).

So if this decision prevails the airline will loose the ability to look at the big picture and will loose the flexibility to keep the disruption to a minimum.

Bluebadger
17th Aug 2009, 17:14
Is there a source reference to the Harbord v Thomas Cook decision being appealed in the public domain, I was wondering where this view came from-and wouldnt the first appeal now have been determined?

I was reading of others who were on this flight contemplating court action against EZ
See Easyjet 6505 Cancellation 24 July East Mids - Prague - Flight Mole Forum (http://www.flightmole.com/forum/showthread.php?t=650)

Presumably the carrier is at liberty to argue that the flight was merely delayed rather than cancelled. Whether they would be successful in that argument would depend upon the facts of the case. (The Opinion from Advocate General Sharpstone published early last month for the ECJ in the conjoined referred cases of Sturgeon v Condor and Bock v Air France might also be worthy of reference).

At the least-given the fact that the flight eventually departed from another airport- this would provide appear to me to be a valid argument to present before a court that the flight, as originally planned, had been cancelled-(with reference to the definition of cancellation as found within EC 261/2004).

Although providing no formal binding precedent presumably the burden would be placed upon EZ to pursuade another District Judge why a view contrary to that taken by the judge at Oxford County Court should not be repeated.

If this were a cancellation then the burden of proof to prove the Art 5 defence of extraordinary circumstances rests with the carrier. (This doesnt rest with the passenger).

The concept of "extraordinary circumstances" is not defined within EC 261/2004 but reference to the full dicta of the Wallenstin Hermann case should be made rather than a selected extract. The sickness of a crew member or the fact that crew are capable of execcedding permitted duty hours appear to be circumstances that are ordainarily faced by a carrier in their usual business as an air carrier-whether they are outside the control of the carrier would therefore be a redundant argument.

Leaving aside opinions apparently expressed by the German court mentioned-the ECJ did of course uphold the validity of the Regulation in face of considerable challenge by the airline industry in the IATA case in 2006.

It seems to me that there is a need to distinguish in internet land-as opposed to legal -land- two concepts.

What a legal opinion is and what an opinion on a law is (whether it is "badly drafted"-full of loopholes or whatever).
Often because an observer is not able to give a comprehensive and adequate legal opinion ( as would be provided by a competent lawyer) the observer then splices/ conjoins commentary with "opinion" on the nature of.the law (such as whether the law is "good" or "bad" ).

A District Judge considering a case doesnt exert him/herself with such tangential diversions-the judge would only consider the law and the facts.

Similarly commentary is often made on whether a passenger should pusue their rights in law. Again this is not a matter that would concern a judge-rights are simply there to be exercised if chosen to.

Rights in law can be exercised by those those are happy to exercise them. If someone believes that the law is "onerous" on a carrier then that person simply need not exercise them. ( I suppose that person can exercise a hard won liberty of free speech to tell someone else not to exercise their rights-but then again that person might take a different view if their had suffered a delay/cancellation and might be less magnanimous if they had).

An alternative viewpoint could be expressed-why doesnt the carrier comply with the law? If compliance with the law results in a commercial cost then factor that cost into the ticket pricing (if it has not been done already).
What is that cost-and wouldnt that cost vary depending upon how efficient the carrier's operation was?

geoff1248
17th Aug 2009, 20:54
It is the word "rescheduled" that Easy seem very fond of using. The EU legislation does not recognise the term "rescheduled" the only options are either delayed or cancelled.
Maybe the carriers do see this particular law unreasonable, but there are laws that I see as unreasonable but that does not mean that I can ignore them. Indeed I gather that it is a criminal(?) offence to continue to ignore a law.
I, and a number of others, will be progressing our claim through the courts if necessary.
Indeed it is interesting to note that this is not the first time that Easy have had staff hour problems with the flights to Prague. Useful further evidence that this problem could have been foreseen as it has happened before.