Delayed Easyjet Flight 8720 LIS-LGW, Mon 07/07/14

[ilesmark]

Hi all

We were on this EasyJet flight 8720, which was due to leave Lisbon at 2020 on 7/7/14 but was delayed by nearly 4 hours. We did hear something said about the incoming flight being delayed by ATC due to thunderstorms in the Barcelona area, but other flights didn't seem to be delayed leaving Lisbon like ours was, although their incoming flights may not have come to Lisbon via the same route as ours! But in the 4 hours the incoming flight was delayed by, I couldn't help wondering why it couldn't have flown around the weather.

I emailed Easyjet to claim compensation for the delay and got the following email back today:-

Having looked into your booking I can see flight EZY8720 on 07/07/14 was delayed by 3:58 on arrival into Lisbon.

The reason for this delay as per our Report is ATC restrictions due to weather. Please be advised that when a flight is disrupted it will be classified under EC261/2004 as either extraordinary or non-extraordinary. As this was outside of easyJet reasonable control and could not be prevented it is classified as extraordinary.

Under EC 261/2004 if a flight is disrupted due to an extraordinary circumstance compensation is not payable.

Never been in this situation before (at least, not in any EU country and since the EU flight delay rules came into force) and so just wondered whether a) if anyone else on Pprune and who was on this flight has tried to claim and, if so, how they fared and b) is Easyjet within its rights or is this ATC thing just an excuse to fob us off? It's interesting how they make no attempt to go into any detail.

[Hotel Tango]

Always difficult to prove these things unless you have insider knowledge which helped me win a claim with Lufthansa. However, serious weather conditions en-route, or at, or near, departure and arrival airports can lead to increased flow management measures (i.e. restrictions). Severe weather makes life difficult for ATC because aircraft need to deviate off their planned track to avoid the worst of the weather. For this reason it is safer to reduce the amount of aircraft occupying the airspace which is affected. Other less affected routings will have quickly been swallowed up by rerouters and reached maximum capacity too. In the end some guys find themselves way back at the end of the line and suffer the worst delays. That may well have been your flight.

[Ancient Observer]

In my experience of claiming against EZY, they have a standard policy of denying all claims, (unless they have been caught "bang to rights"), at least twice. They initially denied my claim, even though it was caused by them wrongly scheduling crew!!!

So that was letter one.

Your reply should both ask for proof of what they said, and point out that weather has been found NOT to be extraordinary. Weather and its variations is normally quite ordinary.

They will deny it again.

So you write your third letter to the CEO at their Head Office.

They do try to respond to CEO letters.

[west lakes]

Report is ATC restrictions

But if this is correct Easyjet are correct, whatever the reason ATC chose to use

[ExXB]

It is very unlikely that any airline would lie to you about the reason for a delay/cancellation. Even the LCCs. The National Enforcement Bodies (NEBs), media, claims brokers and lawyers would very soon catch on to the attempted deception and would likely result in enforcement actions. (depending of course on the national law, 32 versions currently in play. EU28 + EEA3 +CH).

If 'flow management' results in a 10% reduction in capacity this means that 90% of flights will likely operate as planned.

Try one of the claims brokers (a short search away). They have the means to check U2's claims and to judge the likelihood of success, for a fee ...

[INeedTheFull90]

If you were told it was ATC then it was very likely ATC that caused the issues. Thunderstorms are very dynamic in their nature and they can cause severe flow restrictions at some stations which lead to slots so even though the skies are gin clear, departing or arriving may be hampered by slots. There's never a conspiracy between crews/OCC and the airport ground staff to falsify the reason for a delay.

I've never once lied to a passenger about the reasoning for a delay, I've never been asked to lie and if asked to lie I would certainly refuse to do so. The app is always the most up to to date source of information.

Either way there out of the airlines reasonable control and therefore you won't be entitled to compensation as with every other airline (nobody will give you money back unless they need to although you may get FF points if your airline has such a program and you're a member).

Keep I'm mind also that as with all airlines U2 jets operate many rotations throughout the day. Looking at arrivals/departures, your aircraft operated the NCE (all early) then delays picked up in BCN and picked up the delay leading to knock on delays whereas other aircraft may not have been through BCN and would not have picked up the delay.

[RealFish]

Barcelona?

I wonder if that referred to an earlier sector operated by the aircraft? Your incoming flight left Gatwick 4hrs 38 late and went nowhere near Barcelona. It followed the usual track to Lisbon, a straight line - overhead the Channel Is., Brest Peninsula, Bay of Biscay and on into Lisbon.

I noticed that a number of TAP flights, that evening suffered severe delays of between 1 and 4 hours (both arriving and departing) but their flight from Heathrow arrived on time as did BA 504 from LHR. Your inbound flight was followed by another, on time, EZ arrival from Manchester.

There does not seem to have been any weather disruption at Lisbon, save for some pretty sporty gusts late afternoon

[Hotel Tango]

RealFish, perhaps you should read the previous post a little more carefully.

[RealFish]

Perhaps I should. Thank you

[caaardiff]

Surely if the delay was on the LGW-BCN-LGW sectors due to weather/slots, then the LGW-LIS-LGW sectors would be late inbound delays?

[Hotel Tango]

then the LGW-LIS-LGW sectors would be late inbound delays?

It was, as mentioned by the OP.

[INeedTheFull90]

The plane flew LGW-NCE-LGW all early.

Then it went LGW-BCN-LGW and that is where the delay was picked up.

Then it went LGW-LIS-LGW and as the previous sector was late this was also late.

Comparing delays to other airlines in LIS is a pointless exercise as the delay was picked up in BCN on a previous sector operated by the aircraft.

If you're talking about 07/07/14 then there were no U2 arrivals into LIS that day from Manchester.

[BOAC]

Well, whilst by no means an expert on compensation rules, it does seem to me that this is an 'operational' delay which should be compensated. I believe the BCN-LGW delay can be blamed on weather but from then on it is an airline issue. I would keep pressing, iles.

EDIT: An extra 4 hours in that awful terminal...........................:{

[Piltdown Man]

I'm sure there was some nasty weather that day. But the reason for delay was not incurred on your flight nor on the one immediately preceding it. However, a positive decision was taken to use a delayed aircraft, running four hours late and run your flight the same four hours late. That's why you have spare aircraft and standby crews - or cough up!

[INeedTheFull90]

That would not make much sense operationally. The LGW-LIS-LGW crew operated a two sector day. Therefore they have a lot of slack in the FDP allowed and there was very little chance of that crew exceeding their hours as it was just a two sector day.

Spare aircraft and calling in an ENTIRE new crew and a spare jet to operate a moderate delay would not be an efficient use of resources. A spare crew and jet are send on rescue flights where there is a risk of people be stuck/flights cancelled. There was very little chance of this occurring on this flight therefore the airline would have protected its standby coverage in case it really hit the fan on another flint and quite rightly so.

If the airport standby jet and crew were sent to LIS and another flight went AOG or crew out of hours due to delays then that fight would need to be cancelled as the standby is covering a delayed LIS flight, you have up to 180 adults plus babies stuck for the night. It could be that the airport standby jet/crew could have easily rescued said flight but because it was covering a moderate delay, then they're all stuck for the night. I'd hate to be the one who has to tell passengers that they could have been home that night, but instead the rescue jet was sent to LIS to cover what would be a slight delay in comparison to their's.

Getting people where they need to be is always the priority and delays will be accepted in order to protect the program. That may sound cynical but you need to pragmatic. A four hour delay vs. 180 people stuck and 180 hotel nights potentially then it really is a no brainer not to mention the human side of it all.

If you are unhappy with the result then my advice would be to raise it with the CAA and get them to look over it.

[RealFish]

If you're talking about 07/07/14 then there were no U2 arrivals into LIS that day from Manchester

Apologies - it was RYR


On the substantive point, I agree with Piltdown and BOAC. That there was no apparent resilience built into the schedule seems an operational / business judgement.

[INeedTheFull90]

Most airlines these days have short turnarounds and very little fat in the schedule. Whilst this may be a contributing factor no padding or fat in the schedule is going to make a four hour delay go unnoticed. There preceding two flights had turnarounds of 40 and 35 minutes which is in excess of the 25 minute aim. I would be interesting in hearing if the way an airline schedules flights is acknowledged as a contributing factor to a complaint. If it is then I see hard times ahead for the airlines and significantly increased fares for all.

On that note, surely if snow or LVPs hit LHR and there are severe delays then based on the notion above then although it is a weather delay I could still make an EU claim as British Airways choose to operate from such a slot restricted airport which is more prone to severe disruption than most?

[BOAC]

Ineeed - your points on the 'economics' are vaild, but the counter to them is that if Easy wish to operate that way they must be prepared to cough up (thanks, PM...:)) when it does go to poo-poo and they trigger a qualifying delay.

As to your last paragraph, I do not understand your logic! SnoCLo i NOT the airlines' fault.

[INeedTheFull90]

I didn't necessarily mean sloclo. I mean snow hampering the airport severely. Perhaps the fog example is the better one. If fog hits most airports it slows things down but it doesn't grind things to a halt and cause mass disruption to the domestic network.

LHR is severely hampered in ways which other airports are just not and in terms of flights, BA choose to cancel them, but they blame the weather. The weather is a contributing factor, but it is the fact that it is LHR that means they are unable to cope they they decided to operate from there.

It is their commercial decision to operate into LHR and to CANX the domestics (to strategically protect their long haul, much like U2's strategic use of its standby aircraft) yet they can still blame the weather.

If they had operated from any other London airport their operation would likely be able to continue but because it is LHR then they're pretty much screwed. That is their decision to operate from there. So to play devil's advocate then weather does not qualify for compensation under EU261. However If my airline operated from an airport that is not so slot restricted then there's a good chance my flight would have gotten away despite the fog. But because they operate from LHR I could put in a claim against them?

LGW/LTN/STN slow down under LVPs but they do not collapse in a heap like LHR does. BA could operate their flights from there so surely I have a claim against them as their decision to operate for, LHR has left them unable to deliver me to my destination in a reasonable timescale/not at all?

[Hotel Tango]

I believe the BCN-LGW delay can be blamed on weather but from then on it is an airline issue. I would keep pressing, iles.

Exactly. This is how I won my claim with LH when they tried to fob me off with an "unexpected technical issue". Through some research, at work, I was able to establish that the a/c had gone tech some 6 hours prior to my flight's dep time. Ample time to rebook me on a same-time alternative with a code share partner (and yes, there was availability on those flights). What they in fact did was to gamble that the a/c would be fixed in time and eventually only cancelled it at the STD with all pax at the gate. When I proved my case they gave up and paid up, reluctantly. End result for them was that not only did they have to fork out anyway, but they alienated a loyal and regular customer too.

One thing for sure is that ALL carriers will try and fob you off at least twice. When they eventually decide the battle is lost they will pay up but on the basis of a "goodwill" gesture and still without admitting any failure on their part. It's a complete farce! The whole experience has only made me even more determined to pursue a claim to the bitter end in any future event.

[Piltdown Man]

...ALL carriers will try and fob you off at least twice.

When I first read this I thought you had to be wrong. But looking back through my correspondence of complaints - yes I'm a whinging, complaining git, I could see this trait going through complaints I had raised with companies in other industries. But the thing find works is the small claims procedure in the County Court. For £60 you get a resolution in a reasonable time and your money back (a bit like paying tax on your bet) if you win - if you have to go that far.

[Ancient Observer]

1. I agree with Tango. It is SOP to deny your claim, unless they have been caught "bang to rights".

2. This is clearly an Operational issue under their control. The ATC stuff is a smoke screen. if they knew the plane was going to be c 4 hours late then they had plenty of time to fix another plane.
EZY denied my claim for some time. It was an Operational issue.

Keep at it! The Small Claims Court is a good suggestion.

[Martin.Davies]

Hi,


We were on a later EZY flight from Bristol EZY6009 21:20, which was delay by 4 hours also. We were told another plane had to be sent from Barcelona due to technical issues.
When we boarded our replacement plane, the pilot told us the flight was delayed because the plane next to us on the hard standing had a technical issue and had not flown all day.
So there had been a knock on effect with lots of flights that day!!!

[jcurle]

Hi everyone, just came across this thread and felt I had to comment.

I totally agree with Hotel Tango and Ancient Observer. For passengers who don't have a clear idea of how the business works and of the legislation it can be a nightmare. In my experience airlines present it as if the burden of proof and evidence is on the passenger, which obviously puts people off no end.

A year or so I tried to claim with Monarch for a flight delay of over 6 hours. Having read up a little on my rights I felt that I had a strong case, but from the way that the airline treated us you'd think it was the complete opposite. The CAA weren't much help and in the end we got so sick of fighting the airline that we ended up having to go trhough a claims manager to get them to pay out, which got us our money but which also took a commission for the work. I had hoped that we could have done it ourselves. In theory you should be able to, even if you aren't an expert - which we clearly weren't.

Anyway. In short, in my experience the airline will use excuses like the weather to get out of paying you even if that's not the real cause of the delay. A small claims court is a good idea actually, wish we'd looked at that option in more detail really. Good luck to you!

[S.o.S.]

Hello jcurle and welcome to the cabin of PPRuNe.

Please do read the FAQ at the top of the forum. Sorry I had to edit your post but, since the entire website is financed via advertising, they do not allow even 'friendly' referrals that link to a commercial company who is welcome to advertise.

Do keep reading and posting.

[jcurle]

Hi S.o.S. No problem, thanks for letting me know. All the best to those claiming!

[claire cummins]

was this flight, EZY6009, from bristol to faro on the 2/8/2015?

WE had a delay onthis flight and was told it was due to a crew member having to leave due to exceptional circumstances and that the only available cover had to come from Gatwick and this was the cause of the delay.

Now we are being told by Easyjet that the delay was due to ATC issues?

we are very confused!

[ExXB]

It could be both, for example an ATC delay on the inbound (would) put a crew member over their legal hours so they couldn't operate the return.

Such an occurrence is not completely unforeseen and probably does not justify the extraordinarily circumstances defense, but if on the day other circumstances that (when added together) did result in something extraordinary then their defence may be valid.

Go back and threaten to use one of the claims companies and if they still demure do so.

Edited to add, the claims company will not pursue a claim they aren't certain to win - but they do charge a commission.

[edi_local]

Could it not be a combination of the two, with ATC causing the bigger problem?

I.E. Crew member has a situation come up suddenly which prevents them from being able to fly. That then leaves the aircraft without enough crew and is an unforeseen event which is outside their control.

Then ATC issues developed, either at BRS (were there other delayed flights in or out during the time?) or en-route, or at your destination, during the time spent waiting for the replacement crew to come from LGW, which pushed your departure back further than expected.