EC 261/2004 cabin crew sickness

[Jooels]

I took my up case for a flight delay with CAA but Thomas Cook have said they will not pay as out of their control




After considering all the information provided to us from the airline, it is our view that the disruption of your flight is of a type which means that the airline does not need to pay compensation. It appears from this information that there were flight crew and cabin crew sickness which means that, under these specific circumstances, the disruption could be considered as outside the airline’s control and could not have been avoided. It is our view therefore that this disruption falls under the ‘extraordinary circumstances (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=2211&pageid=14037)’ exception of EC261/2004 and as such, we believe that you are not entitled to compensation in this case.
I feel that that the airline should have a contingency - one being crew on standby and the other that they don't all eat in the same place... as we were informed food poisoning and not just sickness. Can anyone provide me with my next option?
,

[deep_south]

Surely depends if it was at a "home base" or "down route"? Flybe paid me for a delay at SOU caused by "crew sickness"...

[Porky Speedpig]

Complicated subject (to which I devoted 5 years hard work!). You make a good point about standby or reserve cabin crew, indeed crewing over and above the legal minimum complement would be a good idea, but you can't legislate for where, when and what crew eat before a flight. They are unlikely to all live with each other and if you start dictating down route you are arguably effectively putting the crew "on duty".

[ExXB]

Having one crew member ill, and being able to deal with it likely would be within an airlines control. Having six, eight, thirty on any given day could be extraordinary.

Lacking details of what transpired it is difficult to comment further. But, I am confident the CAA do have all the details and their response is clear.

Did you suffer any monetary damages from your delay? Or are you hoping to get money for nothing, because you read it in the daily mail?

[WHBM]

It is well within the airline's control whether they have standby crew, and to what extent, or indeed how they crew the aircraft and fleet so if one member of crew becomes unwell downroute the situation can be handled. This is what Operations is all about.

[HeartyMeatballs]

Wow, people now begrudge us having a meal together. Should we all sit in our rooms ordering (different things) from the room service menu. The CAA seem clear. And I hope you don't get a penny.

Happy flying.

[Hotel Tango]

Wow, people now begrudge us having a meal together.

Absolutely. You should all be lodged in individualand locked cells with only bread and water (which you should pay for)!

[+TSRA]

Jooels,

All airlines have standby crew. They also require us to eat at different times and different locations from other crew members. This is to prevent the possibility that the entire crew goes down, allowing operations to pull from the standby list.

Thomas Cook is no exception to this.

However, there are certainly situations where even using all the procedures, bad things happen.

So, perhaps they all ate at different restaurants but all got sick. Then they call the people on standby, but its the middle of winter and they have a head cold. They call someone else but can't make it work because of duty time issues.

Your last sentence makes it seem like you think the airline simply cancelled the flight without looking at all the contingencies. You forget that they would have been looking at your flight for possibly hours before you even showed up at the airport and that cancellation was the only option.

Perhaps you should thank the airline for making the safest decision possible rather than pushing a crew who is unwell into going flying. Imagine the reaction you would have if a sick crew member made a mistake that actually caused you injury...I'd love to know if customers in your industry can come back and get money from you for making safe decisions.

[crewmeal]

Ask Martin Lewis he'll sort you out

https://www.flight-delayed.co.uk/martin-lewis

[Chesty Morgan]

Actually not all airlines have standby crew nor is it a requirement, legal or otherwise.

[ExXB]

Crewmeal, do you really think lawyers are going to waste their time after seeing the CAA response? Having an NEB on your side is like having Willy Wonka's golden ticket.

[crewmeal]

Having an NEB on your side is like having Willy Wonka's golden ticket.

Well I guess you have a point. However after watching that programme on ITV last Friday, my guess is many will be reaching for the 'templates' he mentioned when claiming compo over the last few years. When asked about carriers upping their fares because of this EU ruling he couldn't comment. I wonder why!!!

[El Bunto]

and that cancellation was the only option.That's never the only option. They could call-in an ad hoc sub from Titan or another short-notice charterer. Expensive, sure, but that's irrelevant; that the airline chooses not to do so is entirely within their control.

[ExXB]

OP said it was a delay. and I'm guessing, more than three hours.

[Reverserbucket]

Sadly, having CAA consent that this is outside of the operators control is not necessarily the 'golden ticket' that it might have once been - as the recent 261 case involving a lightning strike has shown. Even though lightning is on the CAA's list of exceptional circumstances the appeal judge found in favour of the plaintiff.

I agree with ExXB - there is insufficient information provided by the OP to form an opinion other than to say that it sounds as if you were downroute?
As you say you are in Leeds however, I doubt you'll have to look far for the help you seek.

[ExXB]

ReverserBucket.

My point was that a legal firm focusing on R261 issues is unlikely to 'waste their time' on such a case. Here it is something that normally would not be an "extraordinary circumstance" being categorised by the CAA as such. Something extraordinary occurred here.

In the lightning case it was about getting something removed from the list, giving them even more opportunity to extract their commissions. That isn't the case here.

[Reverserbucket]

ExXB

I see your point and yes, I agree - there is clearly something special in this case for the CAA to comment as they have.

But in the Evans v Monarch case, the judge found on appeal in the favour of the plaintiff and stated that she gave no weight to the CAA's determined extraordinary circumstances, and I see no difference here, other than crew sickness is not in fact listed. Is this the CAA responding to Her Honours previous judgement perhaps?

[Ancient Observer]

I am suspicious about the CAA letter. Was it written by someone senior who knows the law, or was it written by the equivalent of a call centre operator? The CAA use both types of person!

As to sickness, being "exceptional", the vast majority of sickness is quite predictable and should be planned for by schedulers. Just look at BA's sickness around Wimbledon and etc. They know it is coming and they plan for it.
Thomas Cook should be able to plan for sickness, too.

[ExXB]

From the OP

It appears from this information that there were flight crew and cabin crew sickness which means that, under these specific circumstances, the disruption could be considered as outside the airline’s control and could not have been avoided. {emphasis added}

Again lacking any specific details from the OP we won't actually know what did happen. However it is safe to conclude that something beyond one or two sickies happened on the day. Something beyond the predictable illnesses of flight/cabin crew.

[GrahamO]

I'm no expert but there's a difference between the occurrence and effect of specific events and ones level of preparedness for events.

So, if you are late in to work, and its because you had a flat tyre, you can hardly blame anyone for the bad luck of a flat tyre but you can be considered to have been negligent if it turns out you drive around without a spare tyre all the time. People who get burgled are not at fault but those who leave the front door wide open while out would be considered to have been negligent and could forget an insurance claim.

Nobody can be blamed if everyone gets food poisoning but the coimpany can be blamed for not having a contingency plan for the circumstance when a flight creew and cabin crew are not available - the latter being possible due to traffic, weather en route, food poisoning or a lot of other reasons.

[+TSRA]

but the company can be blamed for not having a contingency plan for the circumstance when a flight crew and cabin crew are not available

The problem is that everyone here seems to be assuming that the airline simply cancelled the flight without looking at all their contingencies.

As I mentioned previously, airlines have pilots and flight attendants on standby. Yes, there are exceptions, but this is not one of them. But how can an airline plan for an entire crew getting sick? What happens if previous flights have eaten into the standby list? I've seen it before where by 0800 the entire standby and reserve list is used up due to sickness, duty issues, etc. People seem to forget that the standby crews can also get sick or called out for other flights, so it's entirely possible that the airline was simply out of options for crew.

Someone else here pointed out that Thomas Cook could have called another operator to do the flight. We don't know if they did, but I've seen that fall apart too. Maybe they did call them and the other operators aircraft broke, or had an MEL that did not allow them to conduct the flight, or maybe they didn't have crew. I've been on both sides of the coin and it sucks, it feels like a never ending saga, but it happens and that's life.

You all need to realize that an airline does not simply cancel a flight. They spend hours looking at their options and cancellation is always the last resort. It only happens when the airline has no options. Its just too costly to cancel for no reason.

[GrahamO]

The problem is that everyone here seems to be assuming that the airline simply cancelled the flight without looking at all their contingencies.

No, we are assuming that the contingencies they planned were non-existent or inadequate.

But how can an airline plan for an entire crew getting sick?

By having an entire crew on standby. How do we know they didn't do this - simples. They didnt use it as part of their press releases and communication. If they had a standby crew and they were used up for another event, its a no-brainers that they would have said so as it more than justify their 'unforeseen circumstances' statement.

The operator could have done many things and its simple statement implies that they had no contingency plans, and did very little. Common sense dictates that if they had all sorts of plans which fell through, they would be shouting them from the rooftop to head off any legal disputes.

[ExXB]

The flight was NOT cancelled. It was delayed.

Likely operating as soon as the airline was able to get a qualified crew in place and subject to any airspace or airport restrictions. This could have been at home, or down line. WE DONT KNOW! (Sorry for shouting). We don't even know if down line was in France, the Canaries or the Caribbean.

What we do know is previous 261 decisions has shown that not having the minimum crew to operate is within an aitline's control and passengers on delayed flights are subject to the Regulation in some, but not all, cases.

We also know that in this particular case the CAA is of the view that WHATEVER HAPPENED THAT DAY was extraordinary. If we knew what that was perhaps we could debate it.

Regulation 261 is very poorly written requiring numerous court decisions to clarify it's terms. The parliament has now rewritten it, but that is languishing on a back burner because the UK/ES cannot agree if it applies to Gibraltar. The rewrite is not a vast improvement but it does attempt to define extraordinary circumstances.