View Full Version : how acurate are flight radar sites

bristol brabazon
16th May 2018, 20:51
A neighbour of mine has a dispute with Easy Jet with regards to a delayed flight and a claim for compensation.
The flight,Ezy6290 was due to depart from Sazburg Airport at 17.10 UTC on the 17th of Febuary 2018 landing at Bristol Airport at 19.15 UTC on the same day.
The flight actually took off at 22.25 on the same day which at that point 3 hours 10 minuites later than scheduled.
According to Easy jet the flight landed at BRS at 22.12 and arrived (that is to say doors open) at 22.16.
By that calculation the flight was delayed by 2 hours and 56 minutes.
Compensation is only payable after a 3 hour or longer delay.
My neighbour tried to get a landing time from Bristol Airport staff but they said due to data protection act,they couldn't divulge that.
I've had a look on one of the flight radar sites .the flight,tagged as esy82ut at 22.12 was still in the air and did not appear to land until 22.16 and taxied on to stand at 22.20
On this basis the flight delay is 3.00 hours.
Under normal circumstances I would advise my neighbour that the stated time given by easy jet are probably accurate and to accept defeat.,But in this case there are a couple of errors on the defence statement paperwork that indicate that the times given may not be bang on the money.
In the section headed, Preliminary, It states that the flight operated during the summer months;therefore UTC was 1 hour less than British Summer time and 2 hours less than European Summer time.
In the section headed the Case. It refers to the flight as taking place on the 17th Febuary 2017.
In the section headed Agreed Facts. It refers to.
The flight was delayed arriving at LPL.
In its self you could argue that these are only minor errors but I do tend to find these sorts of errors can be indicative of less than thorourgh research.
I would be grateful if those of you with more technical knowledge than I could advise me and therefore my neighbour if his is a lost cause or if he has a case to argue.

17th May 2018, 07:02
The flight actually took off at 22.25 on the same day which at that point 3 hours 10 minutes later than scheduled.

Airlines don't schedule take-off time. The departure time on the ticket and in the timetable refers to pushback from the terminal. Depending on the airport, takeoff will be several, sometimes many, minutes later.

So it's quite possible that the actual departure time from SZG was delayed by (just) under 3 hours.

Having said that, I believe that EU261 compensation relates to arrival time at the final destination. The FR24 track suggests that your friend's flight didn't arrive at the gate until 22:18.

There appears to be some confusion over the scheduled arrival time - FR24 reckons it was 19:20 (local time), in which case your friend has no case. But if his ticket said, as you state, 19:15 then he might.

17th May 2018, 07:04
Call one of the claim firms. They have access to data that us plebs do not. They only take cases they are confident of winning.

It will cost him a percentage of the claim.

I believe the ECJ ruling relates to delays over 3 hours.

17th May 2018, 10:42
Welcome to the Cabin, Brabazon and what a great name you have chosen!

This is a very good question as it hinges on minutes. We have many questions about claims in here but not one as precise as this.

Dan Dare
17th May 2018, 11:23
I have a bit of sympathy with EasyJet on this one. I get no composition if the M25 delays me or if the trains are running late, but for the sake of a few minutes either side of an arbitrary inconvenience someone wants Easy shareholders to give you more money back than was paid for the original ticket? Them’s the rules, but the law really is an ass.

17th May 2018, 12:33
dan dare: That's why the "reason for delay" part of the equation exists. If it's the airline in-house fault, 3 hours is the limit and then cash applies, the law is perfectly ok.

bristolbarbazon: easy answers on this one, pun intended.

1. What matters for your compensation claim is only 2 things

the time "at which at least one of the doors of the aircraft is opened" versus the advertised & scheduled time of arrival (printed on the ticket);
the reason behind the delay.
2. No need to engage any firms. A properly worded claim - if valid in its essence - is absolutely undefendable. Any airline cashes out to avoid possible extra costs of fighting a lost battle, simple damage control. Also, there are no arguments to discuss, no viewpoints or opinions. Just a comparison of the two times. Have a look here, incidentally also from SZG: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-09/cp140116en.pdf

A word of caution about the websites: be careful of their terminology, i.e. how they label the data. When they say arrival, it can mean 3 different things even inside one website/app alone. It's a minefield in that respect but note that it matters not to your situation.

Given the simplicity of the equation and the MASSIVE liability exposure (yes, I'm the other side of goal line) an airline would know EXACTLY whether the compensation applies or not literally within minutes. It would be tagged as such in one of their systems days before any customer comes asking.

The loose wording of the response, its CTRL+V/C style but poorly updated, may actually suggest they are pretty sure there's no case for the complaint. They may be just saying "No" and not paying attention to how they say it.

Scheduled time was 22:20, not quarter past.
FR24 shows the last time frame at 22:18, just about to enter the stand area.
If easyJet themselves say the aircraft parked at 22:20, and the limit is more than 3 hours to have the door open .... you connect the dots.

17th May 2018, 13:25
We had a U2 flight into GVA that diverted to a remote stand (rather than the gate shown in the airport’s website) and popped its front left door before the steps arrived. Only 2h58 late.

We had to wait 20 more minutes for the buses to show up.

17th May 2018, 14:08
We had a U2 flight into GVA that diverted to a remote stand (rather than the gate shown in the airport’s website) and popped its front left door before the steps arrived. Only 2h58 late.

We had to wait 20 more minutes for the buses to show up.

Do go and challenge them, you're sure to win. Verbatim ruling of the judgement, my bolding. delay to which passengers on a flight have been subject, refers to the time at which at least one of the doors of the aircraft is opened, the assumption being that, at that moment, the passengers are permitted to leave the aircraft.

The original press release linked in my previous post explains:

The situation of passengers on a flight does not change substantially when the aircraft touches down on the runway or when the aircraft reaches its parking position, as the passengers continue to be subject, in the enclosed space in which they are sitting, to various constraints. It is only when the passengers are permitted to leave the aircraft and the order is given to that effect to open the doors of the aircraft that the passengers cease to be subject to those constraints and may in principle resume their normal activities.

Again my bolding, sorry for cutting the quote too short previously.


TangoAlpahd: Well, exactly as you say: go to lengts to save your provider's money?
- maybe Calling for a remote stand which will be assigned by ATC - no need for them to ask questions ...
- maybe the station manager arranging properly (and maybe even paying to airport fairly) for a stand right next to the runway exit ...
- The crew popping the door before the steps arrive: which is a violation of ramp operating policies and any common sense ...