When does a delay become a cancellation?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you tried the AUC?
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: York
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
"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.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the update
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!
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!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: York
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are 'technical reasons' an exceptional circumstances?
The problem here is that the Regulation defines 'exceptional circumstances' very poorly. It is mentioned twice in the Preamble:
and
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.
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.
(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.
(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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Grantham UK
Age: 63
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EMA to Prague (Not)
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Grantham UK
Age: 63
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EMA to Prague
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Small Claim - County Court
Because,SFAIK, it is correctly known as the Small Claims Track in the County Court ie it is County Court internal procedure.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually Spuzzum is a place, not me
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.
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.
Last edited by ExXB; 11th Jul 2009 at 14:34.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: York
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bad bad bad European Commission.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: north of the border
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cancellation or Re-schedule
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 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...........
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The question has been answered – by me at #19 – at least in respect of my previous employer’s operational procedures.
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.
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.
a) Overbooking.
b) Cancelling flights for commercial reasons.
c) Protecting passengers rights during prolonged delays.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: York
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: York
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Update
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
AUC are on the case
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I certainly understand 're-scheduled'
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.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cancellation or delay? Recent Court ruling on EC 261/2004
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:
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.
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.
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.