itfcfan

I was delayed some time ago on Air Astana KC942, flying LHR to TSE (Astana, Kazakhstan). The flight was due to depart 17:15, arrive 05:25 but actually departed 23:55, arrived 12:10. The reason for the delay as a snow storm preventing the outward flight leaving Astana until much later than scheduled. I'm aware that acts outside of the airlines control (e.g. weather) are exempt from compensation under EU261, but I've also read that knock-on delays (e.g. planes being out of position) are considered due compensation under EU261.

With LHR being an outstation for Air Astana, I don't know how the situation lies? Should Air Astana have attempted to re-book me to fly via FRA or some other location to get me to TSE sooner? I'm not certain whether to raise a claim - aside from not considering re-routing the airline looked after me. Even if I don't raise a claim this time, I'd like to understand how EU261 compensation applies in similar circumstances.

I'm posting in Information Desk, rather than anything Air Astana specific because I'm interested more in the general rule rather than how Air Astana might respond to a claim.

Thanks in advance for sharing any experiences on this.

John

SK AAR

I'm quite sure the claim will be denied. LH has done this on me in the past referring to diversion of inbound flight due to weather at outstation (and, yes I know LH will deny all claims at first but my repeated requests for comp. got nowhere even after raising a complaint with the Czech CAA)

I doubt anyone has a definite answer for you on the law on this.

LondonElite

I too am fairly certain that you'll get no compensation. Weather is weather, and specifically excluded from EC261. The basic principle is 'what reasonable steps could the airline have taken to prevent your delay?' With weather (and its consequential effects), very little. Nevertheless, a duty of care remains in place.

Productivity

I have a similar situation with United recently that is still TBD. Flying LHR to IAH, storms in IAH prevented initial equipment from making it in, so they rebooked me to a later flight.

UA initially refused to accept responsibility and offered 5,000 miles and a snarky email response (the tone of communications and the paltry offer is what annoyed me so much that I am pursuing this to the end, a reasonable miles offer and I probably would have taken it and ran).

After getting nowhere, I ran it through the CAA. The CAA attempted to contact UA, no response. They eventually gave up and sent me a response saying no response from UA, but we looked at the complaint and we think you have a case, if you would like to pursue it go to small claims as we can't enforce.

Not living in the UK, I made a decision to work through a claims agency. This is currently getting worked. I will update when I have more information.

So the crux of of it is, the CAA seems to think EU261 applies in these situations. My guess is UA will fold before hitting court, because it's easier to pay me and not set precedent, but I'm not sure.

As for you and KC, I would certainly submit a claim to them. They may reject it, work your way through the CAA and then small claims if you want. They may suggest as a small airline, it's unreasonable for them to have multiple planes waiting (one of my key arguments is UA did not rebook me onto one of the many planes sitting at LHR, going to east cost destinations and then connect to IAH).

I'd argue in response to that there are other options, such as rebooking through another European airport as mentioned. Probably some options through SVO as well. I'm curious to hear how you go.

jeffjeff

This found online, apparently precedents say knock-on effects are not a conceivable option to deny a delayed flight claim. I was delayed on a flight from two countries which had nothing to do with France, and the captain said the delay was due to the French strikes. How on earth does that affect me? If you company knew there were strikes in France you should have taken measures to prevent knock-on effects. I will look for this EU court decision and make my claim.



In some cases, airlines will claim that knock-on effects were responsible for a disruption. These are said to occur when subsequent flights are disrupted due to the delay or cancellation of a previous flight, usually due to bad weather.

For example, imagine a flight which arrives late due to inclement weather. If the inbound aircraft is meant to serve another flight in due course, the latter might also suffer.

Airlines would often cite extraordinary circumstances, even though they did not apply directly to the second flight. But according to European court decisions, extraordinary circumstances are said to have deterred a flight only when they have affected the flight in question.

Therefore, knock-on effects are not accepted as extraordinary circumstances valid excuse for a disruption.

Often1

This is a factual matter. A bit hard for BA to claim a knock on effect at LHR, but a lot easier at BKK (presuming that the underling delay is itself an "extraordinary circumstance"). In the former, one presumes that BA can round up a backup aircraft at its global fortress hub. At BKK, sending out a backup aircraft from pretty much anywhere isn't likely to substantially mitigate a delay.

Conversely, if the operating carrier were TG, one would expect the reverse at BKK.

warakorn

A snow storm in Astana (now called Nur-Sultan) during the winter-time is quite a common thing.

jeffjeff

How about blaming the French strikes for a delayed flight from Spain to Marrakesh, that "strikes" you as extraordinary circumstance? Anyone has this court precedent where it was ruled that knock-on effect are not conceivable unless directly affecting your flight?

Andriyko

And? If it is unsafe to fly, it is unsafe to fly...not matter how common those unsafe conditions are in the winter time in a particular location.
I don't think this claim stands a chance as LHR is not a base for Air Astana.

I don't think all 'knock-on effects' are created equal. One could make an argument that at a base an airline should be able to find another plane to operate a flight (even though I, personally, disagree with this as it is unreasonable for an airline to keep a few very expensive aircraft not flying just for an occasion when one of its plane may get stuck at a different airport. The whole 'reasonable' clause flies out of the window here).