Old Jun 3, 17, 10:19 am
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: KSU (Kristiansund N, Norway)
Programs: SAS EBD/ *G
Posts: 2,043
Short resume in English

Originally Posted by FlyingMoose View Post
Not having bothered to translate the article, did SK get away with a delayed departure the next day from CPH blaming it on weather affecting the IAD inbound the day before?

As in, do airlines not need to keep spare equipment for these kind of situations? This would set a bizar precedent for airlines blaming delays on historic events.

I understand how with SK's aircraft schedule it affects the flight the next day but this is why LN-RKP is still around.
Yes they did. They had to pay in the lower courts, but they did get off with it in the Danish Supreme court.

As I read the judgement, it is not a general "get-out-of-jail"-card (even though SAS didn't get the court costs refunded by the losing customers, as this was a judgement that would be a precedent for SAS, and thus of economical benefit to SAS).

SAS got off, because the delay next day was relatively minor (3 h 45 min), SAS had done everything to reduce the delay: less than two hours turnaround time in CPH; taxiing the flight crew from IAD to PHL, any alternatives (rebooking to other airlines) would have meant a later arrival to IAD for the delayed passengers than the 3 h 45 min experienced.

The extraordinary circumstances were weather closing IAD (for a short time), and - with the designated alternate - BWI - also closed meant that SAS only had fuel for 15 minutes holding at IAD before having to head to the second alternate (PHL). After a attempt to approach IAD after 12 minutes had to be abandoned, the captain (an experienced pilot, but with only 6 months on the A340) decided to go to PHL. As SAS does not have a handling agreement there (unlike at BWI), they suffered a long delay there before unloading passengers/luggage/cargo. As the return crew timed out in flight due to the taxi cab shuttle to PHL, they also had to stop at OSL to change flight crews.
ksu is offline