Agreed facts • The customer and one other on the same booking were booked on the Flight and the Flight was cancelled. • Issues in dispute • The customer claims a total of £1,040.00 for the cancellation of the Flight. • The company submits that the Flight was cancelled due to exceptional circumstances such that it has no obligation to pay compensation. Decision making principles • In order to succeed in a claim against the company, the customer must prove on a balance of probabilities that they are owed compensation under the Air Passenger Rights and Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (referred to in this decision as “the APR Regulations”). • The company will not have to pay compensation where it can prove that a delay or cancellation was caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. • I have carefully considered all of the issues raised and the documents provided. Both the customer and the company should be reassured that if I have not referred to a particular issue or document, this does not mean that I have not considered it in reaching my decision. Reasons for decision 1. The customer and one other passenger were booked on the Flight. The company asserts that it cancelled the Flight on the 23rd December 2021, however the customer asserts that notification of the cancellation was not given until the day of the Flight. 2. Irrespective of whether the customer was notified on the 23rd December 2021 or on the date of the Flight, the notification to the customer was fewer than fourteen days prior to the Flight and as such within the parameters under which compensation may be payable. 3. The issue to determine, therefore, is whether the cancellation of the Flight was an “extraordinary circumstance as per Article 5 (3) of the APR Regulations. 4. The APR Regulations require that passengers whose flights are cancelled less than two weeks prior to the scheduled departure are entitled to compensation under Article 7 of the Regulation unless the cancellation was caused by “extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken” (Article 5(3)). 5. The company, in its defence, contends that the cancellation was caused by the global Covid pandemic and that this constituted ‘extraordinary circumstances’. The company further contends that there were no measures that it could reasonably have taken to prevent the cancellation. 6. There are therefore three issues to consider. What caused the Flight to be cancelled? Was the event that caused the delay extraordinary circumstances? If so, did the company take all reasonable measures to prevent the cancellation and fulfil its obligations under the Regulations? 7. I will firstly address the cause of the cancellation. The company has provided evidence that seeks to demonstrate that the restrictions on the route of the Flight were Covid-related and that this resulted in the cancellation of the Flight. 8. In its evidence the company highlights the reduction in the number of flights operated on the route of the Flight during the day of the Flight and advises that only four of the scheduled six flights were operational. 9. The company further compares the four operational flights of the 3rd January 2022 with the seventeen operational flights that took place between London and Amsterdam on the 3rd of January 2019 and 2020 respectively. 10. The company has also evidenced the restrictions placed upon travel by the governments of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, including a requirement to quarantine, applicable at the date of the Flight. 11. The customer has asserted that the company initially advised that the cancellation of the Flight was due to the actions of Air Traffic Control. The company has not relied upon this defence and on the basis that cancellations arising from the actions of Air Traffic Control are generally accepted to be beyond the control of the airline and therefore an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ I do not consider that this is relevant to determining the validity of the customer’s claim. 12. On the balance of probabilities and upon the evidence provided I consider that the company cancelled the Flight on the basis of a reduced demand arising from Covid-related advice and restrictions 13. It is the contention of the company that Covid-related cancellations are considered to be ‘extraordinary circumstances’ and as such no compensation is due. 14. The company has referred to EC guidelines relating to Covid and highlighted section 3.4 which states that “The Commission considers that, where public authorities take measures intended to contain the Covid-19 pandemic, such measures are by their nature and origin not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of carriers and are outside their actual control.” 15. The company further notes the guidance in relation to Article 5(3) where movement is limited and highlights that,”This condition may also be fulfilled, where the flight cancellation occurs in circumstances where the corresponding movement of persons is not entirely prohibited, but limited to persons benefitting from derogations (for example nationals or residents of the state concerned).” 16. I have also considered the guidance issued by the Civil Aviation Authority in respect of Covid which states “’Where the Government is advising against travel to a destination, we consider that this would be viewed as an 'extraordinary circumstance' and compensation would not be payable. Cancellations related to coronavirus in other circumstances (e.g. where there is no advice against travel) would need to be considered on their merits and facts. However, decisions by authorities to close airspace, restrict airline operations or place restrictions on passengers are likely to be an extraordinary circumstance. Cancellations due to the economic and environmental consequences of operating flights with only a few passengers on-board may also be considered to be an extraordinary circumstance, for example where the imposition of quarantine requirements significantly impacts demand’. 17. In respect of the advice from the CAA I note the wording relating to ‘Cancellations due to the economic and environmental consequences of operating flights with only a few passengers onboard may also be considered to be an extraordinary circumstance, for example where the imposition of quarantine requirements significantly impacts demand’. 18. The company has provided evidence that the quantity of flights had reduced from seventeen per day for that day in 2019 and 2020 to only six flights planned for the day of the Flight of which only four flights operated. The company has further evidenced that in 2019, 1,520 passengers traveled between London and AMS (61% capacity), whilst in 2020, 1,626 passengers travelled. 19. The company has evidenced that only 144 passengers were booked for the six flights scheduled for the day of the Flight which equated to 19% of capacity. 20. I consider that a reduction in passenger numbers from 1,520/1,626 to 144 constitutes a significant reduction in demand and, as such, is in accordance with the advice provided by the CAA as to whether the circumstances may be considered ‘extraordinary’. 21. In circumstances that may constitute ‘extraordinary circumstances’ there is still an obligation on the company to take all reasonable measures to avoid cancellation. 22. In considering whether or not the company would have taken all reasonable measures to avoid the cancellation I am guided by the case of Eglitis v Latvijas Republikas Ekonomikas Ministrija, a case involving a cancelled flight where it was held that while Article 5(3) includes a provision which requires carriers to use all reasonable measures to avoid the cancellation of flights, that provision is limited to ensure that it ‘does not result in the air carrier being led to make intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time’. 23. In this instance the company has provided information relating to specific passenger numbers and available capacity on the route of the Flight for the day of the Flight to justify an economic cancellation of two of the scheduled flights for that day, including the Flight. 24. On the basis of the evidence provided and on the balance of probabilities I therefore find that company has established that the operation of the Flight in these circumstances would constitute the ‘intolerable sacrifice’ necessary to demonstrate that all reasonable measures had been taken to avoid a cancellation when contending that reduced demand shall be considered to be an ‘extraordinary circumstance’. 25. As such, the company defence succeeds, and the customer’s claim fails.