Easyjet: EU261 and weather diversions
 

I've been fortunate enough that I've never had to endure a lengthy delay (must just be luck) until last week.

Last week I booked a last minute trip to La Clusaz flying out to GVA on BA from LHR but no availability back on BA on the Sunday so ended up booking EZY to SEN

They fly twice a day on this route, morning and afternoon.

The morning flight was diverted to LGW due to fog and this had a subsequent knock on effect and delayed our afternoon flight by a couple of hours.

It was still foggy at SEN when we tried to land and we ended up doing a "go round" (first one I've ever had)

We circled for about 30 minutes before the captain announced we would be diverting to Luton where we landed at 20:15, baggage came out at 21:15 and then coached were laid on for transport back to SEN. I was fortunate to get a lift from Luton, but others didn't get back to SEN till gone midnight, a 7 hour delay on our original arrival time.

I spoke to EZY and stated that I was going to claim under EU261 for the delay and got the following reply.

I've found the document he refers too.

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes...ances-list.pdf

Never heard of this before? Do I have a case?

I believe that as they already knew about the fog issue they should have diverted to another airport in the first place thus reducing the delay and giving people the chance to arrange collection etc before even leaving GVA

On the flip side, other planes landed immediately before and after ours.

Weather generally is considered a reason not to pay out EC261, and then you have to consider what else would constitute extraordinary circumstances - things that the airline cannot reasonably predict and/or avoid.

A go around + diversion seems to me to be an example of this, but in reality each case has its own merits, and if it ended up in court, it would be how the court judged the outcome. On a good day your argument (which I guess is that U2 should have gone to LTN in the first instance) may win the day, but I have my doubts: the airline still needs to get people to SEN and it is the time at SEN that matters. Having been "a couple of hours" late anyway, due to fog, plus the diversion, it doesn't make that much difference. The airline would probably argue they did all they reasonably could to get people to SEN but the weather conditions inhibit an arrival within 3 (or whatever) hours.

The caveat on that is that I don't see the precise times in your post, so it's equally tricky to give precise answers on that one. Also the cross referenced material is certainly open to challenge, indeed the technical problems section was overturned by the Supreme Court. It is a draft guideline, both words relevant.

This thread has been moved to the European Budget Airlines forum.

Prospero
Moderator: BA forum

You say you departure was delayed by "a couple of hours". This would usually mean that the expected arrival time would not cause EC261 delay rules to kick in.

The cause of your delay (fog) means compensation would not apply anyway. Minimising a delay in these circumstances might be nice but is not relevant to this (non) claim.

Pressing this point might get you a goodwill gesture from Easyjet, but that's all.

If the weather at SEN had closed in before your flight left GVA then the flight would simply have been cancelled - it would not have been rescheduled to go to another airport. Flights don't take off unless they expect to be able to land at their scheduled destination.

Weather diversions are for flights which have taken off for their scheduled destination but were unable to land there because of an unexpected weather deterioration after departure.

So - be thankful that the fog rolled back in after you had taken off. If it had come back earlier (or been forecast to come back earlier) you would have been stuck at GVA overnight.

Really?

Surely it would be far cheaper to divert the flight and put on a few coaches then have to fork out thousands of pounds in overnight accommodation for a few hundred people?

As to EC 261/2004, pretty much a lost cause here. WX closing in while enroute is just one of those things.

As to the relative costs of a diversion vs. housing people overnight:

Very doubtful. The rooms are booked on dirt cheap contract rates and often at not particularly desireable properties. If you pay GBP 100, the contract might be fore GBP 35-40.

In addition, the aircraft is now stuck at the "wrong" airport and needs to be ferried, presumably empty of revenue pax over to where it belongs. That is extraordinarily expensive and, depending on timing, may mean that the outbound flight for which that aircraft was scheduled, may be delayed/cancelled.

As a customer issue, I would prefer to get to my destination, albeit late, rather than sometime the next day.

Just try to consider the logistics of what you are suggesting. Imagine, for example, LHR and LGW are fogged out while LTN and STN are in the clear. Are you seriously suggesting that all Heathrow and Gatwick flights should be rescheduled to go to Luton or Stansted instead? How do you suggest this would work air traffic wise or runway-wise? Where would you park all the additional aircraft? How would you find room for thousands of extra passengers? Where would you find the additional baggage handlers, check-in staff, gate staff?

This isn't just about YOUR flight. When an airport is weathered out it affects lots of flights, and there is no way one could simply divert all these flights to another airport. Hence the rule that if an airport is closed for weather reasons (or other reasons, such as an incident) then only those flights already airborne get diverted to another airport while those that are still on the ground stay on the ground.

I'm sure that if you think about it you will agree that this makes perfect sense!

Personally I was quite skeptical about the climatic argument on my last experience on a trip from LGW to INN. BA was full so also ended up on EZY. My family was traveling from FRA to INN on a small OS Fokker airplane with roughly the same arrival time as me. They got to land, while we had a go around and were diverted to Munich after two landing attempts. I think the pilot was simply inexperienced, and once in Munich rather than to take us back they just chose the cheapest option of the coach to get us back to INN. Indeed EU law won't kick in, and indeed I'm happy they consider safety, but hey, when other airlines manage to land, I don't buy the 'extraordinary circumstances' argument.

Aircraft may be equipped differently and therefore able to operate in lower visibility.

Spacing may also have to be increased in poor weather, therefore reducing capacity so that some planes will get in and some won't.

As these are directly caused by the weather, they pass the EC test, even if you have drawn the short straw on this occasion.