Lawpf2001

Hi all,
I attempted to take the EZY8881 flight from Gatwick > Amsterdam on the 27th July. This flight was delayed and we landed 3+ hours late in Amsterdam. At Gatwick we were told that the reason for delay was a technical fault and then the crew had gone over theirs.... so far so good.

I put through my claim to Easyjet but was rejected due to there being a 'passenger welfare issue', of course an exceptional reason to delay a flight.

As far as i'm aware there was no issue on my flight. But would Easyjet be able to reject the claim if an earlier flight had an issue which then knocked on to cause my delay?

I am now considering taking this to CEDR but I am not sure whether Easyjet were right the deny my claim.

Thanks

Ditto

Knock on effects are always tricky, clearly for an "extraordinary issue" at 6AM, the airline couldn't claim that the 8PM flight scheduled for the same aircraft being delayed by 3 hours is still an “extraordinary issue”, but what about the next flight in line?

I think U2 will have hard time convincing anyone in your particular case, LGW is their home base and they should have enough relief crew, as for the incoming flight delayed this is correct, but it still landed at 20:13, why did it only take off again at 22:13?

To me it seems like they had ample opportunity to get you to AMS within 3 hours, I'm not really sure where and when did that 'passenger welfare issue' occurred, nor what does it even mean.

paul00

@Lawpf2001: a technical defect does not constitute 'extraordinary circumstances' releasing easyJet from its obligation to compensate you pursuant to Reg 261/2004.

You may find this thread in the BA forum useful: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/briti...61-2004-a.html

Lawpf2001

I understand that technical faults are not an extraordinary reason; this was just the reason given on the ground @Gatwick.

The real reason which was given in my denied claim was a 'passenger welfare issue'. My questions relates to whether a passenger welfare issue on a previous flight, which then knocks on to mine would be reasonable reason for them to deny my claim.

lehovec

Looking through the information available, your a/c operated:
LGW-ALC-LGW arrived back at LGW about 20 minutes late, then it went back to ALC where it arrived app 25 minutes late. It then spent roughly 2 hours on the ground in ALC. It arrived back to LGW app 2:10 late. I am not really sure why this flight was delayed, it could be that they had medical emergency and it took paramedics quite a while to treat the casualty in ALC.
HOWEVER... crew should have operated LGW-ALC-LGW-AMS-ALC. Due to this extended delay on the ground in ALC it seems that the crew ran out of hours and could not operate AMS. I am guessing as it was late in the day no spare crew at base, so they needed to be shipped from somewhere else. And this is the real reason for extended delay. The fact that it took EZY another 1:40 minutes to get new crew. Considering this is their biggest base and they knew a/c is coming late from ALC there should have been new crew waiting to take over.

Do you remember your crew... were they from another base? This would explain further delay between a/c landing from ALC and you departing to AMS. A/C spent 1:40 on the ground at LGW.

IAN-UK

Don't get bogged down in these tiresome details. Pass the claim on to one of the agencies that collect for a fee (they won't take it on unless it looks likely to succeed), or work through it yourself with the quite excellent help in the BA forum.

lehovec

Tiresome details? Just trying to help OP understand what happened to his a/c and why it was delayed. If you got a real reason of delay you can claim it yourself and get all of your money.

IAN-UK

sorry - yes, my post seemed rude, where rudeness was not intended.


The point I was making (inelegantly) is that an individual's detective work is easily brushed aside, stone-walled. It's a cavalier attitude that works if there's not some arbiter or enforcer involved.



After a six-hour delay coming back from South America, Iberia simply ignored my forensic presentation of fact, and further claimed my companions' avios-funded tickets wouldn't qualify for compensation in any case.

They buckled only after I engaged a collection agency, and they fired up their Madrid legal team. The airline faced a court hearing, where lies and untruths are unwise.

So EUR 600 each with 25% of the total going to the agency. Doing it again I'd probably go through one of the consumer organisations, but the agency approach was meticulously well organised and smooth.

garykung

Why CEDR when you can make your case with CAA?

ft101

The CAA won't deal with cases where an ADR company has been appointed by the airline.

Even when they dealt with everything they were useless as they had no authority and the airlines routinely ignored them, whereas the ADR companies decision is binding.

Often1

The NEB's such as CAA may only get you the satisfaction that they think you are right. In theory, an operating business would look at the CAA's determination and pay up. But, the experience of EC 261/2004 EU-wide is that this is not a useful approach.

Many of the claims agency websites include a free tool into which you may simply plug your flight information and the tool will advise as to whether a successful recovery is likely. That, I suppose is what those agencies use to determine whether they will accept your claim in the first place. It gives you a preliminary answer and it gives the agency the ability to deflect spending time when it will not likely recover (and thus get paid).

The problem you face here is not whether a 3-hour delay is reasonable or even whether it is reasonable for a carrier to take 1:40 to locate and staff a flight under the specific circumstances, but whether that matters at all.

This was a Type 1 flight, and thus the delay compensation applied at 50% at 1-hour and 100% at 2-hours. Once the 2 hours has passed, nothing changes. Maybe that is a flaw in the binary nature of the Regulation, but that is not a debate for this claim.

garykung

I highly doubt this is true.

While I agree that CAA may defer the case to ADR when any of the party request it, ADR is not a per-requite to resolve any issues.

ft101

Doubt what you want. That's how it works in practice. The CAA website even says

PACT is the CAA's legacy body still used for airlines who have not signed up with an ADR company..

Lawpf2001

A small update on this :

I submitted my case to Cedr at the start of September; which they decided to fell in scope of their scheme. EasyJet were then provided a few weeks to make a response, which elapsed yesterday.

Does anyone know what the next steps of the CEDR process is? Seeing easyJet have failed to respond or make comment within the allotted time.

corporate-wage-slave

CEDR isn't a court of law and my expectation is that CEDR will simply remind easyJet that they are late with their submission and give them a little more time to sort it out. There maybe a simple explanation (e.g. sent it to the wrong email address). CEDR is also apparently overloaded at the moment too.