|
Easyjet refusing compensation and blaming third party
Hey All,
Before making a fool of myself, I wanted to make sure I am not making a mistake here. :) On 15th August, two Easyjet planes clipped wings at Manchester airport, an incident which was widely documented on various news site, including the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8ry06yr4evo. My wife was due to depart on the damaged plane and suffered a 4hr delay due to the incident, which thankfully didn't end in any injuries. She applied for EC261 compensation on my advice, as my understanding was that it would be eligible, however we've just had the following response: We always review claims fairly and in keeping with EU/UK regulation. We know how frustrating delays can be. We always aim to provide the best possible experience when flying with us, however, from time-to-time situations arise which are outside of our control and unfortunately when this happens we are unable to offer compensation. To further explain what happened on the day; a third party supplier at the airport caused damage to the the plane that was schedueled to take you to Manchester. Once parked in the gate area, the damage to the aircraft had to be assessed. Unfortunately, there was significant damage found which we were unable to repair, we had no option but to delay your flight. We do take reasonable measures to avoid cancellations and delays to our flights by having replacement crews and spare aircraft available in our network. In the circumstances, these options were not possible as higher than expected levels of disruption to our network meant that our replacement crew and spare aircraft had already been deployed. Am I wrong here? Cheers, Mark |
I'd push back on that one, explaining that it was an EasyJet aircraft that hit your wife's EasyJet aircraft.
EU261 caselaw has two prongs to the 'extraordinary circumstances' test: that the incident must be extraordinary and that the incident could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Two planes colliding probably would count as extraordinary circumstances, yes, but EasyJet cannot argue that it could not have been avoided if all reasonable measures had been taken. Making sure their pilots don't drive into things is a reasonable measure. If another airline had crashed into your wife's plane it may be different. |
Originally Posted by Arctic Troll
(Post 37297347)
I'd push back on that one, explaining that it was an EasyJet aircraft that hit your wife's EasyJet aircraft.
EU261 caselaw has two prongs to the 'extraordinary circumstances' test: that the incident must be extraordinary and that the incident could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Two planes colliding probably would count as extraordinary circumstances, yes, but EasyJet cannot argue that it could not have been avoided if all reasonable measures had been taken. Making sure their pilots don't drive into things is a reasonable measure. If another airline had crashed into your wife's plane it may be different. |
Aircraft clipping its wing during taxi is a common thing, and it could easily be avoided by pilot looking where he tries to go.
|
Originally Posted by GibFlyer
(Post 37297350)
Thanks for the reply. One theory from another forum is that they are blaming ATC as the third party who caused the collision. Guess then they are not at fault?
If it had been another airline that whacked into them, they may have more of an argument. |
I asked for this to be escalated and just got the following. I guess it’s off to ADR time.
I understand your concerns about the reasons given for the outcome of your claim, especially around whether the delay was caused by a third party or involved only easyJet aircraft. After looking into the details for flight EZY2268, I can confirm the delay was due to a third party supplier at the airport who caused damage to the plane scheduled to take you to Manchester. Once the aircraft was parked at the gate, the damage had to be checked. Unfortunately, the damage was quite significant and couldn’t be repaired, so we had no choice but to delay your flight. |
Third-party supplier is always a complete red herring in these cases IMO. I don't buy the argument that just because easyJet has chosen to subcontract its ground handling at Manchester to a third-party, it has absolved itself of responsibility for what happens. They chose the supplier and oversee the contract.
|
Originally Posted by sigma421
(Post 37337946)
Third-party supplier is always a complete red herring in these cases IMO. I don't buy the argument that just because easyJet has chosen to subcontract its ground handling at Manchester to a third-party, it has absolved itself of responsibility for what happens. They chose the supplier and oversee the contract.
|
Was one of the aircraft was being towed by a tug or marshalled by ground staff at the time? If so I can perhaps comprehend their position, but would still go to ADR as they employ the third party. But from what I can see if happened while taxying out on the airfield.
|
A ground handler contracted by the airline is not a "third party" when it comes to their own negligence. Easyjet may well have a claim against their handler for whatver, but your claim against Easyjet is still quite valid.
|
Update: On 13/1/26 they have ruled in our favour and will be paying compensation.
On the Flight Date at Manchester Airport (MAN), two easyJet aircraft came into contact during ground operations. Aircraft G-EZUN, operating flight EZY2267, was stationary at the holding point in accordance with Air Traffic Control (“ATC”) instructions. Aircraft G-UZWH, operating flight EZY2117, was taxiing on an adjacent taxiway at approximately 7–10 knots and made contact with the wingtip of the stationary aircraft. The Flight in question was originally scheduled to be operated by aircraft G-EZUN. However, as a result of the collision between aircraft G-EZUN and G-UZWH, G-EZUN sustained damage and was no longer serviceable. Consequently, the Airline substituted the aircraft and reallocated the Flight to be operated by aircraft G-EZUT. The Airline provided Air Safety Reports for both aircraft. These confirm that G-EZUN was stationary in compliance with ATC instructions and that the flight deck crew of G-UZWH were aware of the position of the stationary aircraft while taxiing under ATC direction. While aircraft ground movements are conducted in accordance with ATC instructions, compliance with such instructions does not absolve flight deck crew of responsibility for maintaining situational awareness and ensuring safe clearance from visible obstacles. On the evidence before me, the collision resulted from an incorrect assessment of wingtip clearance by the crew of the moving aircraft, rather than from an unavoidable external event. In Siewert v Condor Flugdienst GmbH (C-394/14), the Court confirmed that events arising from the normal operation of an aircraft on the ground, including incidents related to manoeuvring, do not constitute extraordinary circumstances where they are inherent in the normal activity of the air carrier. I am satisfied that safe taxiing and aircraft manoeuvring form part of those inherent operational activities. The previous flight EZY2267 was subsequently operated by aircraft G-EZUT. The evidence relating to flight EZY2267 shows a departure delay of 4 hours and 25 minutes due to delay code 46 (aircraft change for technical reasons). The previous flight arrived with an overall delay of 4 hours and 17 minutes. The actual Flight EZY2268 then operated with a departure delay of 4 hours and 33 minutes due to rotational delay from the previous flight which as establish above it is not extraordinary circumstance. The Flight arrived with a delay of 4 hours and 31 minutes. As both aircraft involved were operated by easyJet, the incident cannot be attributed solely to third-party actions. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the incident constitutes an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of UK261. |
Originally Posted by GibFlyer
(Post 37537202)
Update: On 13/1/26 they have ruled in our favour and will be paying compensation.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 6:40 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.