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.

​​​​​
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.

​​

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.