On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 10:43:46 +0100, BrritSki wrote...
On 06/04/2025 20:58, Tim Jackson wrote:
See also https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/d2e03946
The interesting factor is that the airline still lost that case. There
was an extraordinary delay because mandatory checks were necessary after
a bird strike. A local technician carried out the checks and the
aircraft was good to go. But the airline wanted confirmation and flew
out its own technican to re-inspect it.
The further delay caused by the re-inspection was held not to be extraordinary. And it exceeded the three-hour limit set in previous
case law.
Ah, I have read it differently - the airline "won" in getting a birdstrike accepted as extraordinary.
Yes, that's right.
They also won because the greater part of the delay was due to the bird strike and the initial safety inspection and that time was subtracted
from the total delay which resulted in a delay of less than 3 hours.
Not according to the Norton Rose link above. It seems there was an
initial technical inspection unrelated to the bird strike. Neither that
nor the wait for the second technician counted as extraordinary.
<quote>
The Court draws a distinction between matters which are "internal" to
the airline, and which are therefore "inherent", and those which have
some external or extraneous cause, and are therefore not "inherent".
[....]
Although in Peskova the airline was successful on the "extraordinary circumstance" principle, it still lost the case on the particular facts
of this case. This was because the ECJ found that the original
inspection of the aircraft was carried out by a duly authorised
technician, and that therefore the delay waiting for the second
technician was caused not by the extraordinary circumstance but by a new
event which was not extraordinary. Accordingly, the delay caused by the
wait for the second technician could not be regarded as extraordinary
which meant that ****with the initial technical issue the total delay attributable to non-extraordinary circumstances was greater than 3
hours,**** so compensation was payable.
<end quote, emphasis added>
AIUI, the bird strike was extraordinary, but neither the initial
technical issue nor the wait for the second technician were.
So, added together, the initial technical issue and the wait for the
second technician exceeded the 3 hour limit.
[Snipped lots of timing details from the OP's case, which I've not
studied and so can't comment as to whether the above understanding of
Peskova would make any difference. It might, e.g. if the crew rostering
issues were "internal" to the airline and therefore not
"extraordinary".]
My battle is over unless I win the lottery and can take it to the small claims court :)
The idea of the small claims track is that neither side should have to
pay lottery-win sums. If Easyjet thought they wouldn't be able to claim
the costs they incurred, even if they won, it might direct their minds
towards settlement.
However, there is no "small claims court" as such. You would need to
request that the court deal with your claim on the *small claims track*,
and ensure that the court accepted this if Easyjet resisted it.
--
Tim Jackson
news@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)