THE BOTTOM LINE
- The knock-on effect of an initial “extraordinary” delay, such as an Air Traffic Control (ATC) restriction, can shield an airline from liability for subsequent delays in a flight rotation.
- Airlines can successfully defend against compensation claims for missed airport curfews if they can prove the curfew would have been met but for the initial extraordinary event.
- Detailed operational logs are critical. The court meticulously analyzed each minute of delay to isolate extraordinary causes from routine operational issues, ultimately determining the root cause of the missed curfew.
THE DETAILS
In a case with significant implications for airline operations and passenger rights, a Dutch court ruled in favor of EasyJet, denying passenger compensation for a flight delayed overnight due to a missed curfew at Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport. The passengers on a flight from Edinburgh to Amsterdam experienced a significant delay when their flight was postponed to the next day. They argued for compensation under EU Regulation 261/2004. The airline contended that the situation was caused by a chain reaction of delays earlier in the day, creating an “extraordinary circumstance” beyond its control.
The court’s decision hinged on a detailed, minute-by-minute analysis of the aircraft’s entire daily rotation, which included six separate flights. The initial delay originated on the first flight of the day, which was held back for 43 minutes by an ATC instruction—a classic example of an extraordinary circumstance. The court then tracked this delay through the subsequent flights, carefully distinguishing the original ATC delay from minor, subsequent operational delays (such as for “Special Assistance”) which are considered inherent to an airline’s normal activities.
The crucial part of the court’s reasoning was a “but for” test. The flight was scheduled to land at 20:20 UTC, and the Schiphol night curfew began at 21:00 UTC. The court calculated that if the initial 43-minute, extraordinary ATC-related delay were removed from the equation, the accumulated operational delays would have caused the flight to land at 20:44 UTC. This was 16 minutes before the curfew. Therefore, the court concluded that the missed curfew, and the resulting lengthy delay, were a direct consequence of the initial extraordinary circumstance. Because the airline also proved it took all reasonable measures to mitigate the situation, the compensation claim was dismissed.
SOURCE
Source: Rechtbank Noord-Holland
