Mechanical Failure - extraordinary?

[medhead]

Hi All

It seems that IB have cancelled a intra-europe flight on my brother. As an EU-resident he gets the privilege of certain rules about compensation for various airline type things, such as delays and cancellations. These rules seem to set certain fixed amounts of compensation on top of the usual thing about getting the person onto another flight. But compensation isn't the point of this question, just providing this information there as a background.

The real point to canvass views on the advice provided by the airline. In particular:

Regulation EC 261/2004 of the European Parliament lays down common rules for air carriers which regulate assistance to be offered and compensation payable to passengers in the case of delays or cancellations. The Regulation exonerates air carriers from any liabilities when these delays or cancellations are owing to extraordinary or unavoidable causes which are beyond the control of the carrier, as occurred in your case.

Your flight was cancelled owing to a mechanical failure that could have affected the safety of the aircraft that was to cover the route. As it was impossible to repair the problem immediately we were obliged to cancel the flight. Within the available alternatives, we provided you with the fastest possible means of reaching your destination.

There advice is a bit backwards, basically (it seems) the flight was cancelled due to a mechanical failure and they are claiming that this is an extraordinary or unavoidable situation.

It is difficult for me to accept this line of reasoning. The airline is entirely able to control unexpected mechanical failures by schedule of the operation and maintainance of the aircraft. I guess it seems to me that mechanical failure is an unexpected occurrence, rather than extraordinary or unavoidable. I'd put the classic insurance policy "acts of god" into the category of extraordinary or unavoidable.

Anyway, I'm very interested in your opinions and thoughts. I'll welcome having my thought process corrected if necessary.

 

[serfty]

How much notice did he have?

www.flightmole.com

Airline Passenger Rights & Compensation, Cancelled & Delayed Flight Claims, Lost Airline Luggage Refund, European Flight Compensation

• EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES

 

[medhead]

How much notice did he have?

I'm really not sure. I probably can't find out until later tonight. At a guess, it was probably short notice, probably when checking in. As he would have had a 3 hour drive from rural spain to MAD to get the flight.

He only forwarded the response from the airline and asked my opinion.

Thanks for the web links i'll check those out. It'll be good to see what the official situation is, rather than my dodgy thoughts.

 

[johnomg]

G'day medhead

I read your post with interest and hopefully I can shed some light on the mindset of the airline in relation to the mechanical breakdown of the flight.

Firstly, I'm not an Aircraft Engineer nor am I involved with Airlines in anyway.

However I do have a Mechanical Engineering background and have dealt with Preventative Maintenance, Scheduled Maintenance, Predictive Maintenance etc... Programs for more years than I care to remember.

The information you have been given is poorly worded (maybe a standard form letter???) The word to focus on is "unavoidable" not "extraordinary" and even then I think it's a poor word to use with customers.

No matter how diligent your Maintenance Routines are there will always be some Mechanical, Electrical etc... part that gives up the ghost before it is suppose to.

For example: A part is tested (or monitored) to the Nth degree, it's failure time noted and after numerous similar tests or monitoring a "Life Cycle" is determined, say 100,000 cycles for this example. Depending on your industry and the consequences of a failure a Replacement Time is assigned to the part, say 80,000 cycles.

The maintenance people replace the part every 80,000 cycles and for years, decades or forever it's not an issue, there are no early failures. But then that's not life, there is always the chance that no matter how diligent you are in your maintenance routines or how well your life cycle time was calculated that something will fail earlier.

In other words they did everything they could to ensure the part didn't fail while it was being used, but it did so they class it as "unavoidable". Personally I would have used "unexpected" instead when sending a letter to customers, but I understand the meaning behind "unavoidable" when they use it in this context.

Impossible to repair immediately just means it's a big job no matter how many people or resources you throw into it. It reminds me of a time when a Manager wanted me to get every person available to fix a machine, the fact was that physically only 2 people could fit into the working space, having 10 others standing around staring at them wasn't going to make the job go any faster.

Hope that sheds some light on how they probably intended the phrase "unavoidable" to be taken. As I said it's not well worded for customers.

Fingers crossed for your Brother getting everything sorted without too much hassle.

Regards
John

 

[medhead]

Thanks Johnomg I think you've outlined exactly what I was thinking with my reference to unexpected. Having read the info on flightmole provided by Serfty, I've realised that this is almost completely wrong. Before getting to the details on that, I would just say that I don't see unavoidable as being the same as unexpected. The mechanical failure at 79,999 cycles is avoidable if the set the replacement timeframe based on 3SD instead of 2SD. So early failures are unexpected but technically are not unavoidable. But of course, the problem becomes the cost of avoidance. (this is really the discussion I hoped for with this thread)

But anyway, all that is academic, because the quite normal real world situation you've outlined has been filtered by lawyers. So the terms unavoidable and extraordinary have almost no relationship to the real world in this case. BTW these words are used because that is what is actaully in the EU legislation - not possible to blame the airline for poor word choice.

Having read about extraordinary circumstances on flightmole.com, my head hurts. But it seems that the mechanical failure is not a reason by itself, the airline has to show why that means they couldn't fly the pax. So the next step for my brother is to ask for the airlines outline of the extraordinary circumstance.

I still didn't ask the timeframe for being informed of the cancellation. But he was put on a flight the next day, on the way to rural Spain via MAD. This meant missing a car ride with a friend and hence having to rent a car. So probably worth asking compensation. Personally, I find the whole rule saying EU are entitled to compensation regardless of the actual cost, clouds the issue a bit.

Thanks everyone.

 

[johnomg]

Your welcome medhead

I purposely tried to keep my example simple (maybe too much so), as you said there is a lot more to it than that, cost being the biggest issue higher up the management chain.

I've been in meetings and hauled over the coals for a breakdown which cost the company money, then the next week I've been in a meeting and hauled over the coals for spending too much money on maintenance. It eventually all comes down to the almighty dollar and that dictates company/maintenance policies.

I've worked for and know of companies that flog machinery to death and wouldn't spend a cent until production actually stopped, even then you had to swear on your first born's life that you weren't going overboard with the repair costs.

On the other hand I have worked for and know of companies that throw money into maintenance like there is no tomorrow, the potential cost of a stoppage outweighs the cost of maintenance (most times). However they still have breakdowns because you can't forsee everything.

In the Airline Industry and for that matter most companies it's a balancing act between the 2 extremes, if they perform more maintenace and replace parts earlier then someone has to bear the cost, in the end it is the Consumer.

An extremely naive example is:
- Airline A replaces parts at 50,000 cycles and charges $1,500 for a flight
- Airline B replaces parts at 80,000 cycles and charges $1,000 for a flight
- Who would most Consumers choose to fly with???
The sad fact is that the majority of the Travelling Public would probably choose Airline B because of the cost saving. A has to compete with B so lowers their standards and before we know it someone is summing up Operational Costs against a Plane dropping out of the Sky

Would I be peeved off at a breakdown delaying my holiday? for sure. Would I be peeved off if the Airline decided "ah, she'll be right mate" and flew? for sure. Would my Family be peeved off if a Aeroplane I was on crashed because someone decided to cut costs to compete? I would hope so, but the wife knows how much I'm worth dead so I won't speak for her and the future toy boy she will find.

As you can probably tell I have strong opinions on the subject of Maintenance, but this isn't the Forum or Site to go into it any further than I already have.

My apologises, I wrongly assumed your Quote was from something the Airline gave your brother as an explanation for cancelling the flight. As you said the Lawyers probably got at the wording. Then again their Interpretation of what they meant when they wrote it probably differs greatly from the Interpretation a Consumer would have when reading it. I'm pretty sure what they meant counts more than what we "think" they mean.

Hopefully your brother gets compensation in some form.

Regards
John

 

[medhead]

I guess my comments weren't really aimed at the full ins and outs of maintainance. just to step back at a big level - if there is a mechanical failure is there something that the airline could have done to prevent that failure. in some case, the simple answer is yes, they could replace things more often. There may very well be a very reasonable reason that they don't, but that doesn't change the fact that they could. If they could do something then it is not unavoidable. But anyway, this is really just meaningless semantics - much like lawyer stuff.

The basic thing is that the website seems to make it clear that the airline needs to show more than just there was a mechnical failure.

On what i quoted, yes that is from the airline to my brother, but the airline is quoting from the regulation.

Thanks for the insight to maintainance - will be very helpful for my job

 

[johnomg]

No problem medhead

I knew you were talking from the Big Picture point of view and I agree with all you have said in that context. However I'm pretty sure their policy, comments or whatever are based on the Nitty Gritty point of view, then the Lawyers get involved and use words that no-one can be held accountable to because they are so ambiguous.

If I was the Maintenance Manager and had to "prove" it was an "unavoidable" breakdown to a Customer I would do this (keeping in mind my Job would have to be on the line to go this far):
- Present the paperwork for each part replaced successfully before it failed
- I would go back as far as I could, a decade or more if possible
- Not just for this particular Plane, but every similar plane in the fleet
- Then I would present the "Certified Life Cycle" of the part
- Then I would present the Recommended Replacement time
- Next our Replacement Time and the proof it was done
- Etc...etc...
Basically I would drown whoever in paperwork and if I was really mean I would ask to have "reasonable costs" to collate and copy all the information requested reimbursed to the company first.

In reality I would probably just do the first three things on the list, with enough records I could probably get a "failure outside of planned replacement" rate of less than 1%, maybe even lower. Once the Legal Boffins put their spin on it by adding in every other Airlines statistics then we easily reach a conclusion of "unavoidable" by their definition of the term.

That's the good thing about Figures, if your in control of them and how they are presented you could prove the Earth is Flat and that Donald Duck is a Bird Flu carrier

All that said I would still ask for compensation, if they take Customer Service seriously they should at least offer something as a token of Goodwill.

Regards
John

 

[serfty]

I like the example on the flightmole site:

Let us look at an extraordinary event and then see when it becomes plain ordinary and how an airline responds to these events.

Colin the 20m troll as an extraordinary circumstance and technical problem

If a 20 meter tall troll named Colin descended upon Copenhagen airport and took a bite out of the wing on an SAS Airbus then just about everybody would agree that this is an extraordinary circumstance

Colin, in his own extraordinary way, has brought about a technical problem with the aircraft.

If Colin gained the habit of visiting Copenhagen airport every Thursday afternoon at 4pm this starts to become less extraordinary and just plain ordinary and predictable.

 

[medhead]

As Serfty has quoted, the flightmole information makes it clear that the question extends a long way past mean times to failure (that type of thing). I also like that example.

So in the case that various paperwork is presented to show that the failure rate is less than 1 %, it seems that the airline still has to show why this means they couldn't still transport the pax as per the original flight times. There are so many factors that get into, but a couple mentioned are subsituting with another aircraft from the airline, or even an aircraft from another airline :shock:

Hence, I realise that thinking along practical lines in real world situations, is really only a small part of this complex legal situation in the EU. I can appreciate what the EU seems to be trying to do, but I'm not sure I agree with these rules.

 

[johnomg]

G'day serfty

I like that example too, it covers the transition from "extraordinary" to "predictable" as well as "unavoidable" to "avoidable".

I read the full article and my initial impression of the Regulation (and it's wording as they described it) is WOW!!! :shock:

Can of worms to say the least, especially if it's a Local Carrier on a continent you don't live on and it has to be heard in their Country.

Regards
John

 

[johnomg]

G'day medhead

Saw your post just after I submitted mine.

The Paperwork just has to show they took "reasonable" steps to avoid the situation. I think the Flight Mole site mentioned that, haven't looked back though.

Of course who defines "reasonable"??? Another seperate argument altogether there.

Just from our short discussion here it is obvious (to me at least) that the EU Regulation is at the best "unclearly worded" and at the worst "unclearly worded".

Clear as Mud springs to mind

Regards
John


P.S.
Do let us know if your Brother got some compensation

 

[medhead]

P.S.
Do let us know if your Brother got some compensation

Just resaw this thread and remembered the PS. My Brother was recently back in Australia and we discussed this briefly, he has sent Iberian a letter of demand. Unfortunately, I might have also slightly disagreed with the brother on this matter (hence the brief (and perhaps intense) discussion). So, I'm sorry to say that I might not get any details on the outcome.

 

[johnomg]

Bummer, sorry to hear that medhead

On the bright side, if it's an Older Brother then the chances are that he might have to ask you for a Kidney first


Regards
John

 

[serfty]

A final decision Yesterday in the UK supreme court to deny JET2 and Thompson airlines any further appeal in a case relating to EU261/2004 has the effect of confirming the a mechanical fault in an aircraft that causes passenger delays cannot be consider "Extraordinary Circumstances".

Flight delay compensation; Pay TV; retailers in administration - The Supreme Court

Floodgates open as Supreme Court blocks Jet2 and Thomson appeals

Supreme Court Refuses Appeal in Huzar V Jet 2 & Dawson V Thomson Cases

A bit of history on the Huzar case. Ronald Huzar, 58, was delayed 27 hours flying home from Malaga and claimed compensation from Jet2 under EU261/2004. Jet2 claimed technical fault on Manchester flight was 'unforeseeable', citing 'extraordinary circumstances'. Huzar took Jet2 to court.

Jet2 'won' initially¹, then Jet2 'lost' on appeal by Huzar², then Jet2 'lost' on further appeal by Jet2³ and Jet2 made a further last ditch appeal to the High Court which is what this latest decision was about.

¹ Stockport County Court, June 2013
² Manchester County Court, October 2013
³ London Royal Courts of Justice, May 2014

 

[MEL_Traveller]

A final decision Yesterday in the UK supreme court to deny JET2 and Thompson airlines any further appeal in a case relating to EU261/2004 has the effect of confirming the a mechanical fault in an aircraft that causes passenger delays cannot be consider "Extraordinary Circumstances".

Flight delay compensation; Pay TV; retailers in administration - The Supreme Court

Floodgates open as Supreme Court blocks Jet2 and Thomson appeals

Supreme Court Refuses Appeal in Huzar V Jet 2 & Dawson V Thomson Cases

A bit of history on the Huzar case. Ronald Huzar, 58, was delayed 27 hours flying home from Malaga and claimed compensation from Jet3 under EU261/2004. Jet2.com claimed technical fault on Manchester flight was 'unforeseeable', citing 'extraordinary circumstances'. Huzar took Jet2 to court.

Jet2 'won' initially¹, then Jet2 'lost' on appeal by Huzar², then Jet2 'lost' on further appeal by Jet2³ and Jet2 made a further last ditch appeal to the High Court which is what this latest decision was about.

¹ Stockport County Court, June 2013
² Manchester County Court, October 2013
³ London Royal Courts of Justice, May 2014

Thanks for this.

Interesting, and I think the correct outcome under the current law as it stands.