EU compensation - fire alarm at the Flight Crew's hotelIntra-EU flight cancelled <48 hours from departure, should you be able to ask for rebooking onto a different airline?During long on-train delays, what (if anything) should EU long distance operators be doing?How do I get compensation for a delayed flight?Flight compensationEU Air Passenger Rights for connecting flightHow can I verify if an airline is telling the truth about the reason for the flight's delay, in the context of EU delay compensation?Eligibility for a compensation under EC/261Flight compensation with agentFlight delay compensation under EC 261/2004 for a multi-leg trip on European carrier

Abilities interrupting effects on a cast card

Delete empty subfolders, keep parent folder

Which version of the Pigeonhole principle is correct? One is far stronger than the other

Is this adjustment to the Lucky feat underpowered?

What's the purpose of autocorrelation?

How long to wait to change jobs after closing on a home

Problem of Induction: Dissolved

Amiga 500 OCS/ECS vs Mega Drive VDP

How to convey to the people around me that I want to disengage myself from constant giving?

Inquiry answerer

The Google Earth Challenge: "A dangerous flower"

In Bb5 systems against the Sicilian, why does White exchange their b5 bishop without playing a6?

What's the benefit of prohibiting the use of techniques/language constructs that have not been taught?

Is the name of an interval between two notes unique and absolute?

Carroll's interpretation of 1-forms

Microservices and Stored Procedures

Compare FEM mesh with the mesh created within Mathematica

Is it possible that the shadow of The Moon is a single dot during solar eclipse?

All numbers in a 5x5 Minesweeper grid

Why is belonging not transitive?

With a 500GB SSD and a 250GB SSD is it possible to mirror a 250GB partition on the 500GB with the 250GB SSD using ZFS?

What to do as a player when ranger animal companion dies

Why would a fighter use the afterburner and air brakes at the same time?

Madrid to London w/ Expired 90/180 days stay as US citizen



EU compensation - fire alarm at the Flight Crew's hotel


Intra-EU flight cancelled <48 hours from departure, should you be able to ask for rebooking onto a different airline?During long on-train delays, what (if anything) should EU long distance operators be doing?How do I get compensation for a delayed flight?Flight compensationEU Air Passenger Rights for connecting flightHow can I verify if an airline is telling the truth about the reason for the flight's delay, in the context of EU delay compensation?Eligibility for a compensation under EC/261Flight compensation with agentFlight delay compensation under EC 261/2004 for a multi-leg trip on European carrier






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








9















I was on-board an afternoon flight from the EU, into the United States earlier last month.



This flight was delayed by about 3 hours, 30 minutes.



As this flight was delayed for over 3 hours, without any explanation provided to me, I contacted the Airline seeking compensation under EC Regulation 261/2004.



I've gotten a response back from them today, explaining that I'm not entitled to compensation as there was a fire alarm at the crew's hotel.

I assume this is the night before.



Is this a valid Extraordinary Circumstances exception under the EU 261/2004 Regulation?










share|improve this question





















  • 1





    You got the usual answer. This is normal. Just insist, but do not lose too much time. Prepare documentation for country authority. By insisting, you get from 10% to 60% probabilities to get compensation. With country authority you get 95% They just try to discourage people on valid cases.

    – Giacomo Catenazzi
    7 hours ago






  • 1





    Did the ground crew or flight crew truly not say anything about the reason for the delay? Regardless, you are entitled to evidence from the airline establishing that there really was an alarm and an explanation of why it delayed the flight. Do not believe anything they tell you unless it is supported by evidence from another source, preferably from a public authority like the fire department. As the article in Henning Makholm's answer points out, they have to give you the evidence to avoid paying the compensation; they can't get out of it just by making unsupported claims.

    – phoog
    7 hours ago


















9















I was on-board an afternoon flight from the EU, into the United States earlier last month.



This flight was delayed by about 3 hours, 30 minutes.



As this flight was delayed for over 3 hours, without any explanation provided to me, I contacted the Airline seeking compensation under EC Regulation 261/2004.



I've gotten a response back from them today, explaining that I'm not entitled to compensation as there was a fire alarm at the crew's hotel.

I assume this is the night before.



Is this a valid Extraordinary Circumstances exception under the EU 261/2004 Regulation?










share|improve this question





















  • 1





    You got the usual answer. This is normal. Just insist, but do not lose too much time. Prepare documentation for country authority. By insisting, you get from 10% to 60% probabilities to get compensation. With country authority you get 95% They just try to discourage people on valid cases.

    – Giacomo Catenazzi
    7 hours ago






  • 1





    Did the ground crew or flight crew truly not say anything about the reason for the delay? Regardless, you are entitled to evidence from the airline establishing that there really was an alarm and an explanation of why it delayed the flight. Do not believe anything they tell you unless it is supported by evidence from another source, preferably from a public authority like the fire department. As the article in Henning Makholm's answer points out, they have to give you the evidence to avoid paying the compensation; they can't get out of it just by making unsupported claims.

    – phoog
    7 hours ago














9












9








9








I was on-board an afternoon flight from the EU, into the United States earlier last month.



This flight was delayed by about 3 hours, 30 minutes.



As this flight was delayed for over 3 hours, without any explanation provided to me, I contacted the Airline seeking compensation under EC Regulation 261/2004.



I've gotten a response back from them today, explaining that I'm not entitled to compensation as there was a fire alarm at the crew's hotel.

I assume this is the night before.



Is this a valid Extraordinary Circumstances exception under the EU 261/2004 Regulation?










share|improve this question
















I was on-board an afternoon flight from the EU, into the United States earlier last month.



This flight was delayed by about 3 hours, 30 minutes.



As this flight was delayed for over 3 hours, without any explanation provided to me, I contacted the Airline seeking compensation under EC Regulation 261/2004.



I've gotten a response back from them today, explaining that I'm not entitled to compensation as there was a fire alarm at the crew's hotel.

I assume this is the night before.



Is this a valid Extraordinary Circumstances exception under the EU 261/2004 Regulation?







eu delays ec261 comepenstation






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 8 hours ago









Uciebila

3,4561 gold badge14 silver badges35 bronze badges




3,4561 gold badge14 silver badges35 bronze badges










asked 8 hours ago









PaddezPaddez

6945 silver badges11 bronze badges




6945 silver badges11 bronze badges










  • 1





    You got the usual answer. This is normal. Just insist, but do not lose too much time. Prepare documentation for country authority. By insisting, you get from 10% to 60% probabilities to get compensation. With country authority you get 95% They just try to discourage people on valid cases.

    – Giacomo Catenazzi
    7 hours ago






  • 1





    Did the ground crew or flight crew truly not say anything about the reason for the delay? Regardless, you are entitled to evidence from the airline establishing that there really was an alarm and an explanation of why it delayed the flight. Do not believe anything they tell you unless it is supported by evidence from another source, preferably from a public authority like the fire department. As the article in Henning Makholm's answer points out, they have to give you the evidence to avoid paying the compensation; they can't get out of it just by making unsupported claims.

    – phoog
    7 hours ago













  • 1





    You got the usual answer. This is normal. Just insist, but do not lose too much time. Prepare documentation for country authority. By insisting, you get from 10% to 60% probabilities to get compensation. With country authority you get 95% They just try to discourage people on valid cases.

    – Giacomo Catenazzi
    7 hours ago






  • 1





    Did the ground crew or flight crew truly not say anything about the reason for the delay? Regardless, you are entitled to evidence from the airline establishing that there really was an alarm and an explanation of why it delayed the flight. Do not believe anything they tell you unless it is supported by evidence from another source, preferably from a public authority like the fire department. As the article in Henning Makholm's answer points out, they have to give you the evidence to avoid paying the compensation; they can't get out of it just by making unsupported claims.

    – phoog
    7 hours ago








1




1





You got the usual answer. This is normal. Just insist, but do not lose too much time. Prepare documentation for country authority. By insisting, you get from 10% to 60% probabilities to get compensation. With country authority you get 95% They just try to discourage people on valid cases.

– Giacomo Catenazzi
7 hours ago





You got the usual answer. This is normal. Just insist, but do not lose too much time. Prepare documentation for country authority. By insisting, you get from 10% to 60% probabilities to get compensation. With country authority you get 95% They just try to discourage people on valid cases.

– Giacomo Catenazzi
7 hours ago




1




1





Did the ground crew or flight crew truly not say anything about the reason for the delay? Regardless, you are entitled to evidence from the airline establishing that there really was an alarm and an explanation of why it delayed the flight. Do not believe anything they tell you unless it is supported by evidence from another source, preferably from a public authority like the fire department. As the article in Henning Makholm's answer points out, they have to give you the evidence to avoid paying the compensation; they can't get out of it just by making unsupported claims.

– phoog
7 hours ago






Did the ground crew or flight crew truly not say anything about the reason for the delay? Regardless, you are entitled to evidence from the airline establishing that there really was an alarm and an explanation of why it delayed the flight. Do not believe anything they tell you unless it is supported by evidence from another source, preferably from a public authority like the fire department. As the article in Henning Makholm's answer points out, they have to give you the evidence to avoid paying the compensation; they can't get out of it just by making unsupported claims.

– phoog
7 hours ago











2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















5
















The courts (up to and including the European Court of Justice, which has the final say) have followed a slightly zig-zagging course in interpreting the "extraordinary circumstances" concept, so it is not possible to predict with 100% certainty how they'd deal with a case such as this where there's no explicit precedent. The best one can say is that the ECJ tends to be pretty consumer-friendly in its application of 261/2004 -- but that is not a guarantee.



Originally it appears that "extraordinary circumstances" were intended to speak about Eyjafjallajökull-level calamities that might bankrupt even a well-run airline if they had to compensate for everything. Over time, airlines have gotten away with applying it rather more broadly than that, but the general trend is in your favor. For example, it has been decided that random equipment failures that delay one particular flight/aircraft is not an extraordinary circumstance but a risk of doing business that the airline ought to factor into their fares.



Here's a write-up from a law firm specializing in these claims that looks like a good overview of the binding precedent that exists.



Now, assuming that you are entitled to compensation in your situation, you may have to sue (or make a credible threat to sue) the airline to collect on it. In principle you can ask the relevant National Enforcement Body for an intervention, but in practice they're pretty toothless when the airline is set on refusing compensation. So you might as well lawyer up now if you want to take this further.



There are many legal agencies that specialize in compensation claims on a no-cure-no-pay basis. You might want to start by seeing if any of them will take your case. If they find it too complex or uncertain for them, you'll have to engage an ordinary practicing lawyer, which could become rather more expensive than the compensation you're after, especially if you lose. In some countries it's common for home insurances to provide legal cover that might be applicable to your situation; typically the lawyer will deal with the insurance for you.






share|improve this answer



























  • The article you link to suggests to me that the fire alarm would constitute an extraordinary circumstance, since it's not "inherent in the normal exercise of activity," but that the passenger is entitled to and should request evidence supporting the claim that there was a fire alarm and an explanation of why a fire alarm at that time delayed the crew.

    – phoog
    7 hours ago


















1
















As a crewmember, I can explain why is this "extraordinary circumstances".



Crewmembers, especially flight deck crew, while on duty (this includes the time they spent at a destination) is controlled by many rules when it comes to "rest", how long they need to sleep and when can they drink alcohol, etc. Even rules regarding diving and skydiving are controlled as it might affect the crew health.



However, if the crew did not get the minimum required rest before a flight (usually 8-12 hrs of pure rest) they are considered "NOT LEGAL" to fly, as their performance might bot be optimum and might cause a catastrophe, especially if the flight is a long haul flight (EU to US for example).



Lack of sleep, can lead to something known in the aviation as "unsafe level of fatigue" which is known to be the reason of many incidents and accidents. Therefore, many countries including the US and all of the EU and many other parts of the world have very strict rules when it comes to crew fatigue, this is called "fatigue risk management".



I know that it seems "silly" to passengers who were delayed for a couple of hours, but flight crew are usually under a great stress when flying and they are responsible for the lives of hundreds of passengers, they know that so they will never take a chance to operate a heavy machinery while on an unsafe level of fatigue.



Back to your case, this has happened to me personally, you are sleeping at your room, it's 03:00 after midnight and you have a pickup at 08:00 in the morning, some guest in the hotel decides to smoke, fire alarms goes off, speakers all over the hotel ask the guests to leave the hotel, fire trucks arrive, etc. etc., the whole process will take anything from 1 hour to 2 hours.



The crew goes back to the room, can't get back to sleep, they call the crew control/flight operations and report fatigue, the crew control calculates the rest required and informs the crew, the passengers usually gets informed if the delay is significant and you know the rest of the story.



This is only happens if the crew are spending a night somewhere away from their base, if this happened at a crew base then some other crew will cover the flight.



Now, is this considered an "extraordinary circumstance"? my opinion: YES it is!



Who to blame? well, the guy who smoked? a faulty smoke detector? but for sure not the airline as they were simply ensuring the safety of the passengers.






share|improve this answer



























  • It's also possible that the crew were simply prohibited from packing their things up and going to the airport if there's a fire alarm around, say, an hour before they're scheduled to check out.

    – phoog
    1 hour ago











  • I don't think "Who to blame" is a very useful question to ask when considering whether circumstances are extraordinary or not. For example, it is settled that a bird strike is not an extraordinary circumstance, and there definitely isn't anyone to blame for that.

    – Henning Makholm
    1 hour ago











  • @phoog a friend of mine spent the whole night outside the hotel because there was a real fire, the flight was cancelled the next day because the crew literally didn't get a minute of sleep.

    – Nean Der Thal
    1 hour ago











  • @HenningMakholm hence "my opinion".

    – Nean Der Thal
    1 hour ago











  • @NeanDerThal I don't doubt it. But being unable to get your stuff out of your room because of a fire during breakfast would also delay a flight without crew rest rules being involved.

    – phoog
    1 hour ago













Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "273"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);














draft saved

draft discarded
















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftravel.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f146904%2feu-compensation-fire-alarm-at-the-flight-crews-hotel%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









5
















The courts (up to and including the European Court of Justice, which has the final say) have followed a slightly zig-zagging course in interpreting the "extraordinary circumstances" concept, so it is not possible to predict with 100% certainty how they'd deal with a case such as this where there's no explicit precedent. The best one can say is that the ECJ tends to be pretty consumer-friendly in its application of 261/2004 -- but that is not a guarantee.



Originally it appears that "extraordinary circumstances" were intended to speak about Eyjafjallajökull-level calamities that might bankrupt even a well-run airline if they had to compensate for everything. Over time, airlines have gotten away with applying it rather more broadly than that, but the general trend is in your favor. For example, it has been decided that random equipment failures that delay one particular flight/aircraft is not an extraordinary circumstance but a risk of doing business that the airline ought to factor into their fares.



Here's a write-up from a law firm specializing in these claims that looks like a good overview of the binding precedent that exists.



Now, assuming that you are entitled to compensation in your situation, you may have to sue (or make a credible threat to sue) the airline to collect on it. In principle you can ask the relevant National Enforcement Body for an intervention, but in practice they're pretty toothless when the airline is set on refusing compensation. So you might as well lawyer up now if you want to take this further.



There are many legal agencies that specialize in compensation claims on a no-cure-no-pay basis. You might want to start by seeing if any of them will take your case. If they find it too complex or uncertain for them, you'll have to engage an ordinary practicing lawyer, which could become rather more expensive than the compensation you're after, especially if you lose. In some countries it's common for home insurances to provide legal cover that might be applicable to your situation; typically the lawyer will deal with the insurance for you.






share|improve this answer



























  • The article you link to suggests to me that the fire alarm would constitute an extraordinary circumstance, since it's not "inherent in the normal exercise of activity," but that the passenger is entitled to and should request evidence supporting the claim that there was a fire alarm and an explanation of why a fire alarm at that time delayed the crew.

    – phoog
    7 hours ago















5
















The courts (up to and including the European Court of Justice, which has the final say) have followed a slightly zig-zagging course in interpreting the "extraordinary circumstances" concept, so it is not possible to predict with 100% certainty how they'd deal with a case such as this where there's no explicit precedent. The best one can say is that the ECJ tends to be pretty consumer-friendly in its application of 261/2004 -- but that is not a guarantee.



Originally it appears that "extraordinary circumstances" were intended to speak about Eyjafjallajökull-level calamities that might bankrupt even a well-run airline if they had to compensate for everything. Over time, airlines have gotten away with applying it rather more broadly than that, but the general trend is in your favor. For example, it has been decided that random equipment failures that delay one particular flight/aircraft is not an extraordinary circumstance but a risk of doing business that the airline ought to factor into their fares.



Here's a write-up from a law firm specializing in these claims that looks like a good overview of the binding precedent that exists.



Now, assuming that you are entitled to compensation in your situation, you may have to sue (or make a credible threat to sue) the airline to collect on it. In principle you can ask the relevant National Enforcement Body for an intervention, but in practice they're pretty toothless when the airline is set on refusing compensation. So you might as well lawyer up now if you want to take this further.



There are many legal agencies that specialize in compensation claims on a no-cure-no-pay basis. You might want to start by seeing if any of them will take your case. If they find it too complex or uncertain for them, you'll have to engage an ordinary practicing lawyer, which could become rather more expensive than the compensation you're after, especially if you lose. In some countries it's common for home insurances to provide legal cover that might be applicable to your situation; typically the lawyer will deal with the insurance for you.






share|improve this answer



























  • The article you link to suggests to me that the fire alarm would constitute an extraordinary circumstance, since it's not "inherent in the normal exercise of activity," but that the passenger is entitled to and should request evidence supporting the claim that there was a fire alarm and an explanation of why a fire alarm at that time delayed the crew.

    – phoog
    7 hours ago













5














5










5









The courts (up to and including the European Court of Justice, which has the final say) have followed a slightly zig-zagging course in interpreting the "extraordinary circumstances" concept, so it is not possible to predict with 100% certainty how they'd deal with a case such as this where there's no explicit precedent. The best one can say is that the ECJ tends to be pretty consumer-friendly in its application of 261/2004 -- but that is not a guarantee.



Originally it appears that "extraordinary circumstances" were intended to speak about Eyjafjallajökull-level calamities that might bankrupt even a well-run airline if they had to compensate for everything. Over time, airlines have gotten away with applying it rather more broadly than that, but the general trend is in your favor. For example, it has been decided that random equipment failures that delay one particular flight/aircraft is not an extraordinary circumstance but a risk of doing business that the airline ought to factor into their fares.



Here's a write-up from a law firm specializing in these claims that looks like a good overview of the binding precedent that exists.



Now, assuming that you are entitled to compensation in your situation, you may have to sue (or make a credible threat to sue) the airline to collect on it. In principle you can ask the relevant National Enforcement Body for an intervention, but in practice they're pretty toothless when the airline is set on refusing compensation. So you might as well lawyer up now if you want to take this further.



There are many legal agencies that specialize in compensation claims on a no-cure-no-pay basis. You might want to start by seeing if any of them will take your case. If they find it too complex or uncertain for them, you'll have to engage an ordinary practicing lawyer, which could become rather more expensive than the compensation you're after, especially if you lose. In some countries it's common for home insurances to provide legal cover that might be applicable to your situation; typically the lawyer will deal with the insurance for you.






share|improve this answer















The courts (up to and including the European Court of Justice, which has the final say) have followed a slightly zig-zagging course in interpreting the "extraordinary circumstances" concept, so it is not possible to predict with 100% certainty how they'd deal with a case such as this where there's no explicit precedent. The best one can say is that the ECJ tends to be pretty consumer-friendly in its application of 261/2004 -- but that is not a guarantee.



Originally it appears that "extraordinary circumstances" were intended to speak about Eyjafjallajökull-level calamities that might bankrupt even a well-run airline if they had to compensate for everything. Over time, airlines have gotten away with applying it rather more broadly than that, but the general trend is in your favor. For example, it has been decided that random equipment failures that delay one particular flight/aircraft is not an extraordinary circumstance but a risk of doing business that the airline ought to factor into their fares.



Here's a write-up from a law firm specializing in these claims that looks like a good overview of the binding precedent that exists.



Now, assuming that you are entitled to compensation in your situation, you may have to sue (or make a credible threat to sue) the airline to collect on it. In principle you can ask the relevant National Enforcement Body for an intervention, but in practice they're pretty toothless when the airline is set on refusing compensation. So you might as well lawyer up now if you want to take this further.



There are many legal agencies that specialize in compensation claims on a no-cure-no-pay basis. You might want to start by seeing if any of them will take your case. If they find it too complex or uncertain for them, you'll have to engage an ordinary practicing lawyer, which could become rather more expensive than the compensation you're after, especially if you lose. In some countries it's common for home insurances to provide legal cover that might be applicable to your situation; typically the lawyer will deal with the insurance for you.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 7 hours ago

























answered 8 hours ago









Henning MakholmHenning Makholm

53k9 gold badges132 silver badges194 bronze badges




53k9 gold badges132 silver badges194 bronze badges















  • The article you link to suggests to me that the fire alarm would constitute an extraordinary circumstance, since it's not "inherent in the normal exercise of activity," but that the passenger is entitled to and should request evidence supporting the claim that there was a fire alarm and an explanation of why a fire alarm at that time delayed the crew.

    – phoog
    7 hours ago

















  • The article you link to suggests to me that the fire alarm would constitute an extraordinary circumstance, since it's not "inherent in the normal exercise of activity," but that the passenger is entitled to and should request evidence supporting the claim that there was a fire alarm and an explanation of why a fire alarm at that time delayed the crew.

    – phoog
    7 hours ago
















The article you link to suggests to me that the fire alarm would constitute an extraordinary circumstance, since it's not "inherent in the normal exercise of activity," but that the passenger is entitled to and should request evidence supporting the claim that there was a fire alarm and an explanation of why a fire alarm at that time delayed the crew.

– phoog
7 hours ago





The article you link to suggests to me that the fire alarm would constitute an extraordinary circumstance, since it's not "inherent in the normal exercise of activity," but that the passenger is entitled to and should request evidence supporting the claim that there was a fire alarm and an explanation of why a fire alarm at that time delayed the crew.

– phoog
7 hours ago













1
















As a crewmember, I can explain why is this "extraordinary circumstances".



Crewmembers, especially flight deck crew, while on duty (this includes the time they spent at a destination) is controlled by many rules when it comes to "rest", how long they need to sleep and when can they drink alcohol, etc. Even rules regarding diving and skydiving are controlled as it might affect the crew health.



However, if the crew did not get the minimum required rest before a flight (usually 8-12 hrs of pure rest) they are considered "NOT LEGAL" to fly, as their performance might bot be optimum and might cause a catastrophe, especially if the flight is a long haul flight (EU to US for example).



Lack of sleep, can lead to something known in the aviation as "unsafe level of fatigue" which is known to be the reason of many incidents and accidents. Therefore, many countries including the US and all of the EU and many other parts of the world have very strict rules when it comes to crew fatigue, this is called "fatigue risk management".



I know that it seems "silly" to passengers who were delayed for a couple of hours, but flight crew are usually under a great stress when flying and they are responsible for the lives of hundreds of passengers, they know that so they will never take a chance to operate a heavy machinery while on an unsafe level of fatigue.



Back to your case, this has happened to me personally, you are sleeping at your room, it's 03:00 after midnight and you have a pickup at 08:00 in the morning, some guest in the hotel decides to smoke, fire alarms goes off, speakers all over the hotel ask the guests to leave the hotel, fire trucks arrive, etc. etc., the whole process will take anything from 1 hour to 2 hours.



The crew goes back to the room, can't get back to sleep, they call the crew control/flight operations and report fatigue, the crew control calculates the rest required and informs the crew, the passengers usually gets informed if the delay is significant and you know the rest of the story.



This is only happens if the crew are spending a night somewhere away from their base, if this happened at a crew base then some other crew will cover the flight.



Now, is this considered an "extraordinary circumstance"? my opinion: YES it is!



Who to blame? well, the guy who smoked? a faulty smoke detector? but for sure not the airline as they were simply ensuring the safety of the passengers.






share|improve this answer



























  • It's also possible that the crew were simply prohibited from packing their things up and going to the airport if there's a fire alarm around, say, an hour before they're scheduled to check out.

    – phoog
    1 hour ago











  • I don't think "Who to blame" is a very useful question to ask when considering whether circumstances are extraordinary or not. For example, it is settled that a bird strike is not an extraordinary circumstance, and there definitely isn't anyone to blame for that.

    – Henning Makholm
    1 hour ago











  • @phoog a friend of mine spent the whole night outside the hotel because there was a real fire, the flight was cancelled the next day because the crew literally didn't get a minute of sleep.

    – Nean Der Thal
    1 hour ago











  • @HenningMakholm hence "my opinion".

    – Nean Der Thal
    1 hour ago











  • @NeanDerThal I don't doubt it. But being unable to get your stuff out of your room because of a fire during breakfast would also delay a flight without crew rest rules being involved.

    – phoog
    1 hour ago















1
















As a crewmember, I can explain why is this "extraordinary circumstances".



Crewmembers, especially flight deck crew, while on duty (this includes the time they spent at a destination) is controlled by many rules when it comes to "rest", how long they need to sleep and when can they drink alcohol, etc. Even rules regarding diving and skydiving are controlled as it might affect the crew health.



However, if the crew did not get the minimum required rest before a flight (usually 8-12 hrs of pure rest) they are considered "NOT LEGAL" to fly, as their performance might bot be optimum and might cause a catastrophe, especially if the flight is a long haul flight (EU to US for example).



Lack of sleep, can lead to something known in the aviation as "unsafe level of fatigue" which is known to be the reason of many incidents and accidents. Therefore, many countries including the US and all of the EU and many other parts of the world have very strict rules when it comes to crew fatigue, this is called "fatigue risk management".



I know that it seems "silly" to passengers who were delayed for a couple of hours, but flight crew are usually under a great stress when flying and they are responsible for the lives of hundreds of passengers, they know that so they will never take a chance to operate a heavy machinery while on an unsafe level of fatigue.



Back to your case, this has happened to me personally, you are sleeping at your room, it's 03:00 after midnight and you have a pickup at 08:00 in the morning, some guest in the hotel decides to smoke, fire alarms goes off, speakers all over the hotel ask the guests to leave the hotel, fire trucks arrive, etc. etc., the whole process will take anything from 1 hour to 2 hours.



The crew goes back to the room, can't get back to sleep, they call the crew control/flight operations and report fatigue, the crew control calculates the rest required and informs the crew, the passengers usually gets informed if the delay is significant and you know the rest of the story.



This is only happens if the crew are spending a night somewhere away from their base, if this happened at a crew base then some other crew will cover the flight.



Now, is this considered an "extraordinary circumstance"? my opinion: YES it is!



Who to blame? well, the guy who smoked? a faulty smoke detector? but for sure not the airline as they were simply ensuring the safety of the passengers.






share|improve this answer



























  • It's also possible that the crew were simply prohibited from packing their things up and going to the airport if there's a fire alarm around, say, an hour before they're scheduled to check out.

    – phoog
    1 hour ago











  • I don't think "Who to blame" is a very useful question to ask when considering whether circumstances are extraordinary or not. For example, it is settled that a bird strike is not an extraordinary circumstance, and there definitely isn't anyone to blame for that.

    – Henning Makholm
    1 hour ago











  • @phoog a friend of mine spent the whole night outside the hotel because there was a real fire, the flight was cancelled the next day because the crew literally didn't get a minute of sleep.

    – Nean Der Thal
    1 hour ago











  • @HenningMakholm hence "my opinion".

    – Nean Der Thal
    1 hour ago











  • @NeanDerThal I don't doubt it. But being unable to get your stuff out of your room because of a fire during breakfast would also delay a flight without crew rest rules being involved.

    – phoog
    1 hour ago













1














1










1









As a crewmember, I can explain why is this "extraordinary circumstances".



Crewmembers, especially flight deck crew, while on duty (this includes the time they spent at a destination) is controlled by many rules when it comes to "rest", how long they need to sleep and when can they drink alcohol, etc. Even rules regarding diving and skydiving are controlled as it might affect the crew health.



However, if the crew did not get the minimum required rest before a flight (usually 8-12 hrs of pure rest) they are considered "NOT LEGAL" to fly, as their performance might bot be optimum and might cause a catastrophe, especially if the flight is a long haul flight (EU to US for example).



Lack of sleep, can lead to something known in the aviation as "unsafe level of fatigue" which is known to be the reason of many incidents and accidents. Therefore, many countries including the US and all of the EU and many other parts of the world have very strict rules when it comes to crew fatigue, this is called "fatigue risk management".



I know that it seems "silly" to passengers who were delayed for a couple of hours, but flight crew are usually under a great stress when flying and they are responsible for the lives of hundreds of passengers, they know that so they will never take a chance to operate a heavy machinery while on an unsafe level of fatigue.



Back to your case, this has happened to me personally, you are sleeping at your room, it's 03:00 after midnight and you have a pickup at 08:00 in the morning, some guest in the hotel decides to smoke, fire alarms goes off, speakers all over the hotel ask the guests to leave the hotel, fire trucks arrive, etc. etc., the whole process will take anything from 1 hour to 2 hours.



The crew goes back to the room, can't get back to sleep, they call the crew control/flight operations and report fatigue, the crew control calculates the rest required and informs the crew, the passengers usually gets informed if the delay is significant and you know the rest of the story.



This is only happens if the crew are spending a night somewhere away from their base, if this happened at a crew base then some other crew will cover the flight.



Now, is this considered an "extraordinary circumstance"? my opinion: YES it is!



Who to blame? well, the guy who smoked? a faulty smoke detector? but for sure not the airline as they were simply ensuring the safety of the passengers.






share|improve this answer















As a crewmember, I can explain why is this "extraordinary circumstances".



Crewmembers, especially flight deck crew, while on duty (this includes the time they spent at a destination) is controlled by many rules when it comes to "rest", how long they need to sleep and when can they drink alcohol, etc. Even rules regarding diving and skydiving are controlled as it might affect the crew health.



However, if the crew did not get the minimum required rest before a flight (usually 8-12 hrs of pure rest) they are considered "NOT LEGAL" to fly, as their performance might bot be optimum and might cause a catastrophe, especially if the flight is a long haul flight (EU to US for example).



Lack of sleep, can lead to something known in the aviation as "unsafe level of fatigue" which is known to be the reason of many incidents and accidents. Therefore, many countries including the US and all of the EU and many other parts of the world have very strict rules when it comes to crew fatigue, this is called "fatigue risk management".



I know that it seems "silly" to passengers who were delayed for a couple of hours, but flight crew are usually under a great stress when flying and they are responsible for the lives of hundreds of passengers, they know that so they will never take a chance to operate a heavy machinery while on an unsafe level of fatigue.



Back to your case, this has happened to me personally, you are sleeping at your room, it's 03:00 after midnight and you have a pickup at 08:00 in the morning, some guest in the hotel decides to smoke, fire alarms goes off, speakers all over the hotel ask the guests to leave the hotel, fire trucks arrive, etc. etc., the whole process will take anything from 1 hour to 2 hours.



The crew goes back to the room, can't get back to sleep, they call the crew control/flight operations and report fatigue, the crew control calculates the rest required and informs the crew, the passengers usually gets informed if the delay is significant and you know the rest of the story.



This is only happens if the crew are spending a night somewhere away from their base, if this happened at a crew base then some other crew will cover the flight.



Now, is this considered an "extraordinary circumstance"? my opinion: YES it is!



Who to blame? well, the guy who smoked? a faulty smoke detector? but for sure not the airline as they were simply ensuring the safety of the passengers.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 1 hour ago

























answered 2 hours ago









Nean Der ThalNean Der Thal

71.9k28 gold badges269 silver badges370 bronze badges




71.9k28 gold badges269 silver badges370 bronze badges















  • It's also possible that the crew were simply prohibited from packing their things up and going to the airport if there's a fire alarm around, say, an hour before they're scheduled to check out.

    – phoog
    1 hour ago











  • I don't think "Who to blame" is a very useful question to ask when considering whether circumstances are extraordinary or not. For example, it is settled that a bird strike is not an extraordinary circumstance, and there definitely isn't anyone to blame for that.

    – Henning Makholm
    1 hour ago











  • @phoog a friend of mine spent the whole night outside the hotel because there was a real fire, the flight was cancelled the next day because the crew literally didn't get a minute of sleep.

    – Nean Der Thal
    1 hour ago











  • @HenningMakholm hence "my opinion".

    – Nean Der Thal
    1 hour ago











  • @NeanDerThal I don't doubt it. But being unable to get your stuff out of your room because of a fire during breakfast would also delay a flight without crew rest rules being involved.

    – phoog
    1 hour ago

















  • It's also possible that the crew were simply prohibited from packing their things up and going to the airport if there's a fire alarm around, say, an hour before they're scheduled to check out.

    – phoog
    1 hour ago











  • I don't think "Who to blame" is a very useful question to ask when considering whether circumstances are extraordinary or not. For example, it is settled that a bird strike is not an extraordinary circumstance, and there definitely isn't anyone to blame for that.

    – Henning Makholm
    1 hour ago











  • @phoog a friend of mine spent the whole night outside the hotel because there was a real fire, the flight was cancelled the next day because the crew literally didn't get a minute of sleep.

    – Nean Der Thal
    1 hour ago











  • @HenningMakholm hence "my opinion".

    – Nean Der Thal
    1 hour ago











  • @NeanDerThal I don't doubt it. But being unable to get your stuff out of your room because of a fire during breakfast would also delay a flight without crew rest rules being involved.

    – phoog
    1 hour ago
















It's also possible that the crew were simply prohibited from packing their things up and going to the airport if there's a fire alarm around, say, an hour before they're scheduled to check out.

– phoog
1 hour ago





It's also possible that the crew were simply prohibited from packing their things up and going to the airport if there's a fire alarm around, say, an hour before they're scheduled to check out.

– phoog
1 hour ago













I don't think "Who to blame" is a very useful question to ask when considering whether circumstances are extraordinary or not. For example, it is settled that a bird strike is not an extraordinary circumstance, and there definitely isn't anyone to blame for that.

– Henning Makholm
1 hour ago





I don't think "Who to blame" is a very useful question to ask when considering whether circumstances are extraordinary or not. For example, it is settled that a bird strike is not an extraordinary circumstance, and there definitely isn't anyone to blame for that.

– Henning Makholm
1 hour ago













@phoog a friend of mine spent the whole night outside the hotel because there was a real fire, the flight was cancelled the next day because the crew literally didn't get a minute of sleep.

– Nean Der Thal
1 hour ago





@phoog a friend of mine spent the whole night outside the hotel because there was a real fire, the flight was cancelled the next day because the crew literally didn't get a minute of sleep.

– Nean Der Thal
1 hour ago













@HenningMakholm hence "my opinion".

– Nean Der Thal
1 hour ago





@HenningMakholm hence "my opinion".

– Nean Der Thal
1 hour ago













@NeanDerThal I don't doubt it. But being unable to get your stuff out of your room because of a fire during breakfast would also delay a flight without crew rest rules being involved.

– phoog
1 hour ago





@NeanDerThal I don't doubt it. But being unable to get your stuff out of your room because of a fire during breakfast would also delay a flight without crew rest rules being involved.

– phoog
1 hour ago


















draft saved

draft discarded















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Travel Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftravel.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f146904%2feu-compensation-fire-alarm-at-the-flight-crews-hotel%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

François Viète Contents Biography Work and thought Bibliography See also Notes Further reading External links Navigation menup. 21Google Bookspp. 75–77Google BooksDe thou (from University of Saint Andrews)ArchivedGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle booksGoogle Bookscc-parthenay.frL'histoire universelle (fr)Universal History (en)ArchivedAdsabs.harvard.eduPagesperso-orange.frArchive.orgChikara Sasaki. Descartes' mathematical thought p.259Google BooksGoogle BooksGoogle Bookspp. 152 and onwardGoogle BooksGoogle BooksScribd.comGoogle Books1257-7979Google BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGallica.bnf.frGoogle BooksGoogle Books"François Viète"Francois Viète: Father of Modern Algebraic NotationThe Lawyer and the GamblerAbout TarporleySite de Jean-Paul GuichardL'algèbre nouvelle"About the Harmonicon"cb120511976(data)1188044800000 0001 0913 5903n82164680ola2013766880073431702w6vt1sb70287374827140948071409480