\n<\/p>\n
The recent closure of Heathrow Airport due to a power outage earlier this year was a timely reminder to the industry about what the closure of one airport can have for any aircraft trying to reach its destination.<\/p>\n
All airports have diversion policies in place when an incident occurs. When a fire occurred at an electricity substation near the airport \u2013 Heathrow Airport would have implemented its aircraft diversion procedures as soon as the extent of the fire and its impact became apparent. Plan 39 as it is known, would have been invoked by the National Air Traffic (NATS)<\/a> Terminal Control \u2013 as soon as an unexpected event occurred \u2013 which could lead to multiple diversions. Plan 39 outlines the number, type and Airlines which each airport has agreed to pre-authorise and accept and which might be diverted without any further consultation. Any additional diversions are then coordinated between the AODM and ATC.<\/p>\n There were 120 flights in the air when Heathrow put Plan 39 into operation. Some of the flights were able to turn around and were returned to their point of origin. Some of the diverted aircraft were able to land in nearby Gatwick and slightly further afield in Cardiff. Other aircraft were a little unluckier and ended up in Shannon, Ireland and Charles de Galle airport in France.<\/p>\n For passengers flying out of the UK or coming into the UK from the EU, Iceland, Norway or Switzerland, there are clear routes to compensation against carriers. For the carriers affected by events at Heathrow, matters are not as clear cut.<\/p>\n Most contracts with airports and terminals will contain force majeure clauses<\/a>. In English Law, this is not a standalone doctrine. It is determined by express contract clauses. Standard force majeure clauses excuse or suspend the performance of a contract for the duration of an event \u2013 when an event beyond the parties control severely hinders performance or renders performance impossible. If there is no force majeure clause in the contract \u2013 then the parties have to fall back on the legal doctrine of frustration.<\/p>\n If there is a force majeure clause \u2013 then its wording needs to be interpreted very carefully. Many clauses will list specific trigger events like war or embargoes and then include a more generic phrase or a catch-all phrase like \u201dto any other event beyond a party\u2019s reasonable control\u201d English courts interpret these clauses very strictly and spend time focused on the precise wording of the clause as well as its commercial context.\u00a0 There is a difference drawn between the impossibility of performing a contract and mere financial convenience. It can be difficult to bring an event within a force majeure clause unless the wording of the clause is very specific.<\/p>\n The events at Heathrow should encourage parties to look very carefully at the exact wording of any force majeure clause in their contracts, rather than assume that events automatically fall into the contractual clause.<\/p>\n Don\u2019t wait for disruption to test your contracts. Speak to our Aviation Law specialists about safeguarding your operations. Get in touch with us at\u00a0online.enquiries@LA-law.com<\/a>\u00a0or speak to our\u00a0Aviation team<\/a>\u00a0directly.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\nThe Impact on Airlines and Passengers<\/h2>\n
Force Majeure Clauses<\/h2>\n
Key Takeaways for Aviation Contracts<\/h2>\n