EasyJet: his plane lands in the wrong city, the company refuses to pay him the taxi


EasyJet: his plane lands in the wrong city, the company refuses to pay him the taxi< /p>

Imagine your plane lands in the wrong city and you pay for it. This is what happened to an EasyJet passenger.

Returning from her holiday in Tenerife, the passenger on a flight from the low-cost company EasyJet had a bad surprise. His plane landed at Luton City Airport instead of Gatwick City Airport. To return home, the client then had to pay for a taxi out of her own pocket. While she was forced to pay more than £240 in taxi costs to reach her home, the company refuses to reimburse her the costs.

According to her, the passengers of the plane had been warned of the change of destination. EasyJet warned during the flight that the plane would land in Luton because of air traffic control problems. The company had also planned to reimburse the costs incurred by this incident. However, customer service denied all complaints from affected passengers. The customer also explains that when she returned from her vacation, she hadn’t expected to spend so much extra money.

The passenger denounces the deplorable customer service of EasyJet

Once she arrived home, the passenger found herself in a delicate financial situation. She therefore decided to contact the customer service of the company in order to be reimbursed. However, she only got rejections. After several unsuccessful attempts, the Londoner decided to turn to the mediato publicly denounce the actions of the company. EasyJet reacted under pressure from the media: “Due to lack of availability, we were unable to land at Gatwick. We have therefore informed passengers that we will reimburse their transport costs. We would therefore like to apologize for the negative response this passenger received. We are currently in contact with her to process her refund request“. Following this response, the company claimed that the landing had been changed because the flight had been incorrectly listed. According to the passenger, this would only be an excuse to justify the refusal of compensation. According to the company, the thirty passengers waiting for answers have been reimbursed. The system has also been updated so that this type of refusal does not once again tarnish the image of customer service. What do you think of this case? Do you think the company would have reimbursed its customers without the help of the media?