The problem with pesky dom flights during slot restrictions is that within three hours of releasing one of these birds to the provinces, it expects another darned slot to accept the inbound. Okay, I am being fictitious but uber short haul services are slot intensive and when slot restrictions are in place, as is often the case at LHR during periods of adverse weather it is understandable BA analyses the risks and mitigates potential disruption. This usually means domestic and CDG/BRU/DUS etc are first in line for the chop. It is ironic that this discussion reared its head again now as this week BA has actively been plying wide bodied aircraft between LHR and EDI/MAN which has been the saviour of many who otherwise might still be stranded.
Originally Posted by
Jenbel
Ok, let's put it another way.
This is a cancellation which happened to me.
Waiting to fly BD MAN-GLA for a do, and the plane went tech. However the MAN-EDI flight was due to depart at the same time so they transferred us onto that flight, and got us GLA within the required 2 hours of not being late. All good so far, even if a FTer ended up having to arrange the taxis on behalf of BD but details.
However, if BD had chosen to use the plane for MAN-GLA and cancel the EDI flight instead, they would have been due the EDI cancellation compensation, because for operational reasons, they had chosen to reinstate the GLA flight but use the EDI plane for it. That's entirely an operational cancellation, not a tech cancellation.
When the airline is responsible for chosing what flights to cancel to best suit its own operational necessities, it is chosing to inconvenience some pax at the expense of protecting others. As such, in my opinion, comp is due. I can see the alternative argument, but I don't see why an airline should chose to cancel flight A, with all the consequent issues inconveniences and potential costs for the pax on flight A to protect flight B pax, without compensating the pax on flight A for that decision.
I suspect it would take a court ruling to decide this though - it can be argued both ways reasonably.
I don't happen to share this view. If adverse weather is the root cause, BA and other airlines are required to take operational decisions to mitigate the disruption felt by its customers. It is quite wrong that any carrier face penalty for undertaking this.