Originally Posted by
corporate-wage-slave
I came across this blog, which is both interesting (as an able bodied person) and I suspect very useful to
ellie_nz. It provides a lot of lines of approach that can be followed up. I suspect the writer is a FT contributor too.
Kiran's Blog - Heathrow
An additional point: I mentioned above how EU261 may not apply, but it occurred to me that in fact there are a number of clauses in it stressing the needs of those with reduced mobility. Seeing how the law works in other areas, this typically drastically lowers the bar on any defence BA may invoke. I can see they just about fulfilled section 11.2 below, but failed on clause 11.1. Firstly in not responding adequately for the plea for a wheelchair close to departure, and secondly letting the aircraft depart knowing that a wheelchair passenger would be shortly getting to the gate.
I believe my question about the 48 hours notice would impact under the category of reasonable excuse, which is why I am keen for ellie_nz to clarify it, so she can understand how likely a claim is to succeed. The requirement is set, I believe, by Heathrow and is a potential get out due to 'lack of capacity, i.e. they need the notice period to plan resources.' (Please don't flame me for writing this, I don't necessarily agree with it, just trying to see both sides.)
It seems to me that
1) If she gave 48 hours notice, then it is difficult to see how the failure is extraordinary circumstances, beyond BA's reasonable precautions to ensure the pax is not offloaded
2) If she did not give 48 hours, then I think BA could reasonably say they are not prosaic and cannot be held responsible for things they cannot predict, although they will try to assist
As to whether the 48 hours is reasonable, that is another matter and I am not passing comment on that.