Originally Posted by
baileysserpant
Has anyone had any luck challenging the 787 cancellations yet? I really do struggle to see this an extraordinary circumstance. BA have rejected my claim on the basis below;
In common with several other airlines around the world, we're carrying out additional inspections on our Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines, which are fitted to our Boeing 787 aircraft. This is in accordance with the instructions of the engine manufacturer in its long term maintenance and service programme, which all airlines must comply with.
The safety of our customers and crew is always our top priority and we would never operate an aircraft unless it was safe to do so.
As these flights have been cancelled due to operational reasons that are outside of our control, EU compensation is not payable.
The Boss of Boeing had even been quoted to say, its just a part is wearing quicker than originally anticipated and forms part of the long term maintenance of the engine. Having not grounded the fleet, I would be interested to hear people's views. Feel free to move the 787-9 thread if you think it needs to be. Cheers and Happy New Year. B
Hi baileysserpant,
Lets analyse what BA have said to you.
"In common with several other airlines around the world, we're carrying out additional inspections on our Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines, which are fitted to our Boeing 787 aircraft. This is in accordance with the instructions of the engine manufacturer in its long term maintenance and service programme, which all airlines must comply with."
It was made clear in Huzar, that following the manufacturers recommended maintenance procedures did not exempt the airline from having to paying compensation or constitute as an 'Extraordinary Circumstance'. Therefore this is not a valid excuse for BA.
"The safety of our customers and crew is always our top priority and we would never operate an aircraft unless it was safe to do so."
As would be expected from any airline. Again, not an excuse.
"As these flights have been cancelled due to operational reasons that are outside of our control, EU compensation is not payable."
BA are deliberately mis interpreting the regulations here (I'm being kind here). "Operational reasons" is not a valid reason (in the EC261 regulations) for any airline to be exempted from paying compensation. By asserting that EU compensation is not payable for the reason of operational reasons is not true, never has been and never will be. Operational reasons means that BA have decided to unilaterally take a certain course of action for reasons which suite them. It's just not valid excuse to withhold compensation.
The only possible exemption open to BA would be to claim that the reason for the problem was an 'extraordinary circumstance' but they have not even made that claim.
This is what the CAA say about EC's...
Examples of extraordinary circumstances
The main categories of events that are likely to be an extraordinary circumstance include:
- Acts of terrorism or sabotage
- Political or civil unrest
- Security risks
- Strikes (unrelated to the airline such as, airport staff, ground handlers, or air traffic control)
- Weather conditions incompatible with the safe operation of the flight
- Hidden manufacturing defects (a manufacturer recall that grounds a fleet of aircraft)
Notice what is missing in that list! Yes, no mention of Operational Reasons.
I don't know who BA think they are kidding with that excuse, but it has no place in the regulations or law. Make sure you don't fall for it.
However, imo, this is a case that would benefit from fast tracking to Liverpool or Leeds County Courts, where the experienced flight delay judges sit, as it is of some importance to both BA and many hundreds, if not thousands of passengers.