Originally Posted by
corporate-wage-slave
Thanks for putting that online, it will be extremely useful to FTers and lurkers. Paragraphs 9 and 10 are particularly interesting and so anyone claiming needs to emphasise the multiple points raised there, including the fact that BA didn't try hard enough to keep their passengers on time. This "didn't try hard enough" goes right back to why EC261 came about, in the context of low cost carriers' modus vivendi in that period of time.
Sorry to drag this back up, but I can’t understand why BA are fighting so hard on issues with the Trent 1000 - surely these are just effectively billed back to RR en masse? Or have RR already reached their liability cap on this? Has BA already agreed liability from RR based on estimates of what the total cost of compensation etc will be, in which case every claim BA deny is pure profit? Or even worse, under BAs responsibility to mitigate its losses, does this include fighting every claim? Surely their total overhead for the back and forth is more than the payout?