Originally Posted by
corporate-wage-slave
Thanks for reverting back, since we are starting to see a pattern emerging from CEDR here - namely that they take on board extraordinary circumstances but then apply the further additional tests that CJEU and other appellate courts have reinforced in recent (and not so recent) rulings. This may help others in their claims. However the caveat is that common to all 3 cases upthread is the suggestion that BA didn't present sufficient evidence to support their arguments, which may be something they will focus on in the future. Admittedly proving something extraordinary happened is much easier than the additional tests (such as inherent, could not be avoided, all reasonable measures).
I did ask BA for the reasons for the turnround delay but they couldn't/wouldn't reveal them,so giving me the impression that there was more to it. They did supply copious notes on the day's activity for the aircraft however. One thing that CEDR did jump on-as did I, was the fact that BA used the phrase "just after" referring to the runway closure when that was actually referring to a time interval of over 2 hours.