Originally Posted by
baileysserpant
so if you lose are they going to come after you for the costs?!! My firm wouldn’t but this is Cruz BA
There's a tiny chance. My case highlights several failings. To summarise;
My long haul flight was cancelled on the 787 2-3 days before departure at the end of August.
1) BA cite unexpected safety shortcomings. Yet cite the airworthiness directive from rolls Royce in their defence that 90% of inspected engines would fail inspection. Two engines 1/10 chance of pass squared is 1 in 100 chance of both engines passing. Hardly unexpected.
2) the compliance time of the AD was set at a fixed number of cycles, therefore fairly easy to forecast when the above inspection was likely due and could therefore be planned for .
3) there was an appeal case Jonas munius and ors v Jet2 that sought to define hidden manufacturing defect. Two of the criteria were not met in this instance. Essentially how long can an airline claim something is hidden as HMD can't be used as an indefinite black box response. In this case four and a half months lapsed since the AD so unlikely to be hidden. It also found that it had to immediately impinge on flight safety, as there was a complaince time of flight cycles, BA would have to prove it was removed from service on the cusp of the AD compliance time otherwise the aircraft is deemed safe to fly.
4) back to post 1252 or thereabouts, CEDR found the response to be lacking in terms of cover for flights and their preparedness for cancellation. BA arguing that wet leasing is hard during the summer months due to demand but I counter with the fact that they've wet leased only one plane during the whole 787 fiasco.
I have a few more minor points to argue. I fully appreciate safety is the most important, but I do draw the line at being notified 2-3 days prior to departure when it was near certainty that the aircraft would fail inspections and could therefore be planned. Given my case has a asis based on various failings it's not a vindictive or retributory case.
I'd urge others to use my line of reasoning because BA use extraordinary circumstances as this black box excuse. Remember BA will be seeking compensation from RR so all you're doing in getting what you're entitled to.