Originally Posted by
Bukhara
The affected services (hitherto known as the 'Gatwick 5') are clearly cancelled flights. I don't think anybody has a problem with that.
Article 5 of EU Reg says that BA should offer assistance as per Article 8 (namely reimbursement, rerouting etc).
Article 5 goes further to state that BA should offer assistance as per Article 9 (accommodation, transport etc).
Article 5 then goes into compensation territory whereby BA should offer assistance as per Article 7.
This all applies UNLESS :
(i) they are informed of the cancellation at least two
weeks before the scheduled time of departure
The Krakow Titan substitution and the poor FTer who received a shockingly bad response from BA after an Algiers debacle are the sorts of cases where people should be waving this EU Regulation in BA's face - not for route withdrawals with over 4 months notice.
Let's find some common ground here- it's easier than some may suspect. I hope you agree with the following:
1) The EU regulations make provisions for cancelled etc flights. These, as
Bukhara clarifies above, are mostly intended to offer protection for last-minute cock-ups. Since there is no BA service to the destination, rerouting provisions may or may not cover you.
2) BA will not be interested in proactively doing anything for you, apart from giving you a refund and telling you to go forth and multiply. They won't do it automatically, and they won't do it if you call once and ask nicely.
3) However,
the above statements do not mean that BA is free to do anything it wishes and not pay any compensation as long as it gives 2 weeks' notice. Much as is the case with mistake fares, BA have accepted consideration for transportation and they are subject to the law of contract.
If their CoC say they can cancel at will, it's an UCTA (Unfair Contract Terms Act) violation and the term just doesn't apply.
If, as it appears here, they also happen have a clear policy of walking out of contracts when they feel like it (as long as they give 2 wks notice) while not allowing their pax to do so, then there's a systematic approach to violating the UCTA provisions.
4) My understanding of the law is that you shouldn't have any problems proving point 3) in court. And I do have a feeling that BA may actually feel compelled to act and save on legal costs by paying the price of your Icelandair ticket if you send them a nice letter pointing out the above.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I'd contact your Citizens Advice Bureau (or go to the legalbanter forum) to double-check above points.