paul4040

1. [*]

Disagree. BA were implementing a contingency plan because it was not known that GIB would be operational, and they did their best to get you to your destination. I agree with David-A's earlier post.

corporate-wage-slave

EC/261 does not yet apply to Gibraltar, as per article 1.3. See the main EC/261 thread for slightly more information, post 6.

henkybaby

Why ? The flight originated in the EU and was operated by an EU carrier.

simons1

See article 1 Point 3 of the act.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-conte...lex:32004R0261

David-A

There are some aspects which apply, and some which don't. It is not quite a straight forward thing at present. You can not read that text at face value, as there are some agreements which have been notfiied to the comission that give the affect of that not applying. Additionally exclusion of the airport, would not exclude the airline, nor would it exclude inbound flights from covered airports.

However all EU carriers are covered, hence all scheduled departures from GIB are currently covered (with the exception of Royal Air Maroc flying Gibraltar-Tangiers), hence BA are covered.
And in this case it was a departure from LHR anyway, so it is doubly covered.

ukgooner

I am sorry this is still on your mind some 5 years later.

I agree with others, that weather was clearly the factor and they implemented their plan (coaches) instead of waiting. The length of the delay at your final destination and the fact the other two airlines decided to wait is immaterial.

The law here is very straightforward - was the delay outside the control of the airline? - not 'was the delay caused by a poor choice of remedial action as a consequence of the original delay'. The court will look at what BA could have reasonably done, and given their experience on this route, it wasn't unreasonable to go to the bus plan.

Nothing has changed since you filed your original complaint and while you might be more confident now about taking small claims action, I don't think its healthy fretting about legal interpretation of 'fault' after all this time. If the fog hadn't in fact cleared and the other airlines were forced to follow BAs example you would be feeling highly grateful that they executed their plan promptly. While you say the other elements in your original post are not important any more, I sense you still believe you should have had better / differentiated treatment (eg a taxi) as a 'premium' passenger, the delay itself is less material and are still trying to make your point. Please let it go.

Kgmm77

This case would appear to be on the margin and on face value you have fallen foul of BA IRROPS modus operandi of prioritising its future timetable over already affected passengers (ie getting aircraft back to its next turn rather than providing the best outcome to the already delayed flight yet causing extended rolling delays to future flights by that aircraft and crew).

It would be nice to think if an airline is consistently more rubbish at IRROPS than its competitors that this would count in a court judgment, but there is always the risk that a court sees bad weather and stops reading at that point.

HIDDY

I am still of the opinion you're looking for things to blame BA for the delay in getting you to your destination. One could say I'm looking for things not to blame BA for right enough.

5 years have past and it's clearly still bothering you so I think you need to get it out of your system one way or another.

hugolover

I take a different tack of course. I think you should issue your claim and see what happens. The initial costs to litigate are very small (£35) and with the system the way it is you may as well use is to your advantage (because thats what the law is there for-BA certainly know that) and BA will probably capitulate especially now the Euro the way it is and the cost of the claim. €600 is only £425.

I'd do it as a matter of curiosity and as it still bothers you your maximum court fee liability (£55) is still quite small indeed and its extremely unlikely you would need to pay BA's costs. I would struggle to understand how this claim would cost BA less than £425 to defend in any case.

You have probably already "wasted" more of your valuable money-earning time than the cost to claim so just get on with it .

corporate-wage-slave

Ah, this is news to me, my understanding being that until the 1987 aviation zoning agreement between Britain and Spain is agreed (and it is apparently moribund due to wider sovereignty issues) then EC/261 isn't in force in respect of Gibraltar. Do you have any more specifics about this? (e.g related to the Commission?).

henkybaby

Interesting that Gibraltar airport provides this information (without excluding or including them) : http://www.gibraltarairport.gi/your-passenger-rights

IANAL but does this help ?

ACARS

GIB is well known to become enveloped in sea fog, have it clear, only to become re enveloped in it just as fast (think JER). So with that in mind would you wish to have been kept on an aircraft, finally got airborne, overtaken the BA busses, only to have to re-divert again to AGP? I can see why BA made the descision they did and how it turning out too be a bright and sunny afternoon made them look perhaps a little silly, but either way on the one time it happened to me it never took 4 1/2 hours to re-arrive at GIB on the coach. Were they taking the toll road or that back lanes?

corporate-wage-slave

Yes, thanks for the link, that was a well known vote (part of the silly trench warfare between the Rock and its neighbour). I haven't be able to trace the referral to the Council or Commission. Due to the elections in the UK / Commission refresh, I would be surprised if this has been enacted at this stage, hence my query up thread, since I was under the impression that 1.3 is still in place.

henkybaby

I have done some more research and I believe it still is.

source: https://www.gov.uk/government/speech...il-9-june-2015

Although I can't figure out if it makes a difference if the airline that operates is EU based, since for instance Singapore also isn't part of the EU etc..

corporate-wage-slave

I'm not sure this is good for your health you know! It's kind of my job to keep on top of this and my take is that government process (of any description) is rarely a scintillating read! The slightly longer version is that EC/261 is due for a total rewrite, the Gibraltar clause has been replaced in committee work for that Regulation, but I suspect we are many years away from seeing this replacement Regulation being enacted.