hugolover

GIB or no GIB I think the OP would probably get his cash.

David-A

1987 is never going to happen, and it would be legally impossible for it to be implemented.

Cordoba tri-partitie agreement was signed, and Spain accepted under the terms of that agreement that Cordoba implementation would substitute for 1987 agreement with regard to existing legislation, and that Spain would stop seeking the exclusion of Gibraltar from that point going forward.

This agreement was notified to commission. (I can't find a source on line, but it happened). So the commision was notified of the acceptance that spain would stop seeking Gibraltar exclusion on new measures AND that Cordoba implementation would substitute for 1987 implementation.

However now it gets messier, before all the bits of Cordoba are implemented, there is a change of Spanish government, who say they want to rip up the agreement. However it continues to exist as a signed agreement.

Spain begins to seek the exclusion of Gibraltar again.
However the necessary cordoba works are largely completed - save for those entirely within the gift of Spain and located entirely on her soil.

As such, there is a legal argument you can run that the signed agreements stand in the form: not applicable until 1987 implemented, notified Cordoba states Cordoba implementation will substitute for 1987, Cordoba has been implemented (in so far as the airport is concerned - the works in Spain are practicalities), as such the clauses that suspend the application to Gibraltar should be no longer be in effect.

Now, the annoying thing is that this happened while the commission were still sitting on the fence. (they have since got off the fence and told spain to improve the flow at the land border - this getting off the fence was a surprise to Spain!)

It is a line of legal argument, it should now be in effect for Gibraltar airport. The 2004 text was never going to need changing, it just needed the terms to trigger application to come into effect. You can argue this has happened.

The danger with the new text was that it would be newer than, and trump Cordoba.

If the airline is EU based, it applies.
Hence the only Gibraltar scheduled flight it is relevant for is currently GIB-TNG opperated by RAM. (It would not apply TNG-GIB, as RAM is not EU carrier).

Also this flight is EX LHR so the application to Gibraltar is irrelevant.

I disagree with that phrasing. What actions on the part of Gibraltar do you regard as silly?

corporate-wage-slave

I don't think I said that. I think it is silly that two members of the EU and NATO can't resolve their differences about an area which is also in the EU and NATO.

Unless I'm much mistaken I don't think HMG believes EC/261 has been updated, nor does the Commission, and I can't trace a reference to Council - but where I would agree with you is that what a judge would rule is not something I could be sure about. And certainly if you come across some specifics about this, please let us know.

David-A

Oh yes that is silly, it's also silly Spain - a NATO ally - refuels russian warships - but you said:
Which I don't consider to be a fair or appropriate statement.

As it suggests Gibraltar has been engaged in 'silly' actions of trench warefare. Hence me asking which actions you considered silly.

I'm not talking about it being updated. It has conditional clauses, so it is a question of whether the conditions are now satisfied.

The commission has not taken a view on that argument.

The UK has not stated that it disagrees with this view (that I have outlined above). However it is not, as yet, one she has actively pursued by statement (there are a wide variety of reasons for this)
But in practice she would agree it remains on the table as a logical adoption of position.

Events have been very much caught up in the replacement of 2004/261.

However 261 does not itself need replacement or amending to trigger application to Gibraltar.

Getting its sucessor correct is far more important, and - given all bar the TNG flights - all flights are to other EU airports that are in scope, and operated by carriers that are in scope, it is less urgent to run with this argument. (Other factors as well).

However NOBODY has said anything that contradicts the line of argument that it is in effect. All the commission language is about 'suspended until' - they very clearly do NOT state that the conditions are NOT met, they just state the conditions.

hugolover

This political discussion is entirely OT here.

If the applicability of GIB is in doubt due to the clause in the Regulation it has no baring on the OPs ability to bring a claim (irrespective of the merits of it) in my view. As David-A says is an ex-EU flight on an EU carrier TO GIB. Perhaps the applicability is in doubt on flights FROM GIB but I highly doubt an airline like BA would raise a point of law on this matter in defending a claim.

To the OP, go ahead and make your claim and report back on the outcome please.

NFH

Thanks very much for all the useful replies above. I have since sought advice from a consumer solicitor (at no marginal cost to me) and was told the following:

1. The exclusion of GIB from EU261/2004 does not apply in this case because it was nevertheless an EU airline departing from an EU airport. The exclusion of GIB would apply only to non-EU airlines departing from GIB, as suggested by others above.
2. EU261/2004 makes several references to "extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken". Given that two other flights, which had been similarly diverted to AGP, did take reasonable measures and reached GIB without a delay above 2 hours, it suggests that BA did not take reasonable measures and so the extraordinary circumstances (i.e. weather) defence would fail.

I will ask BA again for the €600 compensation and report back here.

HIDDY

That's assuming your consumer solicitor knows what they're talking about in the first place.

Best of luck anyway.

paul4040

Good point. This is a fairly niche area of law.

It's like trying to find a solicitor who specialises in defending people who have fallen foul of the Railway Byelaws.

I wouldn't trust a solicitor who cost me nothing (even via my employee helpline at work) as far as I could throw them, especially on such a specialised subject.

Anyway, no need for a solicitor. Just MCOL them and be done with it! I suspect it won't get as far as court.

ukgooner

I hate opportunistic court action based on 'it might cost them more to defend than to pay'. There has to be some consequence for these types of actions.

simons1

You could always use one of the specialists like Bott & Co or delay.me.

Jimmie76

If you ever come to a Do I'm at I'll tell you a few stories about getting to and from ACK. At least getting to and from GIB which I'm doing this month, can be done by land if needed.

liamvad

I went BA to GIB last November,whilst walking down the ramp onto the aircraft another passenger said to me: 'You know this is only going to Malaga???',and NO I did not know,never heard any announcements,nothing,so I went back to the people who had just checked my boarding pass,and asked if this was correct.they said yes it was,we would be bussed from Malaga, to GIB,well,as i only had a few hours in GIB before coming back,this was a suprise to me,they said it was due to poor visibility at GIB,and guess what,the radar was out of action,now why is the radar always out?Is this not also an RAF base? do the apes keep messing with the radar?Anyway,several people decided not to go,so it took an hour to offload their bags,the Captain came out and said that it was his every intention to land at GIB,if he could see the runway he would land,so we took off 75 minutes late,by the time we got near to GIB the weather had cleared,and we landed at GIB....hooray.....the Captain also admitted that the boarding of his flight had not been handled correctly by ground staff,don't know what he meant by that,but I was so grateful we got to GIB....^

NFH

I didn't say that the solicitor cost me nothing; I said that it was at no marginal cost to me. I pay a fixed periodic charge for unlimited legal advice from specialist consumer solicitors. EU261/2004 is one of the many consumer issues that they are particularly knowledgeable about.

I have spoken to BA, and the relevant team is looking into the matter again.

scottishpoet

Had you not taken off 75minutes late I wonder if the weather would have cleared by the time you got there

NFH

BA have responded with a very standard reply that does not mention any of the facts of the matter:
I will therefore send a letter before action followed by a claim in the small claims track of the County Court.

Where is a good source of the scheduled and actual times of the Monarch and Easyjet flights on the same date? I will need to include this information in my particulars of claim.