NickB

In the case, the initial delay causes a misconnection. The late arrival at final destination was ultimately attributable to this original delay on BRE-CDG: the delay affected the whole of the journey. The person is affected differently from those whose final destination was CDG. The fact that the latter are not entitled to compensation because of the short delay does not mean that the person connecting should be subjected to the same regime.

This is a different situation from somebody whose last segment is delayed. That person is affected in exactly the same way as a person flying just LGW-GLA and, arguably, should be given the same kind of compensation. Imagine a slightly different situation, where the person has a deliberate few hours between flights in London to enable them to do some errands. They arrive on time in LGW from TPA, do their errands and return to the airport for their onward flight to GLA. Why should that person be compensated more than someone who just booked a LGW-GLA flight?

In other words, I can see a case for arguing that whether compensation is due and, if so, how much, should be calculated from the point where the delay arises to the final destination. If the itinerary is BRE-CDG-GRU-ASU and the delay occurs on BRE-CDG, the delay should be calculated on the basis of BRE...ASU. By contrast, on a TPA-LGW-GLA itinerary where the delay occurs on LGW-GLA, LGW...GLA should be the point of reference for calculation of the delay and the amount due. And if the itinerary was JFK-AMS-CDG-IST and the delay occured on AMS-CDG, the calculation should be based on AMS...IST.

But, as I said, I can also see a case for the opposite interpretation.

Centipede100

Perhaps the wording in Article 7.1 may be referred to so as to provide some guidance on this particular narrow point (my bolding):

Article 7

Right to compensation

1. Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall receive compensation amounting to:

(a) EUR 250 for all flights of 1500 kilometres or less;

(b) EUR 400 for all intra-Community flights of more than 1500 kilometres, and for all other flights between 1500 and 3500 kilometres;

(c) EUR 600 for all flights not falling under (a) or (b).

In determining the distance, the basis shall be the last destination at which the denial of boarding or cancellation will delay the passenger's arrival after the scheduled time.

I can see no reason why this point would not be used as the default position for delay compensation calculation as it would be for denied boarding or cancellation.

stifle

If that's the basis of the destination, what's the basis for the origin?

NickB

Indeed that is the question is it not? To build on Centipede100's post, perhaps we could translate the logic of the phrase he highlighted in Article 7 to require that the distance be calculated, as far as the origin is concerned, from the first segment in which the itinerary flown departs from the planned schedule, viz. LGW-GLA in our TPA-LGW-GLA example and BRE-CDG in the Folkerts example?

Dave Noble

I have trouble seeing how it can be anything other than

from location where flight delay occurs to "the destination on the ticket presented at the check-in counter or, in the case of directly connecting flights, the destination of the last flight"

oavsett

Hi,
what can I do here? Is there any use pursuing this any further?
The argument here is that the delay was caused by Air Traffic Control restrictions and therefore not the fault of BA.

The flights:
May 15, 2012. BA297 LHR-ORD delayed by 96 mins, missed our connection and didn't get rebooked til next morning
original connectiontime was 105 mins (same PNR), BA4918 ORD-LAS.
There was one later flight to LAS, but we couldn't get any seats.
In the end a delay of 14 hours at final destination.

BA's latest answer:
I have reviewed your claim for compensation and flight BA297 on 15 May 2012 is not eligible for EU Compensation.
As you are aware, Your flight was delayed for a total of 96 minutes. Air Traffic Control restrictions accounted for 73 minutes of the total delay.
The departure slot time we were allocated by Air Traffic Control was 15.55 GMT which was 80 minutes later than our planned time of departure of 14.35 GMT. The departure slot came forward as we eventually departed at 15.38 GMT.
Whilst the departure delay was 63 minutes, the arrival delay was 96 minutes in total. The flight took 33 minutes longer than our usual planned flight time. This extra delay can only be caused by Air Traffic Control as once we push back from the stand we are in the hands of Air Traffic Control until we arrive on stand at our destination.
Article 5.3 of the EU Regulation 261/2004 states that a carrier is not obliged to pay compensation if it can prove that the delay or cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. In Recital 14 and 15 of EU Regulation 261/2004, extraordinary circumstances include weather, strike and the impact of an air traffic management decision which gives rise to a long delay. I regret, therefore you are not entitled to compensation under the EU Regulation for your delayed flight.

Can I ask them to show documentation of this? As far as I can see, the event timeline at Flightstats does not exactly corroborate their story?

Thank you for your help!

Petrus

It is a moot point as it is BA's duty to book you on the next available flight to your destination, on other carriers if they get you there earlier than BA. ISTR this is in the regs.

Judging from reports here and from my own experience it appears BA refuse to put people on other carriers than BA or AA, even when there are better options that would get PAX to their destination sooner.

NickB

Debatable. See Q5 in post 4 of this thread.

stifle

You can ask for documentation but they are not obliged to show it. If the case went to court, they then might be.

As for rebooking on another carrier, I agree with NickB that the wording of the regulation is vague on the matter and am not aware of caselaw pointing one way or the other.

britbronco22

My friend was due to fly LHR-LAX in WT+ today, however the connecting flight from NCL was late due to fog.
He has been rerouted onto AA as he has a connection on to HON and can't wait for the later BA flight.
However as there is no WT+ on AA, he has been downgraded to WT.
I'd be very annoyed at not being moved up to J tbh, however I assume this qualifies for the 75% invol downgrade?

NickB

In a word: yes.

engeeaitch

I wrote back to BA as you suggested, and guess what? They have now written back to me saying that I am entitled to EUR300 compensation (£259.28) Great news and many thanks to the contributors to this forum.

*** BA0119 5 November 2012 ***

BA6501

After a lot of e-mailing and contacting to both bmi initially and later BA, 400 euros for a 4 hour delay on BD907 29MAY2012, LHR-BEY, due to an aircraft going tech earlier that day in ADD.

RedVee

[QUOTE=engeeaitch;20388447]I wrote back to BA as you suggested, and guess what? They have now written back to me saying that I am entitled to EUR300 compensation (£259.28) Great news and many thanks to the contributors to this forum.

^ Pleased for you. Just wish I could get Thomas Cook to pay out on my ex-inlaws case

Dave Noble

Was he originally rebooked / offered rebooking onto the later BA flight in WT+ but that the 4.5 hour later flight was an issue to him and wanted an earlier one?

If so, then I would doubt that that would class as being involuntarily downgraded and would be surprised if this would count for the 75% refund

I do not see why anyone would be annoyed at not being upgraded to business class nor would expect it based on the description given

This seems to be a weather delay, which is outside of BA's control , so would seem that it wouldn't even be eligable for the delay provisions

If AA is what BA automatically rebooked him on involuntarily , then I would expect that the 75% refund would be due