xmassheep

I'm in exactly the same boat; hallo Pc2k24 Do come and say hi if you're brave enough- I'm by the silver bar window on the left, yellow sleeved tshirt...

Pc2k24

Can see someone in yellow and black?

xmassheep

I've just moved, but yes!

divito

Thank you both for your responses. BA in the future for me!

Out of interest, do you guys who are on cancelled flights today qualify under EU 261/2004. By strict reading of the law, if the airport is open and BA are choosing to operate some flights and not other (or could operate the flights but are not doing so as the planes aren't there) then presumably they are not doing everything that could be reasonably expected of them to get you to your final destination on time.

Is that right? It sounds a little harsh on BA, but I'm interested in people interpretations.

LTN Phobia

Personally, I would not claim the EU compensation. Some flight cancellations were required and necessary, and it would have been bad luck if the flight I was on was cancelled.

I can be brutal with crew shortages in normal times for instance and would claim the EU compensation if that occurred without extenuating circumstance, but the weather-related cancellations, to me personally, are within 'extraordinary circumstance', even if it was not absolutely essential that the particular flight I was on was cancelled.

Filthy Monkey

I'd have to agree LTN Phobia. BA have been very good at helping me out in the past when I've really needed it. I think it would be downright rude to try and claim compensation for delays enforced by snow.

corporate-wage-slave

Probably in the shades of grey area. Personally, if it got to court, I can see the BA solicitor standing up and saying "we were told by ATC to cut 25% of our flights out of LHR, something had to give and most unfortunately the claimant's flight was one that we, in these extraordinary circumstances, were forced to cancel". I imagine most District Judges, given that and the weather reports, would not find for the claimant, but that's my view. A big test is what could BA have done about it? If it meant operating your flight then presumably another flight would be cancelled and so a different bunch of people would end up claiming EU261.

There are cases where if a flight is cancelled as a knock-on effect that the airlines are held responsible. One case that springs to mind (not BA, if I recall) is where a Caribbean flight got cancelled due to a hurricane. However it turned out that there wasn't a hurricane in either the island concerned, or indeed Europe, but the aircraft concerned was stuck in the wrong place due to its previous schedule and the aforementioned hurricane. The claimant won that case. This is logical, there were things that the airline could have done to have mitigated the situation.

In addition, I agree with LTN Phobia. Pure commonsense tells you to apply your own reasonableness test to this, since if you don't, your District Judge will do it for you! If BA look after me (as they have done in my case over the last 48 hours) then I have no complaint.

xmassheep

Re pc2k24's earlier question; we left LHR at around 12-1230 (arrived LCA around 1630 GMT after being told at the gate around 0825 that the scheduled 0840 departure was delayed to 1155. The captain apologised when we boarded that he had gone over his hours yesterday and consequently could not fly at 0840.

I have no complaint or plan to claim for the delay as I feel lucky to have flown at all; however, do I have grounds for complaining that the delay could have been announced earlier? I know that things have been manic for BA, but T3 was quiet and surely it would have been straightforward to announce the delay before T-15?

Hope all who are still snowbound get away soon!

Centipede100

I think you will find it was BA who cancelled a flight from MCO to LGW when the aircraft tasked to perform that flight was grounded in KIN due to a hurricane. BA simply failed to take any reasonable measures to prevent the cancellation despite availability of spare aircraft or crew. The full story is here: http://www.flightmole.com/forum/showthread.php?t=613

seawolf

Thanks to corporate-wage-slave for starting this thread.

Sorry to cross post but the more research I conduct on 261/2004, the more confused I get especially about 11.) in post 1 and the contents of post 13.

Looking for some advice on what my rights are. At first I'm thinking just a refund of Avios due to downgrade but now I'm not sure if she is due a delay compensation as well.

1.) Spouse's employer paid (or will pay after her expenses are processed) for JFK-LHR R/T in CW.
2.) She used her Avios to upgrade JFK-LHR to F.
3.) Was informed at check-in at JFK her flight (JAN 21 BA114) delay by 3 to 4 hours. Inbound equipment delay. (This is probably due to snow/de-icing issue at LHR).
4.) Rebooked on earlier flight in CW (BA172). She ultimately arrived 40 minutes prior to her original scheduled arrival time but in CW.
6.) Her original flight BA114 eventually arrived 2h47m behind schedule but at one point when she was at JFK, the expected arrival delay for BA114 was between 3 to 4 hours.

After reading this thread’s post 1 and 13, I’m a bit confused.

According to 261/2004 her original flight delay was expected to between 3 to 4 hours so no Article 7 compensation due to Article 6 requiring a 4 hour delay. However according to Sturgeon, a 3+ hour delay entitles her to Article 7 compensation.

According to Article 7, when rerouted and passenger arrives below 4 hours, compensation may be reduced by 50%.

Am I interpreting correctly that JFK-LHR with a 3+ hour expected delay entitles Article 7 compensation even if the original flight’s ultimate arrival time is under 3 hours?

Am I interpreting correctly that since my spouse was rerouted and actually arrived earlier than her original scheduled departure, she is still entitled to 50% compensation?

Am I interpreting correctly she is also covered by the downgrade regulations?

Thanks.

seawolf

Upon further research, it appears Sturgeon applies to actual arrival time, so I guess no compensation other than downgrade.

Blueboys999

High quality stuff here - thanks to all concerned.

Can I ask those who are very clearly in-the-know on this subject how often these claims actually reach the courts and just how hard BA (or other carriers) fight them?

Engineering Travel

I think the time varies, I have a ongoing claim for a 6 hour long haul from the middle of November 2012, the initial claim via email, no response after 6 weeks.
Followed up with letter and still no reply after a further 3 weeks.

Somewhere on here I have read that there is a back log of 30,000 plus claims.
Not expecting a reply for a while yet...

corporate-wage-slave

Indeed that would be my reading. If she had been a re-routed and a bit late then she would get a 50% payment for the delay, though there's scope for an argument even on that one.

But I would focus on the downgrade only. As mentioned in the other thread in theory you get 75% of the entire ticket price, the airline seems look at just the leg concerned, but the CAA have indicated it's the entire ticket cost that should be used, there and back. I suspect BA will offer just a return of the Avios, but you seem to be on firm grounds claiming 75% of those Avios, plus 75% of the cash price for that leg. It may be a very different argument if your wife chose this option rather than be delayed to a later flight in First.

seawolf

Thanks. In the interest of minimizing cross posting, I will only reply here if BA comes back with a 261/2004 compensation.