NickB

It is in A1 of post 3:
(emphasis added). One could add the sentence that delays under three hours do not attract compensation to make it clearer, perhaps.

Paralytic

Great work guys; this kind of content makes FT the best place on the web for frequent flyers.

One possible addition - if you book a flight with BA with a connecting flight that is not on a European airline or where the connecting flight is outside of Europe (eg, a connecting flight with AA within the US) then the regs do not apply for cancellation, delay or invol. downgrade on the non-BA flight. The message is implicit in what is written, but it might be nice to state it explicitly somewhere and para 30) in post 1 read in isolation might make people think otherwise .

corporate-wage-slave

Yes, that's a very good point. Duly amended.

NickB

Actually, I am not sure that this is quite right in relation to post 30, as it stands.
If you are on, say, an LHR-(BA)-JFK-(AA)-CUN itinerary and your BA flight was delayed or cancelled with the result that you would miss your AA connection to CUN, you should be covered by the Reg and BA would have to arrange your rerouting to CUN. It is where the AA flight to CUN is delayed/cancelled that you are not covered by the Reg (i.e. the situation covered by Q3 of post 6).

orbitmic

Great stuff people! Well done on making a succint summary of a rather complex piece of legislation.

One very small point regarding the description of extraordinary circumstances (that mean that there is no right to compensation) in the first post. It mentions strikes - I think it is fair to say that air traffic control or airport personnel strikes would indeed be deemed extraordinary circumstances, but it is not clear to me (unless I have missed a judgement in the field) that the same would be true if the strike concerned the airline personnel itself. The regulation is not very precise about extraordinary circumstances and it focuses quite a bit on the airline having taken 'all reasonable measures' to avoid the delay or cancellation. To the extent that courts have considered that this is not the case when the cancellation/delay is caused by a mechanical, I would believe that it is not unlikely that they would similarly rule that a strike of the airline's own personnel would equally not constitute extraordinary circumstances

An other equally small point which I may have missed above: it is worth mentioning that in about every aspect of things, the burden of proof on information rests with the operating air carrier. The airline has to inform passengers about their rights (within the context of EC261/2004) including at check in and in case of denied boarding, and in case of a changed time/cancellation, it is also for the airline to prove that it has informed passengers when it said it did (and thus be reasonably pro-active about it). Thus, if the airline changed it schedule 3 weeks before the flight and this 'would have shown' in MMB but it did not contact the passenger directly until two weeks later, then the cancellation will only deemed to have been announced one week before the flight (ie. when the passenger has been informed directly and not when schedules were updated).

Paralytic

Yes, that's right, though my post didn't make it clear I was referring to the non-BA flight. Have clarified it.

mike&co

Stunning piece of work and very handy to have available should the unthinkable happen.

FlyerTalker6245

Great work folks.

steveggetit

Well done to you all for making this jargon clearer. I have saved all my miles to take the mrs in First to St lucia & was getting concerned if they did an equipment swap to the 3 class plane. I'm now armed in what to do should this happen. We can only go ow in first so it's a bit of a trip of a lifetime for Madam who doesn't fly that often.

Cheers guys & well done.

SteveG

LTN Phobia

Fantastic guide, thank you very much everyone for your effort.

I would like to pose a question that someone may be able to answer.

The scenario:

You have a connecting flight (single ticket) with a long connection time of 6 hours.
You make plans to have a meeting in that connection time.
Your inbound flight is delayed by 4.5 hours and you now become unable to have that meeting while in transit.
You still make your connecting flight despite the delay.

In this case, as the arrival at your final destination was still on time despite being inconvenienced by the delay of your inbound to the connecting point, I assume there would be no compensation payable.

Is that correct?

NickB

Interesting question to which there is, imo, no clear-cut answer (there is deliberate ambiguity in the answer to Q3 in post 3 because of that).

If the delay is the result of a denied boarding or cancellation (you arrive later because they put you on a later flight), the wording of the Regulation suggests that you might be entitled to compensation because the article on compensation (Art 7) says that "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." Note that it does not say "final destination".

Now, let us say that you have a CDG-LHR-HKG itinerary with a delay of 8 hours in LHR to allow you to do this or that (meeting, etc...); you are bumped-off the original CDG-LHR flight (or the flight is cancelled) and you are put on a flight arriving 5 hours later. The "last destination at which the denial of boarding or cancellation will delay" you is LHR. You would, therefore, be entitled to €250 compensation. On a literal wording of the Reg, this could be reduced by half since your final destination is HKG and you are delayed by less than four hours to HKG. However, this solution does not really make sense. So, you might be entitled to €250 after all.
OTOH, your initial hunch might be right and it may well be that the Court regards the wording of Art 7 as, in substance, seeking to establish distance by reference to the next stopover point.

In the case of delays, we have to rely on the Sturgeon ruling, in which the Court told us that you are entitled to compensation if you arrive at your final destination more than 3 hours later than originally planned. Here, the time of arrival in HKG does not change, ergo, on the face of it, no compensation.

That said, this was not the Q that the ECJ was asked in Sturgeon and it may well be that it would clarify that point in a way that would result in delays being treated the same as DBs and cancellations, which may result in entitlement to compensation depending on how Art 7 is interpreted.

So, no clear answer, I am afraid. A case can be made either way and I genuinely struggle to find either more convincing than the other.

LTN Phobia

NickB this is very interesting, and thank you very much for your detailed reply.

I hope someone does a test-case on it because it will be interesting and something that can affect us.

I wonder what the outcome would be if you are in the scenario above if it is booked as a multi-city booking, even with the same connecting time?

Is each stop in multi-city booking treated as a final destination, or is there a designated final destination?

And how does one prove that it was booked as a multi-city booking as opposed to connecting flights? Do airline systems distinguish between the two?

Paralytic

That's a great question, and in view of NickB's response, might this be one time where you'd be better off booking two separate tickets?

Doing so would ensure compensation would be due if the first flight is late, but obviously removes the protection from your second flight if the first flight is extremely late or cancelled.

BOH

As a long suffering shareholder in BA and subsequently IAG please could you all claim on your travel insurance rather than persue BA for compo. Thank you

Tobias-UK

Have you not heard of subrogation?