BA6501

Will do! Thanks.

sts603

Just received a third response identical to the above (different flight of course). Is this published list in existence or a bunch of hog wash that BA made up?

V10

The list that c-w-s refers to above can be found here:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes...ances-list.pdf

It appears to severely limit the circumstances under which claims will be accepted when any technical issue is involved.

sts603

It says draft....??

V10

Yes, indeed it does. @:-)

sts603

So does it have any weight then? Or do the court decisions in the UK to the contrary rule?

serfty

That part of the draft was deleted on Feb 5th. See post #205 for the only circumstances that could be considered extraordinary should those amendments be passed as voted.

More in this.

Here's what was proposed for inclusion on the "non-exhaustive" list of extraordinary circumstances in relation to mechanical failure:With the passing of amendments, some changes were made to the draft. One was to alter the representation of that list from being "non-Exhaustive" to being "Exhaustive". For the amendments in relation to mechanical defects, here is what was actually passed:

corporate-wage-slave

Thank you serfty.

I'll try and make some sense out of the current situation:

(1) In terms of the Regulations, there's no specific reference to technical issues, other than a general sense that airlines must take all reasonable meaures to avoid cancellations (and by judicial inference, delays too).

(2) In terms of judgements, Sturgeon is the key one, it basically says that extraordinary means exactly that, not unusual, and technical delays are covered by the regulations unless highly unusual. My take on that would be if Boeing or Airbus issued an alert requiring a part to be modified, then delays engendered by this are extraordinary.

(3) The National Enforcement Bodies (NEBs) (CAA in the UK's case) got together last year and drafted up some guidelines, which gave scope to airlines to deny EU261 for technical shortcomings.

(4) The European Commission and Parliament are drafting up revisions to the Regulations, which more explicitly aligns (2) Judgements with (1) Regulations, and puts a high bar on airlines: technical issues would not be a get-out clause unless they were extraordinary, and some much clearer definitions are in there, which frankly should have been in EU261 from day 1.

A judge may find (3) and (4) interesting, but s/he would be bound by (1) and (2). If the airline relies in court on (3), never mind the drafting aspect, never mind the non legal status, it could be easily swatted away by pointing out that the legislators' thinking is clearly revealed by (4). I would be surprised if BA would want (3) to be tested in court.

NEBs are a bit like the RSPCA in England and Wales with animal welfare, they are the enforcement authority, but don't make the law. The RSPCA has internal guidelines about what to do in various scenarios, which are necessary in order for them to do their job efficiently, but these guidelines shouldn't be confused with legislation. [I am leaving aside the current debate on the RSPCA's role].

BA, until (3), paid fairly willingly on technical delays. Since September 2013 they are relying in (3), which is understandable in terms of protecting the shareholders' capital, but is very much open to challenge as shown above. BA still has just about the best reputation in the industry for meeting their EU261 obligations, but I believe (3) to be challenged and over-ruled by (1) and (2) now, and (4) in the future.

Centipede100

Fixed that for you.

\Pedant off

hksinglon

Hello - I went back to BA saying that my 8 hour delay was not extraordinary circumstances as BA did not take all reasonable measures (outbound flight BA11 from LHR to SIN was delayed about 15 hours - fuel leak, crew hours, night flying time) as an alternative plane/ crew could be used from LHR home base. I just received my third rejection by BA - again referring to the list. However does this list apply if it was the outbound flight that was affected as it refers to apparent immediately before departure?

"Thank you for contacting us. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to you.

I have reviewed your claim and flight BA0012 on 20 December 2013 is not eligible for EU compensation.

The EU has published a list of what National Enforcement Bodies consider extraordinary circumstances. This includes any other technical defects which become apparent immediately prior to departure or in-flight where the system or part had been maintained in accordance with the required maintenance programme and which require investigation and/or repair before the aircraft is airworthy for the intended flight.

As previously advised, during our final safety checks before the previous sector BA0011, we noticed a fuel leak on one of the engines which required a repair. As there was no replacement aircraft available in substitution, this led BA0011 to nightstop and the flight departed on the next day using a different aircraft. The original aircraft did not operate until the following day.

As the engine had been maintained in accordance with the manufacturers guidelines, this constitutes as extraordinary circumstances and could not have been avoided. I regret, therefore you are not entitled to compensation under the EU Regulation for your delayed flight.

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. I regret, therefore you are not entitled to compensation under the EU Regulation for your delayed flight.

I realise that this will be disappointing for you but I hope this information will enable you to understand our decision.
"

I still think this flight is eligible as BA did not take any measures to mitigate the delay, let alone reasonable measures. I assume that my next step is small claims court? Thanks for your advice.

NYTA

For what it's worth I finally got my downgrade compensation several months after filing and after multiple followups and emails. Even after they agreed to pay it still took 2 months and 3 threatening emails before I actually got the money, but I got it in the end.

billinghamn

Well done - perseverance pays off in the end doesn't it!

Himeno

I finally got a reply (after 9 weeks)

They said "Refused... During our final safety checks, we noticed a fault with the flight control cable. As it had been maintained in accordance with the manufacturers guidelines, this constitutes as extraordinary circumstances and could not have been avoided."

Thoughts? At the time lounge staff said it was delayed due to "aircraft change", while once boarded, the crew said "late arrival from SFO".

stifle

Do they have a pool of reasons to randomly select from?

V10

Yes. Any technical issue that could possibly ever occur with the aircraft.