The BA Compensation Thread: Your guide to Regulation 261/2004
Feb 27, 2014, 10:34 pm
#301
Join Date: Jan 2006
Programs: Lots, some no/low status some high status, can't be bothered to list them :-)
Posts: 1,951
I posted earlier about a claim I submitted 03 Jan. I had a response yesterday.
Thank you for contacting us about your claim for compensation. I apologise for the delay in replying to you.
You are entitled to compensation for the delay to your flight BA0048 on 02 January 2014. The distance of your disrupted flight, as calculated in accordance with EU legislation, was over 3500km. Based on this, you are entitled to 600.00 EUR in compensation.
As there are two passengers included in your claim, the total compensation due is 1,200.00 EUR, which is equivalent to 988.38 GBP.
The fastest and most secure way to settle your claim is by bank transfer to a UK account. I will be happy to arrange this for you. Please provide the following information so I can set up your bank transfer:
Bank name
Branch name
Sort code (6 digits)
Account number (8 digits)
If you would like to fax us your details our fax number is 01787 883 195 or you can send your details by email. Please feel free to send more than one email or fax if you are concerned about providing all your information at once, and include your case reference number on all correspondence.
Thank you again for following this up with us and I hope both of you will fly with us again soon.
Best regards
Amit Dichwalkar
EU Compensation Claims
You are entitled to compensation for the delay to your flight BA0048 on 02 January 2014. The distance of your disrupted flight, as calculated in accordance with EU legislation, was over 3500km. Based on this, you are entitled to 600.00 EUR in compensation.
As there are two passengers included in your claim, the total compensation due is 1,200.00 EUR, which is equivalent to 988.38 GBP.
The fastest and most secure way to settle your claim is by bank transfer to a UK account. I will be happy to arrange this for you. Please provide the following information so I can set up your bank transfer:
Bank name
Branch name
Sort code (6 digits)
Account number (8 digits)
If you would like to fax us your details our fax number is 01787 883 195 or you can send your details by email. Please feel free to send more than one email or fax if you are concerned about providing all your information at once, and include your case reference number on all correspondence.
Thank you again for following this up with us and I hope both of you will fly with us again soon.
Best regards
Amit Dichwalkar
EU Compensation Claims
Feb 28, 2014, 1:14 am
#302
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 18
Flight Delay advice please
We were delayed on a BA flight from Istanbul to Manchester via LHR in September 2013. Our flight delay was caused because as we were taxi-ing out to the runway babies starting screaming, everyone's ears were hurting and even the flight attendands had their fingers in their ears. Turns our the cabin air pressure had failed. We were kept by the side of the runway area whilst the pilot / engineers tried to fix the fault. They couldn't and in the end decided to takx back to the stand. After around an hour at the stand they managed to repair the fault and we set off. However, the flight arrived back a couple of hours late and as we landed our connecting flight to Manchester took off! It was the last flight of the day so we had to stay overnight in London. BA did put us in a hotel etc. Therefore I filled in the form on BA website and got the usual blurb that I have been seeing on here. I read this forum and took advice and wrote again to BA using EU law etc. However I have now received the following response and wonder if they are really trying to fob me off or are they right?:
The aircraft had to return to stand after departure due to a fault message received on the flight deck. This had to be cleared by our engineers and led the delay to the service, which prevented the aircraft operating as scheduled. This caused a flight safety shortcoming that had to be assessed by our engineering team.
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 anyone help?
The aircraft had to return to stand after departure due to a fault message received on the flight deck. This had to be cleared by our engineers and led the delay to the service, which prevented the aircraft operating as scheduled. This caused a flight safety shortcoming that had to be assessed by our engineering team.
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 anyone help?
Feb 28, 2014, 3:21 am
#303
Moderator, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges, and Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold; Flying Blue Life Platinum; LH Sen.; Hilton Diamond; Kemal Kebabs Prized Customer
Posts: 63,853
Welcome to Flyertalk Soozzy
Welcome to Flyertalk Soozzy, it's good to see you here, thank you for the question, and I hope that you can continue to participate in this forum, which covers so much more than just compensation.
This is clearly a grey area. If the aircraft had taken off (and thank goodness it didn't) and the fault was discovered into the flight I'm fairly confident it would be regarded as extraordinary. If it had been discovered before boarding at LHR then definitely not (though BA would have given it a go at denying it). Yours is in betweeen these extremes.
Only a judge can make a final call on this, and though they are bound by the law, the system isn't entirely predictable, two different but similar cases may have different outcomes. Only you can decide whether you want to go through the hassle of legal proceedings, I guess it depends how strongly you feel about it. Whether BA would actually defend the matter in court is anyone's guess, they don't always bother, but sometimes they do.
So I don't think BA are fobbing you off like some of the other cases in this thread, but equally I don't think they necessarily have a water-tight case. The only person who can decide that isn't on this forum.
The other option is to take it to the CAA, but in my experience that will achieve nothing.
This is clearly a grey area. If the aircraft had taken off (and thank goodness it didn't) and the fault was discovered into the flight I'm fairly confident it would be regarded as extraordinary. If it had been discovered before boarding at LHR then definitely not (though BA would have given it a go at denying it). Yours is in betweeen these extremes.
Only a judge can make a final call on this, and though they are bound by the law, the system isn't entirely predictable, two different but similar cases may have different outcomes. Only you can decide whether you want to go through the hassle of legal proceedings, I guess it depends how strongly you feel about it. Whether BA would actually defend the matter in court is anyone's guess, they don't always bother, but sometimes they do.
So I don't think BA are fobbing you off like some of the other cases in this thread, but equally I don't think they necessarily have a water-tight case. The only person who can decide that isn't on this forum.
The other option is to take it to the CAA, but in my experience that will achieve nothing.
Feb 28, 2014, 5:59 am
#304
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 18
Welcome to Flyertalk Soozzy, it's good to see you here, thank you for the question, and I hope that you can continue to participate in this forum, which covers so much more than just compensation.
This is clearly a grey area. If the aircraft had taken off (and thank goodness it didn't) and the fault was discovered into the flight I'm fairly confident it would be regarded as extraordinary. If it had been discovered before boarding at LHR then definitely not (though BA would have given it a go at denying it). Yours is in betweeen these extremes.
Only a judge can make a final call on this, and though they are bound by the law, the system isn't entirely predictable, two different but similar cases may have different outcomes. Only you can decide whether you want to go through the hassle of legal proceedings, I guess it depends how strongly you feel about it. Whether BA would actually defend the matter in court is anyone's guess, they don't always bother, but sometimes they do.
So I don't think BA are fobbing you off like some of the other cases in this thread, but equally I don't think they necessarily have a water-tight case. The only person who can decide that isn't on this forum.
The other option is to take it to the CAA, but in my experience that will achieve nothing.
This is clearly a grey area. If the aircraft had taken off (and thank goodness it didn't) and the fault was discovered into the flight I'm fairly confident it would be regarded as extraordinary. If it had been discovered before boarding at LHR then definitely not (though BA would have given it a go at denying it). Yours is in betweeen these extremes.
Only a judge can make a final call on this, and though they are bound by the law, the system isn't entirely predictable, two different but similar cases may have different outcomes. Only you can decide whether you want to go through the hassle of legal proceedings, I guess it depends how strongly you feel about it. Whether BA would actually defend the matter in court is anyone's guess, they don't always bother, but sometimes they do.
So I don't think BA are fobbing you off like some of the other cases in this thread, but equally I don't think they necessarily have a water-tight case. The only person who can decide that isn't on this forum.
The other option is to take it to the CAA, but in my experience that will achieve nothing.
[I]"The aircraft had to return to stand after departure due to a fault message received on the flight deck. This had to be cleared by our engineers and led the delay to the service, which prevented the aircraft operating as scheduled. This caused a flight safety shortcoming that had to be assessed by our engineering team"
What do you think? I have wriiten back to them quoting various cases as discussed in this forum, so I'll just wait and see what happens. I will keep you informed!
Feb 28, 2014, 6:19 am
#305
Moderator, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges, and Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold; Flying Blue Life Platinum; LH Sen.; Hilton Diamond; Kemal Kebabs Prized Customer
Posts: 63,853
Well it's certainly a technical issue, and it's also certain that a technical issue, on its own, is not extraordinary circumstances. The issue is whether there was anything that BA could have reasonably done to avoid it, and this is where context will matter. So: if there is a technical issue in the air, the aircraft diverts, then I'd say that's extraordinary circumstances (in my opinion): BA will have as good as no alternative. If the same fault was discovered a few hours before take off in LHR, BA could find another aircraft, re-route passengers, bribe them to go tomorrow, add an extra stop to an existing service, hire a wet lease, and so on. Your case is in between. But that's an opinion, only a judge can make a ruling.
Feb 28, 2014, 6:53 am
#306
Moderator: British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jan 2009
Programs: Battleaxe Alliance
Posts: 22,127
Well it's certainly a technical issue, and it's also certain that a technical issue, on its own, is not extraordinary circumstances. The issue is whether there was anything that BA could have reasonably done to avoid it, and this is where context will matter. So: if there is a technical issue in the air, the aircraft diverts, then I'd say that's extraordinary circumstances (in my opinion): BA will have as good as no alternative. If the same fault was discovered a few hours before take off in LHR, BA could find another aircraft, re-route passengers, bribe them to go tomorrow, add an extra stop to an existing service, hire a wet lease, and so on. Your case is in between. But that's an opinion, only a judge can make a ruling.
Feb 28, 2014, 9:16 am
#307
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 18
The thing is though the problem started as soon as the aircraft shut the doors and started moving. I am sure that there must be an instrument in the cockpit that indicates a fault on such an important system as soon as the doors are sealed prior to moving off the parking bay. If so why was this not obvious to the crew before moving the aircraft towards the runway? Therefore I am still of the opinion it was a technical fault. Also as the engineers eventually managed to fix the system whilst we were all still sitting on the plane, it proves it could have been avoided and / or fixed if it had been checked properly prior to boarding the passengers.
Feb 28, 2014, 9:20 am
#308
Moderator: British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jan 2009
Programs: Battleaxe Alliance
Posts: 22,127
The thing is though the problem started as soon as the aircraft shut the doors and started moving. I am sure that there must be an instrument in the cockpit that indicates a fault on such an important system as soon as the doors are sealed prior to moving off the parking bay. If so why was this not obvious to the crew before moving the aircraft towards the runway? Therefore I am still of the opinion it was a technical fault. Also as the engineers eventually managed to fix the system whilst we were all still sitting on the plane, it proves it could have been avoided and / or fixed if it had been checked properly prior to boarding the passengers.
Feb 28, 2014, 2:36 pm
#309
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 18
Feb 28, 2014, 2:43 pm
#310
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Programs: Mucci, BA, AF
Posts: 10,130
OK, but aren't the engines already on when we embark the plane in order for lights, aircon etc to be operational? Logically it must be that the sealing of the doors should somehow trigger the air pressure unit into action as prior to this the atmosphere on board does not need to be regulated. I am not an engineer or scientist but this seems logical to me! Whatever the trigger is, it is something that should be checked and veridfied as working before any passengers embark as a matter of H&S and not left until it is too late! IMHO
Feb 28, 2014, 2:44 pm
#311
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Programs: Mucci, BA, AF
Posts: 10,130
I agree, perhaps giving them 10 days to reply. Personally I'd leave off the court threat at this point, since that results in an escalation which won't help you. However I would add that since this was a service departing LHR it cannot be extraordinary circumstances which could not reasonably have been foreseen, since clearly another aircraft could have been used. Technical failures have not been held to be extraordinary since Sturgeon (see quote above). On day 11 start the small claim process.
This is the clearest reply from BA yet that the "draft" NEB guidelines are being used to deny technical claims (see last year's thread, towards the end of the year).
This is the clearest reply from BA yet that the "draft" NEB guidelines are being used to deny technical claims (see last year's thread, towards the end of the year).
Thanks serfty and CWS.
I have just received the third response:
Thank you for contacting us. I apologise for the delay in replying to you.
I have reviewed your claim for compensation and your flight BA0153 on 19 December 2013 is not eligible for EU compensation.
The EU has published a list of what National Enforcement Bodies consider extraordinary circumstances. This includes the failure of on-condition/condition monitored parts i.e. parts which should not require unscheduled maintenance or replacement during normal operational service. The premature failure of these parts during normal operational service when maintained in accordance with the maintenance programme is unpredictable.
As previously advised, the flight was delayed due to unexpected flight safety shortcomings. Under EU legislation, British Airways is not liable for a compensation payment in this situation.
On arrival of the previous flight BA0164 on 19 December 2013, we discovered a fault with the undercarriage, which led to the aircraft change. There are numerous parts that the airline may be required to replace within a specific timeframe. These parts are kept fully stocked and ready to fit. As this particular ‘part’ was not due to be replaced, this constitutes as extraordinary circumstances. This caused a flight safety shortcoming that had to be assessed by our engineering team.
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.
Best regards
I assume the next step in small claims?
I have just received the third response:
Thank you for contacting us. I apologise for the delay in replying to you.
I have reviewed your claim for compensation and your flight BA0153 on 19 December 2013 is not eligible for EU compensation.
The EU has published a list of what National Enforcement Bodies consider extraordinary circumstances. This includes the failure of on-condition/condition monitored parts i.e. parts which should not require unscheduled maintenance or replacement during normal operational service. The premature failure of these parts during normal operational service when maintained in accordance with the maintenance programme is unpredictable.
As previously advised, the flight was delayed due to unexpected flight safety shortcomings. Under EU legislation, British Airways is not liable for a compensation payment in this situation.
On arrival of the previous flight BA0164 on 19 December 2013, we discovered a fault with the undercarriage, which led to the aircraft change. There are numerous parts that the airline may be required to replace within a specific timeframe. These parts are kept fully stocked and ready to fit. As this particular ‘part’ was not due to be replaced, this constitutes as extraordinary circumstances. This caused a flight safety shortcoming that had to be assessed by our engineering team.
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.
Best regards
I assume the next step in small claims?
Mar 1, 2014, 1:36 am
#312
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Dunoon, Hong Kong & Milton Keynes
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 87
My wife and daughter we're flying from Glasgow to Heathrow last weekend and were delayed for nearly 4 hours - with me stuck in T5 waiting on them... Technical issue was given as the reason for the delay, and 2 days ago I put in a EU 261 claim for them online expecting the usual 'technical failure' response of you are not entitled to compensation.
Within 24 hrs (yes, that is hours not days) we received a response saying they were entitled and can we have you bank details. This is after the checkin staff very firmly and without reason telling my wife, and I quote "had no entitlement to claim for any compensation" and informed her she was extremely luck to be getting to LHR at all.
I also though airlines were legally bound to inform you of your right to compensation in the event of a delay detailed in EU 261 even if the airline thought the claim may be outside the reasons for compensation?
Within 24 hrs (yes, that is hours not days) we received a response saying they were entitled and can we have you bank details. This is after the checkin staff very firmly and without reason telling my wife, and I quote "had no entitlement to claim for any compensation" and informed her she was extremely luck to be getting to LHR at all.
I also though airlines were legally bound to inform you of your right to compensation in the event of a delay detailed in EU 261 even if the airline thought the claim may be outside the reasons for compensation?
Last edited by HKGorBust; Mar 1, 2014 at 1:36 am Reason: iPad auto correct
Mar 1, 2014, 1:45 am
#313
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 18
Hi there, just read an article that states although the airlines are using the priliminary list of guidelines by the National Enforcement Bodies, this is NOT part of the EU law:
The EC has on its website a preliminary list of guidelines that seeks to clarify exactly what extraordinary circumstances are.
But this list has caused confusion within the industry as it was created by aviation enforcement bodies from EU nations, which in Britain is the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).
It is not legally binding and there is no indication if this list will be incorporated into EC 261, so for now judges will continue to rely on already-established case law.
In this case, the judge at Manchester County Court found that dealing with unforeseen and unexpected technical faults is 'inherent in the normal activity of the air carrier'.
In other words, faults occurring on planes is common, and airlines having to deal with such problems before a flight can commence is a regular occurrence, therefore it is not an 'extraordinary circumstance'.
He cited a case from 2008 - Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia - in which a court in Vienna pointed out that: 'Air carriers are confronted as a matter of course in the exercise of their activity various technical problems to which the operation of those aircraft inevitably gives rise.'
The ruling in Manchester found that 'delays caused by the resolution of an unexpected, unforeseen and unforeseeable technical problem cannot be said to be an extraordinary circumstance given the Wallentin test.
'Air carriers have to encounter and deal with such circumstances as part of running an airline just as the owner of a car has to deal with unexpected and unforeseen breakdowns of his car'.
Hope this is some help!
The EC has on its website a preliminary list of guidelines that seeks to clarify exactly what extraordinary circumstances are.
But this list has caused confusion within the industry as it was created by aviation enforcement bodies from EU nations, which in Britain is the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).
It is not legally binding and there is no indication if this list will be incorporated into EC 261, so for now judges will continue to rely on already-established case law.
In this case, the judge at Manchester County Court found that dealing with unforeseen and unexpected technical faults is 'inherent in the normal activity of the air carrier'.
In other words, faults occurring on planes is common, and airlines having to deal with such problems before a flight can commence is a regular occurrence, therefore it is not an 'extraordinary circumstance'.
He cited a case from 2008 - Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia - in which a court in Vienna pointed out that: 'Air carriers are confronted as a matter of course in the exercise of their activity various technical problems to which the operation of those aircraft inevitably gives rise.'
The ruling in Manchester found that 'delays caused by the resolution of an unexpected, unforeseen and unforeseeable technical problem cannot be said to be an extraordinary circumstance given the Wallentin test.
'Air carriers have to encounter and deal with such circumstances as part of running an airline just as the owner of a car has to deal with unexpected and unforeseen breakdowns of his car'.
Hope this is some help!
Mar 1, 2014, 1:48 am
#314
Moderator, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges, and Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold; Flying Blue Life Platinum; LH Sen.; Hilton Diamond; Kemal Kebabs Prized Customer
Posts: 63,853
Mar 1, 2014, 2:09 am
#315
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Melbourne
Programs: ►QFWP/LTG►VA WP►HyattExpl.►HiltonGold►ALL Silver
Posts: 21,995
The irony is those relevant parts of the draft in relation to "Mechanical" being spruiked by the airlines were deleted/modified amongst the amendments with the first passing of changes to the regulation on 5th February. This was such that basically only a 'factory recall' due to a specific mechanical defect would be considered extraordinary circumstances.
See post #247 for more on that.