The BA Compensation Thread: Your guide to Regulation 261/2004
Jan 8, 2014, 3:42 am
#61
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: 63,830
No, in a word. My view is it will go nowhere, there was so much chaos that day that only duty of care applies. It was largely outwith Easyjet's control. LGW's operator is offering some sort of voucher to some / all (?) affected passengers.
Jan 8, 2014, 4:06 am
#62
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 552
Since copperfield27 has not stated which flight was diverted it is impossible to state with any certainty whether this falls under ECs or not at this stage.
Jan 8, 2014, 4:46 am
#63
Join Date: May 2008
Location: PIS
Programs: BAEC Blue, and anything Amex Plat are dishing out
Posts: 253
I can check, all I know was Easyjet from Rome to London but not sure which exact flight she was on - so definitely flight/airline covered by ECs but not sure whether the incident itself would have been.
Jan 8, 2014, 8:36 am
#64
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Programs: UA Plat 2MM. DL Plat, AS MVP
Posts: 12,752
Dec 30, my flight from Granada, Spain to London City was delayed 4.5 hours. No reason was given (other than late arrival). No announcements made. No food offered.
I contacted BA via the website, and I received the following response:
Dear Mr ZRS70
Thank you for your email dated 30 December 2013. I would like to apologise for the delay in our response. I am so sorry your flight was delayed on your way to London City. I can understand how disappointing it must have been for you and your husband. I know this is not the kind of service you would expect from British Airways and I do apologise for letting you down this time.
We recognise that the punctuality of our flights is extremely important to our customers and that you expect us to fly as scheduled. Although punctuality is improving, we would never be complacent about it. An investigation is carried out into each delay and your experience shows us there is still work to be done. We benchmark our performance each month with our partners and competitors and each department is measured on the contribution it makes to achieving our challenging targets.
I do appreciate your comments and I want to assure you that for our part in Customer Relations, we do carefully log every customer complaint we receive. All of the information we get from you is valuable to us, as we meet with our Board every month to share our customers’ views with them. This means we can invest in and improve the areas that matter most to our customers.
While I appreciate your reasons for asking, I am afraid we cannot offer you any compensation. I am sorry to have to disappoint you.
I know this is not the answer you were hoping for and I do apologise. We're sorry for what has happened and can promise you that we take a serious view of this whole episode. We are taking measures to prevent similar problems in the future. I very much hope you will allow us to demonstrate the British Airways service at its best in the near future.
Best regards
No reason was offered for the denial. Any suggestions for follow up?
I contacted BA via the website, and I received the following response:
Dear Mr ZRS70
Thank you for your email dated 30 December 2013. I would like to apologise for the delay in our response. I am so sorry your flight was delayed on your way to London City. I can understand how disappointing it must have been for you and your husband. I know this is not the kind of service you would expect from British Airways and I do apologise for letting you down this time.
We recognise that the punctuality of our flights is extremely important to our customers and that you expect us to fly as scheduled. Although punctuality is improving, we would never be complacent about it. An investigation is carried out into each delay and your experience shows us there is still work to be done. We benchmark our performance each month with our partners and competitors and each department is measured on the contribution it makes to achieving our challenging targets.
I do appreciate your comments and I want to assure you that for our part in Customer Relations, we do carefully log every customer complaint we receive. All of the information we get from you is valuable to us, as we meet with our Board every month to share our customers’ views with them. This means we can invest in and improve the areas that matter most to our customers.
While I appreciate your reasons for asking, I am afraid we cannot offer you any compensation. I am sorry to have to disappoint you.
I know this is not the answer you were hoping for and I do apologise. We're sorry for what has happened and can promise you that we take a serious view of this whole episode. We are taking measures to prevent similar problems in the future. I very much hope you will allow us to demonstrate the British Airways service at its best in the near future.
Best regards
No reason was offered for the denial. Any suggestions for follow up?
Jan 8, 2014, 8:51 am
#65
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: 63,830
Jan 8, 2014, 10:58 am
#66
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Programs: UA Plat 2MM. DL Plat, AS MVP
Posts: 12,752
Jan 8, 2014, 12:48 pm
#67
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK and Southern France
Posts: 18,364
The test to determine the right to compensation is twofold:
1) is it an extraordinary circumstance AND
2) has the airline done anything in its power to avoid the delay or cancellation?
Just because the airline shows that 2) is satisfied, it does not follow that 1) is satisfied too. The ECJ has made it very clear (in Wallentin-Hermann, in particular) that these constitute two distinct requirements that have both to be satisfied for the airline to be exempted from the duty to pay compensation. The new theory is one that borrows some of the language used in Wallentin-Hermann but very selectively. The examples of types of technical requirements that constitute ext circs used by the ECJ are, imo, significant: they use the example of technical problems as a consequence of sabotage by terrorist or discovery of new flaws by the manufacturer of the kind that leads to a notice being issued by the manufacturer to users of the aircraft (think: the kind of issues that grounded the QF A380s or the issue of the batteries in the Dreamliners).
The kind of run-of-the-mill technical defects are of a different kind and are too ordinary to constitute "extraordinary circumstances". They are part and parcel of the day-to-day hiccups that are likely to happen when you run an airline and are part of the normal risk that the carrier can be expected to bear in the normal course of business. As such, they are not "extraordinary" circumstances regardless of whether the airline can prevent them or not.
Jan 9, 2014, 5:51 am
#68
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Programs: BAEC Silver
Posts: 756
People with fragile schedules -- and there are some with those -- should insure for actual losses. Otherwise, the purposes of government enforcement penalties are met.[/QUOTE]
If BA decide to utilise their resources at a level that they cannot reasonably recover from problems, then I'd suggest that they are the party that might wish to insure themselves against consequential claims.
If BA decide to utilise their resources at a level that they cannot reasonably recover from problems, then I'd suggest that they are the party that might wish to insure themselves against consequential claims.
Jan 10, 2014, 2:42 pm
#69
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Programs: Mucci, BA, AF
Posts: 10,130
deleted
Last edited by BA6501; Jan 17, 2014 at 9:15 am
Jan 10, 2014, 3:37 pm
#70
formerly rxfleming
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: AUH, DXB (and GLA)
Programs: BA GGL, HHonors Diamond, Marriott Plat Elite
Posts: 2,456
I was caught up in the ATC problems on Dec 7th. The short version is after a very long day at the airport rebooked from a 13:00 flight to a 17:00 flight that was finally cancelled at 20:45 due to no crew we went back landslide and dealt with an excellent agent who got us rebooked onto a seemingly full plane the next day. There were no hotels left closer than Windsor, and seeing as we live in central London we caught the Heathrow Express home and back again the next morning.
Two return tickets are £34 each, so I claimed £68. The reply was a cheque for £50 would be coming my way (as the duty of care form mentions a £50 maximum). I've already replied that I would put in a separate claim for each passenger rather than combining our claim, but does the level of compensation really get limited to £50 per PNR rather than per passenger?
Two return tickets are £34 each, so I claimed £68. The reply was a cheque for £50 would be coming my way (as the duty of care form mentions a £50 maximum). I've already replied that I would put in a separate claim for each passenger rather than combining our claim, but does the level of compensation really get limited to £50 per PNR rather than per passenger?
I was caught up in a cancellation a few weeks ago. Got refunded £264. £200 for the hotel. £34 for Heathrow Express and £30 for food. No receipts needed.
BA didn't even bat an eyelid.
Or maybe it's because I'm Gold...
Jan 10, 2014, 6:53 pm
#71
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,595
Our flight BA2166 from TPA to LGW landed on Wednesday 13th November 2013, just under 4 hours after the scheduled arrival time. We were told at the time by several different sources that the delay was originally caused by a mechanical fault on the preceding Saturday.
An initial claim by email to BA was met with a very brief standard reply (3 weeks later) stating compensation was not payable, and that the type of mechanical fault (cited as an air bleed fault) is deemed to be an extraordinary circumstance. I have checked the guidance, and it this appears to be right, providing BA can demonstrate they properly maintained the system, and that the fault occurred immediately prior to departure. It's that last point I think is potentially most important -to the best of my knowledge, the air bleed fault was on the Saturday (I have asked BA to confirm) - albeit that Ted appears to have been given a different excuse. On checking the flight statistics, all flights on this Tampa route were delayed from the Saturday, at least until our flight on the 12th. Therefore, even if the air bleed fault was an exceptional circumstance, it should not apply to our flight 3 days later.
An initial claim by email to BA was met with a very brief standard reply (3 weeks later) stating compensation was not payable, and that the type of mechanical fault (cited as an air bleed fault) is deemed to be an extraordinary circumstance. I have checked the guidance, and it this appears to be right, providing BA can demonstrate they properly maintained the system, and that the fault occurred immediately prior to departure. It's that last point I think is potentially most important -to the best of my knowledge, the air bleed fault was on the Saturday (I have asked BA to confirm) - albeit that Ted appears to have been given a different excuse. On checking the flight statistics, all flights on this Tampa route were delayed from the Saturday, at least until our flight on the 12th. Therefore, even if the air bleed fault was an exceptional circumstance, it should not apply to our flight 3 days later.
Jan 10, 2014, 11:37 pm
#72
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3
The flight delay LGW-TPA on 09NOV was operated by Boeing 777 registration G-VIIP. Your flight TPA-LGW on 12NOV was operated by Boeing 777 registration G-VIIR. 2 completely different aircraft. So the fault experienced earlier in the week had nothing to do with your delay. Your different sources appear not to have considered different aircraft of the same type when mentioning to you the rolling delay. You can confirm these details if needed at www.thebasource.com
Jan 11, 2014, 3:41 am
#73
Join Date: Oct 2004
Programs: BA Gold, SPG Gold, IC Plat RA, Fairmont Plat...
Posts: 506
Was booked in J on the 186 on the 7th when the 787 went tech after waiting about 4 hours. Rebooked on the 176 on the 8th which again after about 3 hours went tech. Finally made it home on the 9th. What are my rights as was never informed or offered anything? Was a very chaotic and draining few days - must be very unusual as neither was related to the weather.
Jan 11, 2014, 3:47 am
#74
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: 63,830
Was booked in J on the 186 on the 7th when the 787 went tech after waiting about 4 hours. Rebooked on the 176 on the 8th which again after about 3 hours went tech. Finally made it home on the 9th. What are my rights as was never informed or offered anything? Was a very chaotic and draining few days - must be very unusual as neither was related to the weather.
My view is that this looks like a good case for €600, arguably times two due to both services going tech. I suspect you may have to settle for one payment, and due to the sheer hassle I hope BA won't quibble. Follow the process in thread 1 and hopefully you will get compensated. Please let us know.
Jan 11, 2014, 4:46 am
#75
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hong Kong, France
Programs: FB , BA Gold
Posts: 15,566
This is asking the wrong question.
The test to determine the right to compensation is twofold:
1) is it an extraordinary circumstance AND
2) has the airline done anything in its power to avoid the delay or cancellation?
Just because the airline shows that 2) is satisfied, it does not follow that 1) is satisfied too. The ECJ has made it very clear (in Wallentin-Hermann, in particular) that these constitute two distinct requirements that have both to be satisfied for the airline to be exempted from the duty to pay compensation. The new theory is one that borrows some of the language used in Wallentin-Hermann but very selectively. The examples of types of technical requirements that constitute ext circs used by the ECJ are, imo, significant: they use the example of technical problems as a consequence of sabotage by terrorist or discovery of new flaws by the manufacturer of the kind that leads to a notice being issued by the manufacturer to users of the aircraft (think: the kind of issues that grounded the QF A380s or the issue of the batteries in the Dreamliners).
The kind of run-of-the-mill technical defects are of a different kind and are too ordinary to constitute "extraordinary circumstances". They are part and parcel of the day-to-day hiccups that are likely to happen when you run an airline and are part of the normal risk that the carrier can be expected to bear in the normal course of business. As such, they are not "extraordinary" circumstances regardless of whether the airline can prevent them or not.
The test to determine the right to compensation is twofold:
1) is it an extraordinary circumstance AND
2) has the airline done anything in its power to avoid the delay or cancellation?
Just because the airline shows that 2) is satisfied, it does not follow that 1) is satisfied too. The ECJ has made it very clear (in Wallentin-Hermann, in particular) that these constitute two distinct requirements that have both to be satisfied for the airline to be exempted from the duty to pay compensation. The new theory is one that borrows some of the language used in Wallentin-Hermann but very selectively. The examples of types of technical requirements that constitute ext circs used by the ECJ are, imo, significant: they use the example of technical problems as a consequence of sabotage by terrorist or discovery of new flaws by the manufacturer of the kind that leads to a notice being issued by the manufacturer to users of the aircraft (think: the kind of issues that grounded the QF A380s or the issue of the batteries in the Dreamliners).
The kind of run-of-the-mill technical defects are of a different kind and are too ordinary to constitute "extraordinary circumstances". They are part and parcel of the day-to-day hiccups that are likely to happen when you run an airline and are part of the normal risk that the carrier can be expected to bear in the normal course of business. As such, they are not "extraordinary" circumstances regardless of whether the airline can prevent them or not.
Unfortunately the word "extraordinary" does not have a clear definition. I found somewhere; " Beyond what is ordinary or usual". That does not help much as one could say that s cancelled fligh or long delays are by themselves unusual. As long as there is no detailed list of extraordinary circumstances, one can argue forever. The ECJ only provided a couple of examples, but it is clear that they had in mind an extreme version of "extraordinary circumstances". The NEB made a detailed list that is going the other extreme more or less stating that anything unexpected is basically an extraordinary cirumstance:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes...ances-list.pdf
The EC 2013 proposal to revise its Regulation does provide a few examples. But their example of non-extroardinary circumstance as "technical problems identified during routine aircraft maintenance" is rather limited.
Until the regulation is amended to reflect that list, or another, the courts will have leeway to interpret. The procedural situation differs across countries, but the joint paper of NEB presents a strong position and I expect courts in most countries to follow NEB interpretation. Sure, the ECJ could rule against the NEB list, but I would rather expect them to wait for an ameded regulation.
I am not a lawyer so my terminology is probably inappropriate. And you have a better view of the EC process than I do, so I could have misread the situation.