I believe they can provide a travel voucher (generally for a bit more than cash for obvious reasons) but not Avios. I suppose this would formally make Avios a currency of sorts.

It's all a bit of an urban myth within BA. It's perfectly acceptable to agree a settlement with Avios, it's even stated in the Regulations in 7.3:

I'm not sure all the legal folk actually read the Regulation some of the time.

Delays were never part of the original legislation - it was only once airlines started trying to effectively cancel a flight by doing thingd such as delaying it for 24 hours , that the court ruled that delays were eligible

There is a big difference between a delay and an airline choosing to cancel a flight

The background to this is that the Regulations give zero compensation to delays, there was never the intention to give compensation there provided the airlines did their jobs properly. But what happened is that when airlines wanted to cancel a flight they would simply "delay" it until sometimes several days later. So the judiciary - realising the airlines' abuse of the system - said that at some point a delay is as bad as a cancellation therefore that point is declared to be 3 hours. Hence delay compensation came in to reflect this, even though it is not in the regulations itself.

So while you may not be happy with the 3 hour rule, it's better than no rule at all.

+1

+1

I am afraid some people are starting to be too greedy...

And, by the way, there is a proposal to "soften" this regulation... And I guess it will get through EC.

I will probably receive flame and hate for this, but this proposal is in my opinion based on greediness of some people... As an example, I've been flying between Australia and Europe regularly since I migrated to Australia in 1992. I do two to three return trips in business class every year. 2014 was the first year I was trying to claim 261/2004 for the very first time due to 13 hour delay to final destination (returning back to Australia from ZRH on SQ). And it is still pending, SQ willing to go to court... I would still not claim it if there weren't other circumstances that pissed me off enough to do that... Had previously 3, 4, 6 hours delays and was just happy to be home... .... happens and it is easy to miss short, but legal connection on trips like these and subsequently get delay that would entitle me to the E600 for delay at final destination. But I am not greedy...

It's nothing to do with greed, if you are entitled to it you should claim, most airlines are now making some sort of provision for it anyway so they aren't out of pocket. I should also add that the treatment some people (I included) have had in the event of delays and downgrades is shocking and this sort of treatment is pushing people to claim and ensure they get paid, a better approach from airlines may have seen a softer approach from customers (ie not everyone claiming) in the event of delays and downgrades.

I personally think the €600 figure per person for delays is too high but i don't write the regulations.

Problem is that I have seen people arguing (here on FT and elsewhere) for compensation based on minutes - arguing against airlines 2:59 delay and their own 3:01 etc.

Another problem is in the amount. Sometimes the amount of compensation is higher than the fare paid. Sometimes it is significantly lower than fare paid... Again have seen people demanding full compensation on flights where they paid ridiculously low fares of several Euros or pounds...

Whether €600 is too high depends... I paid over A$6000 for MEL-SIN-BCN||ZRH-SIN-MEL. My return to MEL was delayed by 13 hours. Those who flew only to SIN were delayed slightly over 4 hours... Theoretically, the compensation should be €600 for all of us. Fair? Do I really want to get flamed here? No, not fair in my opinion...

Getting even more into trouble, should the compensation be some sort of percentage of fare paid? I personally feel it's not fair to give same compensation to someone who paid one tenth of what I paid... But then again, I see the argument... Spank me please!

Forgive my ignorance here. But I was on an EDI-LHR-JFK-LAX flight that landed in Heathrow late and we missed the JFK flight. We were re-routed on LHR-SAN-LAX. This flight landed 20mins after the original flight was due to land and the SAN-LAX was economy only (the original flights were booked business)

Am I right in saying that I can claim for a downgrading and the 20mins late arrival? If so this is the world gone crazy.

You can claim for the downgraded flight but not the delay if you're on one ticket. Why is that crazy?

If thinking that the airline is incorrect in its calculation of the time, why wouldn't somone want to check?


seems pretty fair to me ; all were delayed > 4 hours

I am not sure you will be able to claim for a downgrade on a SAN-LAX sector

with a 20 minute delay there is no compensation due

Thanks for the response. I am not sure that the WIKI is accurate then:

11.2) For cancellations

For cancellations and / or when you are rerouted on to another service, some shorter delays attract a half rate payment. If the reroute involves departing less than an hour early, AND arriving less than 2 hours late at the original destination airport, there is no compensation, no matter what (Regulation 5.1.c.iii). The following diagrams explain what happens if the delay is longer and/or you need to leave more than an hour early.

The graphic that follows then has compensation due for 0:00 to 2:00 late.

I must be mis-understanding what it says. :confused:


Edited to Add:

The actual wording of the regulations is

1. Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall receive compensation amounting to:
(a) EUR 250 for all flights of 1500 kilometres or less;
(b) EUR 400 for all intra-Community flights of more than 1500 kilometres, and for all other flights between 1500 and 3500 kilometres;
(c) EUR 600 for all flights not falling under (a) or (b).

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.

2. When passengers are offered re-routing to their final destination on an alternative flight pursuant to Article 8, the arrival time of which does not exceed the scheduled arrival time of the flight originally booked

(a) by two hours, in respect of all flights of 1500 kilometres or less; or
(b) by three hours, in respect of all intra-Community flights of more than 1500 kilometres and for all other flights between 1500 and 3500 kilometres; or
(c) by four hours, in respect of all flights not falling under (a) or (b),

the operating air carrier may reduce the compensation provided for in paragraph 1 by 50 %.

So 20 mins does not exceed 2 hours therefore the reduced compensation would be applicable. It appears the WIKI is correct.

Yours was a reroute due to the late arrival of a connecting flight. The passage you've quoted relates to reroutes due to 'cancellation'.

it states and / or when you are re-routed. I have updated the original post with the actual regulation.

With due respect, CWS, this was not at all the reasoning followed by the CJEU. The CJEU was asked whether delays should be assimilated to cancellations and they clearly said no: a delay is a delay and a cancellation is a cancellation. The CJEU was not concerned by issues of "abuse" but rather with issues of equal treatment between passengers whose flight is delayed versus those whose flight is cancelled.

What the Court said is that the inconvenience suffered by the passenger would be the same whether the flight was delayed or cancelled and that it would therefore be a breach of the principle of equal treatment to treat them differently.

The next question was whether compensation could be read into the Regulation for delays (it is an established principle of interpretation that, as far as possible, you should avoid interpretations of legislation that lead to illegal consequences/invalidity of the act being interpreted). To the extent that the Regulation did not explicitly rule it out and that this was consistent with the aims of the Regulation as expressed in its preamble, the Court came to the conclusion that the Regulation should be interpreted as including a right to compensation for delayed passengers too. The way the Court interpreted the Reg might look surprising to those who are not familiar with the way EU law is interpreted by the CJEU but is not that exceptional to EU Law practitioners.

Now that the principle of compensation is established, the next question is: why 3 hours? Well, the Court looked at the provisions on cancellation and noted that, for last minute cancellation (viz. Art 5(1)(c)(iii) of the Reg), compensation is due if the passenger is rerouted with a departure of no more than one hour earlier than originally scheduled and arrival no more than 2 hours than originally scheduled. Thus, as the Court reads it, the Regulation is premised on the notion that compensation is not due if the travel time is extended by no more than 3 hours (1+2 hours). Since, in the case of delay, there is no issue of leaving earlier than the scheduled time, the Court considered that translating the principle in Art 5(1)(c)(iii) to delays implies a delay of 3 hours.

Now, it is true that there are going to be situations where you are slightly better off with cancellations given the way Art 5(1)(c)(iii) is structure and the fact that compensation will be due if you either leave more than an hour earlier or arrive more than two hours later so that, in practice, the increase in travel time could be lower than 3 hrs and even theoretically down to just over one hour.* Still, the delay of 3 hours is a reasonable transposition to delays of the solution reached in Art 5(1)(c)(iii) for cancellations.

*: It could even be shorter than originally scheduled if the rerouting is shorter.