Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > British Airways | Executive Club
Reload this Page >

The 2015 BA compensation thread: Your guide to Regulation 261/2004

The 2015 BA compensation thread: Your guide to Regulation 261/2004

Closed Thread

Old Mar 20, 15, 4:35 am
  #406  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: YUL
Posts: 2,085
Original booking: BA94 14 March YUL LHR connecting to BA982 LHR TXL 15 March, scheduled arrival 13:00.

We pushed back on time, but BA94 ended up leaving YUL almost 3 hours late due to de-icing, lack of fuel, re-fueling and another de-icing. We then missed our connection in London, and were rebooked on BA994, arrival at 17:30, e.g. 4 1/2 hours later than scheduled.

Under this scenario, are we eligible for any compensation?
okazon69 is offline  
Old Mar 20, 15, 5:05 am
  #407  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 39,605
That would seem to be a weather related issue which would not be eligible for compensation
Dave Noble is offline  
Old Mar 20, 15, 11:18 am
  #408  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Programs: IHG Plat, Accor gold, M&M FTL, BA Blue, A3 *Gold
Posts: 1,442
Originally Posted by Dave Noble View Post
That would seem to be a weather related issue which would not be eligible for compensation
Unless the "lack of fuel" bit is "de-icing, and not enough fuel to even allow for minor delays with that, so re-fuel ("fill her up this time, will ya"), another de-ice, take-off" in reality.
tom tulpe is offline  
Old Mar 20, 15, 11:38 pm
  #409  
FlyerTalk Evangelist & Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 16,682
Originally Posted by tom tulpe View Post
Unless the "lack of fuel" bit is "de-icing, and not enough fuel to even allow for minor delays with that, so re-fuel ("fill her up this time, will ya"), another de-ice, take-off" in reality.
You might be in for a fight if you push that one

Do let us know though if you do!
Calchas is offline  
Old Mar 21, 15, 9:02 am
  #410  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,880
CAA naming and shaming airlines.

I must have missed something, just where has there been a ruling saying the limitations act doesn't apply and claims are only possible for incidents two years prior?
hugolover is offline  
Old Mar 21, 15, 11:08 am
  #411  
FlyerTalk Evangelist & Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 16,682
Originally Posted by hugolover View Post
CAA naming and shaming airlines.

I must have missed something, just where has there been a ruling saying the limitations act doesn't apply and claims are only possible for incidents two years prior?
The rule arises in the Montreal Convention. It is very explicit.

"Article 35.
1. The right to damages shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within a period of two years, reckoned from the date of arrival at the destination, or from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the carriage stopped. "
(http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/air.carriag...l.1999/35.html)

This was overruled in Dawson v. Thomson Airlines.

Thomson Airlines applied to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal, but the Supreme Court declined to hear their case. https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/fli...istration.html
Calchas is offline  
Old Mar 21, 15, 3:03 pm
  #412  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,880
Originally Posted by Calchas View Post
The rule arises in the Montreal Convention. It is very explicit.

"Article 35.
1. The right to damages shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within a period of two years, reckoned from the date of arrival at the destination, or from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the carriage stopped. "
(http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/air.carriag...l.1999/35.html)

This was overruled in Dawson v. Thomson Airlines.

Thomson Airlines applied to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal, but the Supreme Court declined to hear their case. https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/fli...istration.html
But as you said, the Court dismissed the Appeal and they were refused further permission to appeal. So why are they saying the courts affirmed it is 2 years and not 6 when they haven't its a matter of 261? It's just misleading and wrong.
hugolover is offline  
Old Mar 21, 15, 4:35 pm
  #413  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK and Southern France
Posts: 15,939
Originally Posted by hugolover View Post
But as you said, the Court dismissed the Appeal and they were refused further permission to appeal. So why are they saying the courts affirmed it is 2 years and not 6 when they haven't its a matter of 261? It's just misleading and wrong.
Indeed. There have been no less than 4 cases (ex parte IATA, Sturgeon, Nelson and Cuadrench Moré) in which the CJEU has insisted that Reg 261/2004 actions are distinct from Montreal Convention claims and that therefore the various limitations/defences in the latter are not relevant to Reg 261/2004 claims. This has regrettably not prevented some airlines from pretending that they don't know/don't understand and ignore this CJEU caselaw. Draw your own conclusions as to whether this implies anything regarding the honesty and integrity of these airlines.
NickB is offline  
Old Mar 22, 15, 8:04 pm
  #414  
FlyerTalk Evangelist & Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 16,682
Originally Posted by hugolover View Post
But as you said, the Court dismissed the Appeal and they were refused further permission to appeal. So why are they saying the courts affirmed it is 2 years and not 6 when they haven't its a matter of 261? It's just misleading and wrong.
I misunderstood your question, sorry

Presumably some DJ somewhere agreed with the airline once, and the claimant didn't take it any further.

I am surprised the airlines really give a toss, how many three year old 261 claims can people really be bothered to drag up? Thomson must have spent a fortune on defending that 1400 gbp claim at the Court of Appeal.

If I were the airline I'd have offered no comment, but insisted on boarding pass stubs being presented during the claim procedure: almost everyone will have thrown them out after two years.
Calchas is offline  
Old Mar 22, 15, 9:52 pm
  #415  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 39,605
Originally Posted by Calchas View Post
If I were the airline I'd have offered no comment, but insisted on boarding pass stubs being presented during the claim procedure: almost everyone will have thrown them out after two years.
That would be an unreasonable request and would amost certainly not be accepted as reasonable by a court as grounds to be exempt from paying the claimant

That the claimant did not have a booking/travel with the airline would be something which the airline could produce as evidence if this was the case.

The airline already has the names of those that were booked on the flight
Dave Noble is offline  
Old Mar 23, 15, 12:40 pm
  #416  
FlyerTalk Evangelist & Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 16,682
Originally Posted by Dave Noble View Post
That would be an unreasonable request and would amost certainly not be accepted as reasonable by a court as grounds to be exempt from paying the claimant
I didn't say anything about using that strategy in court.
Calchas is offline  
Old Mar 23, 15, 1:53 pm
  #417  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Programs: BAEC Silver, Virgin Flying Club, SPG
Posts: 613
Originally Posted by Calchas View Post
I didn't say anything about using that strategy in court.
So...you're simply advocating airlines adopt inherently unfair and onerous conditions on passengers in the hope that it dupes or dissuades as many people as possible from claiming a financial compensation they are legally entitled to?
Magic01273 is offline  
Old Mar 23, 15, 4:49 pm
  #418  
FlyerTalk Evangelist & Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 16,682
Originally Posted by Magic01273 View Post
So...you're simply advocating airlines adopt inherently unfair and onerous conditions on passengers in the hope that it dupes or dissuades as many people as possible from claiming a financial compensation they are legally entitled to?
That is the sort of thing I would suggest if I were contracted to minimize claimants. Feel free not to hire me

I don't understand why you would make a statement at this time. It would just encourage claimants to come forward.
Calchas is offline  
Old Mar 23, 15, 5:08 pm
  #419  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 39,605
Originally Posted by Calchas View Post
I didn't say anything about using that strategy in court.
You think that such an attitude from the company is amusing ?
Dave Noble is offline  
Old Mar 23, 15, 5:12 pm
  #420  
FlyerTalk Evangelist & Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 16,682
Originally Posted by Dave Noble View Post
You think that such an attitude from the company is amusing ?
Yes
Calchas is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread