The 2015 BA compensation thread: Your guide to Regulation 261/2004
May 27, 2015, 5:02 pm
#631
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,642
On balance, therefore, it is highly unlikely that you are correct regarding the whether or not the airline met their liability (see your previous posts). On the other hand, whether or not (if this was to proceed to litigation on the small claims track) a busy Deputy District Judge faced with a submission from an inexperienced litigant-in-person would concur is more questionable.
Unless prepared to pay for taking a case to European Court to get some sort of ruling on what the meaning is ( and I doubt that many are prepared to do so ) particularly when there is nothing to be gained. If the passenger had purchased a ticket on another carrier and wanted to try and force the issue, there might be some point
The assertion that the airline is required to reroute on other carriers is not actually supported by the wording of the regulation
May 27, 2015, 5:12 pm
#632
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: UK
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 658
There is nothing to take to a district judge - the only compensation due to the customer is EUR600 and this has been paid
Unless prepared to pay for taking a case to European Court to get some sort of ruling on what the meaning is ( and I doubt that many are prepared to do so ) particularly when there is nothing to be gained. If the passenger had purchased a ticket on another carrier and wanted to try and force the issue, there might be some point
The assertion that the airline is required to reroute on other carriers is not actually supported by the wording of the regulation
Unless prepared to pay for taking a case to European Court to get some sort of ruling on what the meaning is ( and I doubt that many are prepared to do so ) particularly when there is nothing to be gained. If the passenger had purchased a ticket on another carrier and wanted to try and force the issue, there might be some point
The assertion that the airline is required to reroute on other carriers is not actually supported by the wording of the regulation
He does not need to take anything to the CJEU (although if a Prelim Ruling ref was made - unlikely - he would most likely find help with representation). You are aware that courts do make decisions based on EU law even where the CJEU has not ruled on it? If you read point (b) you will see that the point is not necessarily academic so I have no idea what you are going on about that "there is nothing to be gained".
Last edited by flieduk; May 27, 2015 at 5:28 pm
May 27, 2015, 7:35 pm
#633
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,642
So what did you consider "the earliest opportunity" to mean?
He does not need to take anything to the CJEU (although if a Prelim Ruling ref was made - unlikely - he would most likely find help with representation). You are aware that courts do make decisions based on EU law even where the CJEU has not ruled on it? If you read point (b) you will see that the point is not necessarily academic so I have no idea what you are going on about that "there is nothing to be gained".
He does not need to take anything to the CJEU (although if a Prelim Ruling ref was made - unlikely - he would most likely find help with representation). You are aware that courts do make decisions based on EU law even where the CJEU has not ruled on it? If you read point (b) you will see that the point is not necessarily academic so I have no idea what you are going on about that "there is nothing to be gained".
The passenger didn't take a gamble on buying another ticket and seeing whether he could be successful in making the claim
It doesn't matter what I think it means or what it should mean.
The airline has taken a position - which I don't see as being untenable and wouldn't be making assertions that the airline must rebook on another carrier. If the person was out of pocket due to it and had time and necessary money could have tried claiming based on it and see whether any clarification became enforced
May 29, 2015, 9:32 am
#634
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: PHL
Programs: AAdvantage Platinum, Hilton HHonors Diamond
Posts: 1,204
First off, thanks C-W-S for these guides each year and to those who regularly give advice.
I just filed four claims to BA regarding our trip last week and we'll see what happens. Brief info:
*BA0068 delayed from 22:00 5-14-15 to 10:00 5-15-15.
*Mis-connected from BA0868 LHR-BUD 14:35-18:00 on 5-15-15.
*Stayed overnight at Sheraton. Meals & Transportation included.
*Re-routed on BA0866 LHR-BUD 08:50-12:20 5-16-15
*Delayed approximately 18 hours to our final destination.
I gave a bit more information than that, but it was a succinct one paragraph. I think it should be enough but am prepared to go 'back and forth' with them if needed. I have a letter from a manager in PHL stating it was "crew issues" while the pilot of the 777 on 5-15-15 at 10:00 claimed it was due to mechanical issues at LHR. Indeed both LHR-PHL flights were delayed and on LGW planes that day. I didn't include any of that information, but am prepared to scan the letter from the PHL manager as I do believe it bolsters our case a bit.
On a side note, I must say the London staff were very pleasant to deal with and did seem to care about how tired we were. ^ to BA there
I just filed four claims to BA regarding our trip last week and we'll see what happens. Brief info:
*BA0068 delayed from 22:00 5-14-15 to 10:00 5-15-15.
*Mis-connected from BA0868 LHR-BUD 14:35-18:00 on 5-15-15.
*Stayed overnight at Sheraton. Meals & Transportation included.
*Re-routed on BA0866 LHR-BUD 08:50-12:20 5-16-15
*Delayed approximately 18 hours to our final destination.
I gave a bit more information than that, but it was a succinct one paragraph. I think it should be enough but am prepared to go 'back and forth' with them if needed. I have a letter from a manager in PHL stating it was "crew issues" while the pilot of the 777 on 5-15-15 at 10:00 claimed it was due to mechanical issues at LHR. Indeed both LHR-PHL flights were delayed and on LGW planes that day. I didn't include any of that information, but am prepared to scan the letter from the PHL manager as I do believe it bolsters our case a bit.
On a side note, I must say the London staff were very pleasant to deal with and did seem to care about how tired we were. ^ to BA there
Last edited by airb330; May 29, 2015 at 9:43 am
May 29, 2015, 4:11 pm
#635
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ireland
Programs: VS Silver, EK Gold, BA GGL/CCR
Posts: 487
Hi,
Can I get some feedback from those in similar circumstances:
1. Is there any precedent for BA paying out when a later flight ex. LHR is delayed >3 hrs because of bad weather earlier in the day? (Weather was fine at the scheduled departure time)
2. If the routing of a flight is e.g. DXB-LHR-DUB and the DXB LHR is on time but the LHR DUB is delayed >3 hours, I understood the compensation is calculated on the entire routing resulting in EUR600. BA are claiming as I got to LHR on time from the longer flight that the payment would be EUR200 based on the LHR DUB flight length alone. Is this correct?
3. BA are offering 25,000 avios in compensation or about EUR220 in e-vouchers. Neither are acceptable but what cash value would people put on 25,000 avios or a GUF1?
Thanks,
AF.
Can I get some feedback from those in similar circumstances:
1. Is there any precedent for BA paying out when a later flight ex. LHR is delayed >3 hrs because of bad weather earlier in the day? (Weather was fine at the scheduled departure time)
2. If the routing of a flight is e.g. DXB-LHR-DUB and the DXB LHR is on time but the LHR DUB is delayed >3 hours, I understood the compensation is calculated on the entire routing resulting in EUR600. BA are claiming as I got to LHR on time from the longer flight that the payment would be EUR200 based on the LHR DUB flight length alone. Is this correct?
3. BA are offering 25,000 avios in compensation or about EUR220 in e-vouchers. Neither are acceptable but what cash value would people put on 25,000 avios or a GUF1?
Thanks,
AF.
May 29, 2015, 4:16 pm
#636
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,642
I think that the airline is correct in that the payout would be based only on LHR-DUB
I would take the EUR200 rather than pretend money or avios
I would take the EUR200 rather than pretend money or avios
May 29, 2015, 4:45 pm
#637
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: 63,910
Clause 7.1 says:
My reading of that is that if this was one ticket then the distance would be DXB to DUB, otherwise this clause would be worded differently. If the delay was under 4 hrs, however, BA could reduce it to €300, depending on circumstances.
As for the weather issue: if the outbound to LHR to DXB was delayed by bad weather, then personally I would read that as an acceptable reason not to pay up since BA could hardly keep aircraft on standby in DXB. But if it was caused by a weather event further back than that, then I don't think that would absolve them.
As for the last question, that's entirely down to what use you would make of the remediation. Cash is the most flexible, but if you could deploy a "space available upgrade" to go First to Sydney then it may be worth more to you. So the question back to you is, what would you do with it?
Originally Posted by EC/261
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.
As for the weather issue: if the outbound to LHR to DXB was delayed by bad weather, then personally I would read that as an acceptable reason not to pay up since BA could hardly keep aircraft on standby in DXB. But if it was caused by a weather event further back than that, then I don't think that would absolve them.
As for the last question, that's entirely down to what use you would make of the remediation. Cash is the most flexible, but if you could deploy a "space available upgrade" to go First to Sydney then it may be worth more to you. So the question back to you is, what would you do with it?
May 29, 2015, 5:42 pm
#638
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,642
I wouldn't read it that way. Indeed the delay is based on delay to destination but cannot see why it would be inferred that it be anything other than from the point where the delay occurs
May 29, 2015, 11:45 pm
#639
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: UK
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 658
As for the weather issue: if the outbound to LHR to DXB was delayed by bad weather, then personally I would read that as an acceptable reason not to pay up since BA could hardly keep aircraft on standby in DXB. But if it was caused by a weather event further back than that, then I don't think that would absolve them.
I will look around later but was sure that there was ECJ case law on this point. (Although, I agree about the practical point you raise CWS).
Last edited by flieduk; May 29, 2015 at 11:51 pm
May 30, 2015, 2:42 am
#640
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: BRS
Programs: BA Gold, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 4,996
BA have replied to my email as such:
Let me go over the details again:
Are BA right or are they trying to throw me off the scent? Clearly they rebooked me onto a flight MORE than 2 hours earlier.
I've reviewed your claim and can confirm that your claim for compensation under EU legislation has been rejected. We offered you a new flight that left no more than two hours before your original departure time and meant you reached your destination less than four hours after your scheduled arrival time. Under EU legislation, we’re not liable to pay any compensation for this kind of situation.
Let me go over the details again:
- Originally booked on BA189 (21:35 from EWR to LHR)
- Had an email/text the day or morning before the flight saying BA189 was cancelled.
- Rebooked onto BA184 (18:35 from EWR to LHR)
Are BA right or are they trying to throw me off the scent? Clearly they rebooked me onto a flight MORE than 2 hours earlier.
May 30, 2015, 2:53 am
#641
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,642
If the flight was cancelled on day of flight
If you have to depart more than 1 hour before scheduled departure time, then you are eligible for compensation
It would seem from wording of compensation , that you are entitled to EUR300 compensation since you were not 4 hours late into London
If you have to depart more than 1 hour before scheduled departure time, then you are eligible for compensation
Originally Posted by eu Article 5 , 1, C(iii)
(c) have the right to compensation by the operating air carrier
in accordance with Article 7, unless
.
.
.
(iii) they are informed of the cancellation less than seven
days before the scheduled time of departure and are
offered re-routing, allowing them to depart no more
than one hour before the scheduled time of departure
and to reach their final destination less than two hours
after the scheduled time of arrival
in accordance with Article 7, unless
.
.
.
(iii) they are informed of the cancellation less than seven
days before the scheduled time of departure and are
offered re-routing, allowing them to depart no more
than one hour before the scheduled time of departure
and to reach their final destination less than two hours
after the scheduled time of arrival
May 30, 2015, 2:58 am
#642
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: 63,910
They got that wrong all the way through. The provision quoted only applies if they told you a week in advance, which appears not to be the case. If informed with less notice, the provision limits are 1 hour before/2 hours after, and this is well off that. But they can reduce the claim by 50%, so €300. Personally I would only claim if the revised change was deeply hassle-some, given the advance notice, but in regulatory terms you seem to have a valid claim.
May 30, 2015, 3:01 am
#643
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,642
Personally, EUR300 is a decent anount of cash and would not be suggesting not to claim where it is due
May 30, 2015, 4:47 am
#644
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: BRS
Programs: BA Gold, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 4,996
Thanks for the advice. i've fired one back.
Indeed, usually I would not claim for such things but BA irritated me a few weeks ago on a separate matter so I felt like digging this one up!
Indeed, usually I would not claim for such things but BA irritated me a few weeks ago on a separate matter so I felt like digging this one up!
May 30, 2015, 5:18 am
#645
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: MIA, VIE and DPS
Programs: DL Plat 1MM, AA EXP 3MM, SQ Krisflyer Gold, UA Silver, Marriott LTT, HH Gold
Posts: 1,132
Extraordinary circumstances
Hi all,
So I am trying to understand what "extraordinary circumstances" are - and if they are even relevant if they occurred on the inbound flight resulting in a delayed departure (which we were on).
Three of us were on BA 206 (MIA-LHR) which was delayed over 3 hours (and landed 3h 17 min behind schedule) - allegedly (and I have no reason to doubt that) the aircraft that was meant to fly LHR-MIA that day was hit by a catering truck and had to be swapped.
Now, while I can see this counting as an extraordinary circumstance for the flight LHR-MIA, my interpretation is that this doesn't apply to the MIA-LHR flight we were on.
The delay resulted in us missing our connection to VIE; and assuming the flight we got booked on now, arrives on time, we will get to Vienna 5 hours late (but certainly more than 4 - pretty much no change this thing will land an hour early)
Do you guys think my interpretation of "extraordinary circumstances" is correct? Should I be entitled to a claim?
Thanks for your opinion and advice
So I am trying to understand what "extraordinary circumstances" are - and if they are even relevant if they occurred on the inbound flight resulting in a delayed departure (which we were on).
Three of us were on BA 206 (MIA-LHR) which was delayed over 3 hours (and landed 3h 17 min behind schedule) - allegedly (and I have no reason to doubt that) the aircraft that was meant to fly LHR-MIA that day was hit by a catering truck and had to be swapped.
Now, while I can see this counting as an extraordinary circumstance for the flight LHR-MIA, my interpretation is that this doesn't apply to the MIA-LHR flight we were on.
The delay resulted in us missing our connection to VIE; and assuming the flight we got booked on now, arrives on time, we will get to Vienna 5 hours late (but certainly more than 4 - pretty much no change this thing will land an hour early)
Do you guys think my interpretation of "extraordinary circumstances" is correct? Should I be entitled to a claim?
Thanks for your opinion and advice
Last edited by flying_geek; May 30, 2015 at 5:34 am