An ATC restriction usually occurs where there are storm cells or the like which require additional ATC attention to reroute aircraft. That wasn't the case in mine and LondonElite's case.

Specifically, BA told me, and I quote:

"Due to the risk of high winds exceeding safe levels in Belfast we made the decision to cancel the flight."

Ergo: it was not safe to land/take off from Belfast.

I now have the historic wind forecast for BHD which shows that there was a headwind of 23mph, gusting 30. The wind was straight up the runway, no reports of wind shear or any significant crosswind component.

Also, nobody wants to expects BA to operate a faulty aircraft. Just that when something does break, BA should 1) act with due diligence to get people down safely, 2) look after them in the interim, and 3) honour their obligations to compensate those who were affected.

First time poster here with a query about a bmibaby flight (posting in the BA forum as I have to claim from BA - hope it's ok in here, but please move if not). This is a weather related query but I believe compensation is due as my flight wasn't directly impacted by weather.

I was due to fly from EMA to Belfast City in April 2012. The flight was due to take off at 8.25pm, but the inbound flight was diverted to Birmingham due to weather (a member of staff advised of this). I've had a look on http://www.flightstats.co.uk and no other flights were diverted from EMA or delayed taking off that evening. The weather looked perfect from the ground.

My flight eventually departed at 11.50pm but to Belfast International (Belfast City closes at 10pm). We landed at Belfast International 3 hours 15 minutes late and were then coached to Belfast City (arriving just over 5 hours late).

Is this something that would be due compensation?

Not exactly. it is rather: "There is a high risk that it might not be safe to land/take off from Belfast and we therefore have taken the decision to cancel the flight as a precautionary measure".
I must say that I am in two minds as to whether this should be regarded a valid ground or not. I can certainly see the arguments both ways and I can certainly see why you think that compensation is due.

Welcome to Flyertalk cubso, welcome to the BA board, and I hope that you will continue to participate here elsewhere, this is a valuable resource which needs everyone's help. In the case of BMI they have locked up the forum, so I can't think of a better location.

In terms of your question, my personal view is that while weather is a valid reason not to pay compensation, it should be view fairly tightly. There was a case that got to court where the claimant successfully argued that knock-on effects of hurricanes in one area should not be used as an excuse in a different area.

However you may need to spend some effort getting your evidence together on this one! It would not surprise me if BA refuse this first time around, unless you present a solid case.

Indeed welcome cubso. I am not entirely sure what the status of outstanding legal claims against bmibaby would be. Was bmibaby not a separate company and was it part of the IAG acquisition? FWIW, the old bmibaby site now redirects to bmi regional. Not that it means anything in itself, of course.

Following the sale of bmi to IAG in 2012 it's an interesting question as to who (if anyone) has inherited bmi's (and bmibaby's) liabilities unto EU261 .....

That would suggest IAG carries the can.

For bmi, I would have thought that it would be clear that it would be IAG, to the extent that they acquired bmi as a going concern although in practice they may have passed that on to BA. For bmibaby, I am most unclear.

Thanks for the responses so far. My wife has contacted BMI Regional already and they pointed us in the direction of BA.

Whether the reason makes compensation due or not is probably not relevant in this case. As your flight was over 6 years ago and I assume you did not start a court claim within the 6 years, the airline can reject your claim quite happily as they know there is nowhere you can go from there. So there is no cast iron claim due to the fact it is time barred.

Hi there Stewie Mac,

My husband and I have different surnames but I had no trouble claiming compensation for a jointly booked flight on the same ticket. My husband did have to write to BA saying that I could accept payment on his behalf (BA supplied the instructions for this at the payment stage). Happy travelling!

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

BA have refused my claim a second time around. This time, they cite ATC restrictions, which is the first time this has been mentioned. Previously, it was "due to the risk of high winds exceeding safe levels in Belfast", then "weather", now an ATC restriction.

Should I now pursue this via the MCOL link? Thoughts?

Firstly, what an informative thread. Thank you for the time and effort that has been put into this.

I have claimed for a delayed flight from West Coast USA to LHR which was delayed to technical issues with the BA A380.

We arrived according to flightstats 3 hours 58 minutes late. I was impressed with the fast response to my claim on Sunday, which has accepted compensation is due. They have offered 300 Euro compensation per pax as we arrived within 4 hours of our scheduled arrival. In the table at the header of the email I note that it shows 3+ hours a payment of 600 Euro. On the moneysavingexpert website it shows a 300 Euro payment is correct.

Can anyone advise if BA are correct? The payment will be welcome, and BA were very quick to reply, but if the payment is halved it was a shame the extra 2 minutes of delays weren't shown!

I resubmitted my claim questioning 'weather' excuses, showing that neither wind nor precipitation were major factors. As an offshore sailor, I can read a weather forecast and have a pretty robust idea of what is safe and what is not. I included links to the forecast on 13 Jan and pointed out that all flight operating along similar flight path (HAM, TXL, WAW) operated that day. I'm still waiting to hear back.

If the delay was 3 hours and 58 minutes, then the payout due is indeed EUR300
At 4 hours , thr payment due is EUR600

They must have prioritised my refusal. :) ha!

I am going to do some further digging before submitting a follow up in writing. I'm going to look at historic LHR movements on the day in question; I strongly suspect no real ATC restriction (if there were, all airlines would be canceling a certain percentage of their flights). I am also trying to see if I can find any historic NOTAMs (NOTices to AirMen) for the area.

I am a sometime amateur pilot, though not licenced, and take more than a passing interest in the ops side of things. I'm usually happy to just write these experiences off sometimes, but if I feel misled I will pursue it.

I will report back again in due course.