Nyghtwing

I was actually on that flight too (I'm on the route quite frequently). Whilst it's true that the inbound flight arrived a bit late, the LAX staff are usually quite good at servicing the aircraft to turn it round quickly, allowing it to leave on-time or very close to it. What initially was auto-scheduled as a fifteen minute delay on ba.com earlier in the evening, was reverted back to an on-schedule departure time of 21:35 (to which ba.com also updated to reflect) when the aircraft landed earlier. Boarding began at 21:00 and all passengers were basically onboard at 21:20 (yes, they board that quickly). Being one of the last to board, because I was chatting with the staff, I witnessed when around 10-12 ran up to the gate around 21:22-21:26 (very late). They were told that they were offloaded because AA communicated that they would not make the connection due to the late inbound arriving flight from Las Vegas and needed control of their e-tickets to rebook them. I believe the AA flight then made up some time en route and arrived a bit earlier than anticipated (perhaps it left LAS earlier than it was meant to). When the OP and group arrived at the gate, boarding was completed, save for me and one or two other passengers they were doing an onboard check for. The BA flight would have got away a few minutes early or on-schedule had the group not turned up unannounced. The decision was then made to re-open the flight by the gate Duty Manager to accommodate them when some in the group started kicking off with the staff to be let on.

At longhaul outstations, BA closes their flights one hour prior to departure. At that time, all standby passengers are allocated free seats and any seating issues (families, etc. split apart are resolved ... given any spare seats left remaining in the cabins). When AA communicated to BA that the passengers weren't going to make it in time, they were offloaded and those seats were used to resolve seating issues and accommodate standbys. When the group turned up, the staff had to go onboard and start moving people around (i.e., upgrading Golds/Emeralds, Silvers/Sapphires, etc., and moving staff standbys given seats) to re accommodate these passengers into their paid cabin.



BA actually took a delay doing this, as the flight would have gotten away on schedule. We ended up pushing back at 21:50. Luckily, the flight time was quick and we arrived into LHR a few minutes early.

In the bigger picture, thirty plus people may seem significant to the OP, but it really isn't when you have well over 400 passengers onboard, with 65-80% of them holding connecting flights. With LHR being so slot restricted, this could have gone rather pear-shaped for BA had the flight arrived late into LHR. It may have seemed a shambles to the OP, but I do not think BA were in the wrong in this instance (I am more than happy to admit when I think they are).

Tbase100

There seems to be a little bit of confusion about EC261 on the thread, so I'll clarify this, but don't wish to get into a discussion about who was at fault or whether it is a stupid regulation.

I am assuming that people are interested in a potential denied boarding scenario (although the OP did travel.)

Article 1 defines denied boarding

Article 2 provides relevant definitions germane to the case

BA is the operating air carrier

BA is a community carrier

Holding a boarding pass is proof of a reservation, as is the eticket receipt

There do not seem to be any reasonable grounds to deny boarding, when the OP reached the gate before boarding closed.

Article 3 establishes scope

The BA flight departed form a third country (the USA) to an airport in a community ember state (the UK.)

A decision had been made that the pax would not make the flight and they were told they would be transferred to another flight.

Article 4 covers denied boarding

It is clear that people who were transferred to another flight would be entitled to compensation by the operating carrier, even if ticketed by a third party airline.

NYTA

It seems to me that once you turn up at the gate on time with a BP, then they have to let you on or pay. I'm sure they'd try to find a way not to pay for those who stayed overnight. I'm still waiting for compensation from BA for a missed connection at LHR and from payment from two other 261 claims on other airlines. They are all rather bad about paying.

Ldnn1

As I understand it, no one who got to the gate was denied boarding, so EU261 isn't in issue.

corporate-wage-slave

Welcome to Flyertalk Tbase100, welcome to the BA board, and I very much hope that you will be continuing to participate in this forum.

The fact that they allowed boarding (and it seems delayed departure) to those who showed up suggests this won't be an issue here.

The ECJ has separately said that offloading has to handled carefully on connections, the precise case there being a domestic to international booking with Iberia when the passengers made it to the gate but were still not allowed to board. However here, since the passengers who made it to the gate were allowed on, they won't need to claim. Those who didn't make it appear to have been blocked more by AA / buildings logistics than by BA.

Tbase100

Thank you for the warm welcome, Corporate Wage Slave.

I wrote So I agree that the regulation does not apply to the OP, but thought people may be interested in the potential scenario.

The real killer in the regulation is

If the passenger is transferred to another flight and denied boarding to their reserved flight, they qualify for IDB compensation. It doesn't matter who's logistics caused it and the operating carrier has to pay (although they may seek to reclaim their losses from the organization who caused it.)

simons1

I don't really follow.

Either the boarding was complete and the flight ready to go or it wasn't. Maybe the group arrived at the gate, saw some people still boarding, saw you "chatting with the staff" and felt entitled to kick off (as you put it) especially as they had previously been told there was an operating delay until 21.45 which at that point was still 20 mins away.

I'm not saying BA was at fault, certainly not with the delayed bags, but I think allowing the passengers to board the flight was right, and was proven so when the flight landed about 10 mins early in London.

irishguy28

Except for those who they managed to dissuade from showing up at the gate, which all 30 could have done on time!

EuropeanPete

Is the lesson here to always charge up to the gate because even if you can't board you get moar monies?

irishguy28

I would like to think that people's motivation is simply to get home on the service they were booked on, and not to have to endure an extra night along the way...

EuropeanPete

I'm not a compensation chaser, but I would generally have accepted that I'm unlikely to get on a flight if I'm told that I've been offloaded. If I get there before the gate closes and I either get on or get several hundred £ for my effort that does change the calculations a bit - even if that's not the intention.

Nyghtwing

Semantics. No discourse to you, of course. I had just been boarded by the gate reader about two minutes prior and was just saying my hellos and goodbyes to some of the staff I know before heading down the jetty to go on the aircraft, when the group came running up. Some of them made quite a bit of commotion and that's what drew my attention toward them in the first place. All other passengers were onboard (a staff member was onboard checking to see whether a passenger who was not registered as being boarded was in fact on board. It turns out they were because the staff member radioed up confirming this), so the flight was ready to go.

It seems that AA cabin crew communicated incorrectly to the OP and the group that the flight was registering a fifteen minute delay to 21:50, but I assure you that ba.com displayed an on-schedule departure of 21:35 at least two plus hours to departure, because I myself checked the app whilst in the lounge. Perhaps this was the case earlier in the evening when they (AA at LAS) checked, but the incoming BA flight made up some time and departure was reverted back to being on-schedule.

I believe BA's policy is that all pax should turn up to the gate at least 15-20 minutes prior to departure or be subject to offload. My boarding pass confirms this with the gate closing time as 21:20. BA was not obliged to allow them on, but in the interest of duty of care/customer service, I agree with you that it was the right thing to do. Furthermore, it is my understanding that BA do not allow for airside bus transfers because all connecting passengers must be re-screened by local TSA security. AA know this, which is why I am surprised to hear that some members of the group were allowed to get on the AA to QF bus after 'arguing' with the AA staff at the bussing gate. Certainly, if the BA gate staff had been made aware that this had transpired, it is highly unlikely that any of passengers who turned up late would be allowed to board.

At the end of the day, AA decided and communicated to BA that these passengers were not going make their BA connection due to their delayed inbound. The decision to offloaded them by BA was based on this advisory. Now if AA had made some time up and the delayed flight was due to arrive at LAX earlier than expected, then this should have been communicated to BA. It was only due to a quick flight time and no holding delays that the flight landed into London slightly early (even with the delay), but you cannot really depend on that 'hope' each and every time.

Ldnn1

I realise Tbase100 didn't want to start another 'EU261 is crap' discussion, but having looked at it I think it's worth pointing out that the provisions quoted above are quite non-sensical, because they make no reference at all to having to present oneself for boarding on time. The only time stipulation in Article 3(2) relates to check-in, which is of course completely different - you can be on time for check-in, but if you then turn up late at the gate the airline should (surely correctly) be able to deny boarding.

Enigma368

Lots of good points here. I think the salient facts are:

1) Cabin crew on the LAS flight repeatedly advised BA passengers over the intercom to go to gate 44 to get the (Qantas) bus. This was obviously incorrect advice as BA passengers are presumably not allowed to use that bus.

2) Many of us could *probably* have made it by going the long way round. I am pretty fast on my feet so unless there was a very significant delay at TBIT security I think I would have easily made the journey in the 30mins it took to go the bus route. I decided to stay with the group though because I felt this was my best chance.

2) The BA flight was likely oversold. Only roughly 10 of 30 passengers made the gate on time, yet they seemed to completely run out of both economy and wtp seats, which I think is why I ended to up getting a CW seat. Had all 30 passengers made the gate, they would probably have had to deny boarding to some or upgrade many more to CW. CW was not full. I did not officially get upgraded to CW btw, I ended up getting 3 different boarding passes for this flight - none of which were for CW - but in the end I had no seat and cabin crew just shrugged and let me sit in CW.

3) The BA flight was actually delayed to 9.47pm from early that morning. I get an email with every change to the est. departure and this did not change again until about 8.50pm that night, when est departure went up to 9.56pm. Only at 9.20pm did it go back down to a 9.35pm departure.(it then went up again presumably because of us) They may not ever have taken this delay into account or maybe they felt the LAS flight was going to be too late regardless.

4) I am also of the opinion that EU261 would most likely have applied here if boarding had been denied, based on other people's points and reading up on it. It would have been a fight of course to get this. I do not know if the people who took the rebooked flight could claim EU261 for delayed arrival. I don't know why the AA flight was delayed, probably just traffic over the course of the day.

Sorry if I sound like I am beating up on AA/BA. BA staff were actually very good and seemed to handle the situation quite well in the circumstances. AA staff were trying to be helpful but we ended up getting such conflicting advice from cabin crew and then ground staff, that it made the whole thing feel very messy. My main criticism really is that imo we had enough time to make the connection and yet were offloaded without being given that chance. It felt like maybe someone had pulled the trigger a little prematurely, but then maybe 9 times out 10 in this situation, we would not have made it.

Yep, this matches my recollection. I was one of the first LAS passenger to arrive at the gate and yes they seemed to be boarding the last few stragglers. The fact though is that boarding was still open when we arrived at the gate so technically we arrived on time. BA staff initially said we would not be allowed on but I think they relented pretty quickly and I cannot really fault their handling in what were difficult circumstances.

I was not involved in any shouting or major kicking off btw....I just politely said that I felt it was unfair if I would not be allowed on given I had arrived on time. They then issued me a new BP without much disagreement. I think the main group of LAS passengers arrived after I boarded and that the discussions may have gotten more heated then. I was actually seated for about 20minutes before the rest of the LAS passengers started appearing.

corporate-wage-slave

I can see why you say that, but my own view is that seems that you are possiblly taking the clause out of context: it modifies clause 2 (about check-in times) and relates back to clause 1 (scope). There are a number of reasons in the rest of regulations why airlines can legitimately deny boarding and they aren't superseded by the clause that you quoted. Most importantly that the operating airline is responsible for its own actions. If you took your reading to its logical conclusion, it would imply that all flight would have to be held, even across alliances, for as long as it takes. That definitely wouldn't be the correct reading of that clause.