lorcancoyle

If you refuse the reroute (unless in lower class than booked) I'd see BA being on pretty solid ground - did they accommodate you in London? Any particular reason why you refused the reroute?

theultimateflyer

They did accommodate me in London. I refused the re-route because it would've gotten me in Oslo too late to catch the last train to Lillehammer (my final destination).

Regardless, my reasoning is that even had I accepted the re-route I should still be owed the reduced amount in compensation (€300?) because I would've landed 3 hours later the scheduled.

travelwithross

In this case your owed nothing. You decided not to take the re route that BA had offered you and your final destination with BA was OSL. You taking a train is if no regard to them.

I was in a similar situation myself and refused the last flight to OSL and BA then denied me a hotel and any subsequent assistance. You cannot claim compensation for a "hypothetical" situation. The flight could have landed 2h59m late and you would have been denied compensation for instance.

Sorry it's not better news. You were put up overnight in a hotel and flown back the next day - I think BA have went above and beyond.

NickB

Where in the Regulation does it say that? In relation to cancellation, the Reg says that compensation is due where the passenger is not "offered" rerouting within the parameters of the Reg. It says nothing about the passenger having to accept it. OTOH, it is less clear that the pax would have been entitled to accommodation in London.
I do not see why delays should be treated differently from cancellations in that respect.

This is not hypothetical. The pax has been offered rerouting that did not comply with the parameters in the Reg and caselaw to avoid compensation. The fact that BA denied compensation in the past does not mean that they were right.

It seems to me that there would be an arguable case here. That said, this one is not the best of case to argue it with the flight offered arriving just above the 3 hour threshold and it being a delay rather than a cancellation. This is not a case I would feel particularly comfortable arguing for and I can quite see a small claims court rejecting it. Personally, I would let it go, especially as BA picked up the tab for the hotel where it is not clear that they had to. On the principle, though, I would question the idea that asking for alternative re-routing automatically deprives you of the right to compensation.

travelwithross

Common sense please.

The OP had a ticket and contract with BA to reach OSL. They offered to get him to OSL on the next available flight. The OP declined as he would miss his train to Lillehammer. The regulations don't take into account his train travel and the ultimate destination with BA is OSL.

If the OP declines the next available flight, then (and in my experience of this exact same scenario) the OP forego's any right to compensation. BA didn't even need to provide him with a hotel, but they did.

I don't see what the issue is here?

Usually I side with complainers and give them the benefit of the doubt over BA, who I loathe sometimes, but I cannot see the reason why the OP here expects to receive compo for his own choosing. IF he had taken the later flight to OSL, then perhaps he would have been due compensation, but on the face of it he isn't as he refused onward travel on the next available flight.

NickB

The issue is that the regulation is premised on the notion that the airline owes the passenger compensation oring to the inconvenience suffered by the passenger due to the airline's failure to carry him to his destination within the time parameters specified in the regulation.
The fact that the OP suggested, and the airline accepted, a solution which is slightly less inconvenient than the one originally suggested does not make the original inconvenience suffered by the passenger, and for which compensation is due, disappear. It still is the case that the airline was unable to offer him rerouting arriving less than 3 hours later at destination, hence why compensation remains due. The OP is not getting compensation for "his own choosing". He is offered compensation for failure by the airline to offer him rerouting arriving within 3 hours of original schedule.
That said, this is not the best case here in which to run the argument and, personally, not one I would run in this situation, especially with BA having paid for the hotel.

cvision

Regarding this issue (getting to OSL) I was looking through the English version of the regulation. I might be blind, but has Article 6 (Delays) been stripped of links to the compensation article?

corporate-wage-slave

It was never there to begin with. See the top posts and last years threads for more discussion on this, but the original regulations compensated cancellations, but not delays. When the regulations first came out flights stopped being "cancelled" and were "delayed" - sometimes for days on end. Judicial intervention has inserted compensation for delays over 3 hours, in slightly different ways to cancellations/re-routings. The top of the thread fills the gap between the Regulation's wording and its practical operation.

UKtravelbear

It was only by a court ruling that compensation applies to delays.

The original regulation did not require compensation for a delay only to 'care' hence that it why there was no link to the articles relating to it.

lorcancoyle

On 5 Feb (if that was the day) the BA770 arrived (it seems) less than 3 hours after the scheduled arrival of BA768 - 22:36 vs. 19:45. So per above the "reroute" would have got within the 3 hour window.

Also an open question, does a missed connection constitute a "rerouting"? In this situation my inclination would be no - first leg was the booked flight, subsequent leg was same departure airport, same arrival airport, same airline etc. Any case on this I'm not aware of?

NickB

Being put on a different flight is being rerouted. The fact that it is between the same airports and the same airline makes no difference. And thank god for that. Otherwise it would mean that, when you are IDB'd on a, say, LHR-EDI flight, the airline could not comply with its obligation to reroute you by putting you on a later LHR-EDI flight and would have, instead, to find a convoluted way to get you there via elsewhere.

lorcancoyle

I agree for most situations being put on a different flight would be rerouting, it just seems odd to me that where the same delay on a direct flight wouldn't qualify for compensation, but by virtue of it being a connection it qualifies. So I see it as possibly distinct from a situation where the original flight was cancelled or delayed by a length of time that would qualify.

I can fully understand your interpretation, but from a personal perspective probably not one I'd feel particularly confident about if taking airline to small claims court.

Wonder if anybody here has had success with BA or others in a situation like this (if I'd been thinking straight on Sunday and shared this view I wouldn't have run like a lunatic through MAD to make my IB-BA connection, next flight was an hour later...)

NickB

I am not sure I get your point: the delay at final destination is > 3 hours. This qualifies whether on a direct or connecting flight.

or is your point that the specific flight was delayed less than the minimum and it is only because of a missed connection that it is > 3 hours?
If so, it has been long established since the Folkerts case, where you had a flight delayed by 2.5 hrs that resulted in a missed connection. Indeed, that was the first point raised in Folkerts.

lorcancoyle

My point above was that if the OP above had taken the connection offered the delay would have been less than 3 hours (instead OP opted to overnight in London). So if the offered flight have been taken it would only qualify for compensation if it was treated as a rerouting - feels slightly odd that the delay at an intermediate point might be 2:59 which would not qualify for compensation, but a delay at final destination of even 30 minutes (because of a forced switch to a later connecting flight) qualifies. Wouldn't be the first time there were odd outcomes of course! And airline would still be incentivised to minimise delay given the 50% in cash amount etc.

I'm also relying on the Folkerts case in my case against IB at the moment (which they accept) where 1 hour delay on inbound led to a 12 hour delay at final destination - rerouting aspect moot for me there, but as it was a shuttle route the question is interesting and relevant for future bookings

NickB

Oh, I get you now. Now, clearly if the OP would had been offered a flight that would have arrived within the 3 hours and declined it, then no compensation would be due. He would have been offered rerouting due to arrive within 3 hours.

However, my understanding was that the OP was offered a flight due to arrive after the 3 hours cut-off point, in which case declining should not per se deprive him of compensation because he was never offered rerouting due to arrive within 3 hours of original schedule.