The 2016 BA compensation thread: Your guide to Regulation 261/2004

Closed Thread Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Feb 9, 2016, 12:24 pm

#151

henkybaby

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Nov 2007

Location: The Hague, NL

Programs: GMLFL, Life 2.0 - Mucci Premiere Classe & des Chevaliers Toulousiens

Posts: 22,911

Quick question: is there some site where I can look up historical weather data? I'm looking for the weather conditions at DOH on 20JAN in the morning (09:00-12:00).

Or if anyone can provide them, this would be appreciated. Thanks.

Feb 9, 2016, 12:36 pm

#152

corporate-wage-slave

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: 63,844

https://weatherspark.com/#!dashboard;ws=32878

Then scroll back to the right day. Doesn't show anything odd to me mind, other than dew point hit ambient at about that time (mist in other words).

Feb 9, 2016, 1:17 pm

#153

henkybaby

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Nov 2007

Location: The Hague, NL

Programs: GMLFL, Life 2.0 - Mucci Premiere Classe & des Chevaliers Toulousiens

Posts: 22,911

Thank you CWS. I know that it was all normal. They (QR) are trying to brush me off. First they said it was technical and now it is all of a sudden weather related. It's a fun game though. Surprisingly they have admitted that EC261 would apply (if not for that pesky weather...) in the following scenario:
Through ticket AMS-BKK via DOH
DOH-BKK is delayed over 4 hrs
I claim based on arrival time at my final destination, even though the DOH-BKK flight itself isn't covered as a standalone.
So far they seem to accept that line of reasoning.

It may be interesting for more people here, so if you want I keep you posted.

Feb 9, 2016, 4:00 pm

#154

caz312

Join Date: Jan 2008

Posts: 1,492

Quote:

Originally Posted by henkybaby

Through ticket AMS-BKK via DOH
DOH-BKK is delayed over 4 hrs
I claim based on arrival time at my final destination, even though the DOH-BKK flight itself isn't covered as a standalone.
So far they seem to accept that line of reasoning.

Could be an interesting one as other non-EU airlines, such as Emirates, refuse EU261 compensation if the ex-EU leg is not affected and the delay is fully outside the EU. They quote a number of court cases where they have won and not been required to pay out in similar situations

Feb 15, 2016, 6:36 am

#155

Saltire74

Moderator, Emirates

Join Date: Oct 2012

Location: Where My Heart Is

Programs: BAEC Silver, FB Platinum, KQ Asante Gold, Shebamiles Blue, Emirates Blue

Posts: 3,386

Hi All

This question relates to CX but I thought I would ask the question on this board as I am sure this is where most of the expertise lays.

Flight booking for 8th March AMS-HKG-SUB. My flight HKG-SUB has been rescheduled and instead of leaving at 15:35 on 9th March has now been recheduled til 02:10hrs on 10th March. All flights booked as one itinerary through CX.

The reason for the rescheduling is due to 'Volcanic Ash Cloud' and CX have been rolling this rescheduling in increments. It seems that CX do not want one of their planes sitting in SUB overnight and as far as I am aware all other airlines are operating as normal to/from SUB.

As it was, I had an 8.5 hour layover in HKG (worse places to be and all that but.....) but this has now been extended to 19 hours.

I have contacted CX by phone and they cannot guarantee duty of care/hotel voucher until I arrive in HKG.

The question is, where do I stand with EC/261 on this? Flight departs EU on a non-EU carrier and ultimately will get to my destination with a delay from original scheduled arrival of about 10.5hours.

Thanks for any help and advice peeps.

Safe & Happy Travels

S

Feb 15, 2016, 6:59 am

#156

NickB

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Feb 2000

Location: London, UK and Southern France

Posts: 18,364

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saltire74

The question is, where do I stand with EC/261 on this? Flight departs EU on a non-EU carrier and ultimately will get to my destination with a delay from original scheduled arrival of about 10.5hours.

Since the flight affected by the incident (HKG-SUB) is wholly outside the EU, Reg 261/2004 does not apply. The fact that this flights connects to or from a flight that would fall within the scope of the reg makes no difference.

Feb 15, 2016, 7:25 am

#157

lorcancoyle

Join Date: Feb 2010

Location: London

Programs: BA GGL (for now) and Lifetime Gold, Marriott fan thanks to Bonvoy Moments

Posts: 5,115

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Ok, see where you're coming from now and makes logical sense - BA can't say after the fact that because a flight arrived ahead of schedule (and under 3 hours late) compensation no longer due. I.e. once you take a different rerouting when no scheduled alternative is scheduled to get in less than 3 hours late the compensation is payable.

Feb 15, 2016, 7:41 am

#158

mpkz

Suspended

Join Date: Jan 2014

Posts: 2,685

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickB

Might still get a claim through.

See the post by Henkybaby above relating to the same issue, except in DOH instead of HKG.

Feb 15, 2016, 7:51 am

#159

KARFA

Ambassador, British Airways; FlyerTalk Posting Legend

Join Date: Apr 2012

Location: Leeds, UK

Programs: BA GGL/CCR, GfL, HH Diamond

Posts: 42,987

Quote:

Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave

https://weatherspark.com/#!dashboard;ws=32878

Then scroll back to the right day. Doesn't show anything odd to me mind, other than dew point hit ambient at about that time (mist in other words).

Airport METAR shows the airport had very thick fog with no vertical visibility and <200 horizontal visibility that morning.

Code:

METAR/SPECI from OTBD, Doha International Airport (Qatar).
20/01/2016 10:00->METAR OTBD 201000Z 01006KT 330V060 9000 FEW020 23/14 Q1019 NOSIG=
20/01/2016 09:30->METAR OTBD 200930Z 36006KT 310V030 8000 FEW020 23/14 Q1019 NOSIG=
20/01/2016 09:00->METAR OTBD 200900Z NIL=
20/01/2016 08:30->METAR OTBD 200830Z 35004KT 300V060 6000 FEW010 22/15 Q1020 NOSIG=
20/01/2016 08:00->METAR OTBD 200800Z 01004KT 290V080 6000 FEW010 22/14 Q1021 NOSIG=
20/01/2016 07:30->METAR OTBD 200730Z 35003KT 290V060 6000 FEW010 20/16 Q1021 NOSIG=
20/01/2016 07:00->METAR OTBD 200700Z 35004KT 310V020 6000 FEW005 19/17 Q1021 NOSIG=
20/01/2016 06:30->METAR OTBD 200630Z 35005KT 5000 HZ BKN008 19/17 Q1021 NOSIG=
20/01/2016 06:00->METAR OTBD 200600Z 34004KT 3000 BR BKN008 18/18 Q1021 NOSIG=
20/01/2016 05:30->METAR OTBD 200530Z 34003KT 0100 FG FEW001 BKN003 18/18 Q1020 NOSIG=
20/01/2016 05:00->METAR OTBD 200500Z VRB02KT 0100 FG VV/// 18/17 Q1020 NOSIG=
20/01/2016 04:30->METAR OTBD 200430Z 34003KT 310V010 0150 FG VV/// 18/17 Q1020 NOSIG=
20/01/2016 04:00->METAR OTBD 200400Z VRB01KT 0100 FG VV/// 17/17 Q1019 NOSIG=
20/01/2016 03:30->METAR OTBD 200330Z VRB01KT 0100 FG VV/// 17/16 Q1019 NOSIG=
20/01/2016 03:00->METAR OTBD 200300Z 00000KT 0100 FG VV/// 16/15 Q1018 NOSIG=
20/01/2016 02:30->METAR OTBD 200230Z 00000KT 0100 FG VV/// 16/15 Q1018 NOSIG=
20/01/2016 02:00->METAR OTBD 200200Z 00000KT 0100 FG VV/// 16/15 Q1018 NOSIG=
20/01/2016 01:30->METAR OTBD 200130Z 34002KT 0200 FG NSC 17/16 Q1018 NOSIG=
20/01/2016 01:00->METAR OTBD 200100Z 35003KT 0200 FG NSC 17/16 Q1017 NOSIG=

Feb 15, 2016, 7:55 am

#160

lorcancoyle

Join Date: Feb 2010

Location: London

Programs: BA GGL (for now) and Lifetime Gold, Marriott fan thanks to Bonvoy Moments

Posts: 5,115

How does this interact with this post / ruling reference?

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/24532751-post2.html

ETA - I see NickB's point, the only leg impacted is outside EU. So not comparable to the AMS-DOH-HKG example

Feb 15, 2016, 7:55 am

#161

henkybaby

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Nov 2007

Location: The Hague, NL

Programs: GMLFL, Life 2.0 - Mucci Premiere Classe & des Chevaliers Toulousiens

Posts: 22,911

Quote:

Originally Posted by caz312

Do you have a link/reference maybe? It is a matter of principle for me to see this through but I can't seem to find any prior cases... Thanks!

EDIT: Hmmm... That does not look good. I do feel that it is against the 'spirit' of EC261 that the judge takes the stance that compensation is on a 'per flight' basis and not based on starting point to final destination* but I am not sure I want to fight the considerable force that ME3 will use to prevent a favourable ruling for little old me...

I even think that it is contradictory to the exiting policy of using arrival time at the final destination to be decisive when your first (exEU) flight is late... But IANAL.

Last edited by henkybaby; Feb 15, 2016 at 8:20 am

Feb 15, 2016, 8:26 am

#162

NickB

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Feb 2000

Location: London, UK and Southern France

Posts: 18,364

Quote:

Originally Posted by henkybaby

I do feel that it is against the 'spirit' of EC261 that the judge takes the stance that compensation is on a 'per flight' basis and not based on starting point to final destination but I am not sure I want to fight the considerable force that ME3 will use to prevent a favourable ruling for little old me...

The point is not the "per flight" issue but rather where the incident itself actually occurred. If it occured within the EU (or on an EU-bound flight on an EU carrier), then the airline is responsible for delay to final destination even if there are 10 legs on the ticket before final arrival. But the incident must occur within the scope of the Reg. It is not enough that the whole itinerary starts or finishes within the EU.

Otherwise, on an LHR-AMS-HKG-AKL-NAN-SUV where the last leg, operated by Fiji Airways, is severely delayed/cancelled, Fiji Airways, the operating carrier of that flight (from Nadi to Suva), would be liable for €600 merely because the ticket originates in the EU. IMO, this is patently not within the letter, or spirit, of the Reg.

Quote:

I even think that it is contradictory to the exiting policy of using arrival time at the final destination to be decisive when your first (exEU) flight is late.

I disagree. The logic of the reg is that, if the incident occurs within the scope of the Reg, then the airline is liable for the consequences, albeit in a standardised form, of the negative impact of the incident. If it means delay to flights which, in themselves, would be outside the scope of the Reg then so be it. It is also in line with the wording of the Reg, which requires distance to be based on the last destination at which arrival of the passenger is delayed. But that only kicks in if you are within the scope of the reg in the first place.

Feb 15, 2016, 8:34 am

#163

henkybaby

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Nov 2007

Location: The Hague, NL

Programs: GMLFL, Life 2.0 - Mucci Premiere Classe & des Chevaliers Toulousiens

Posts: 22,911

Without getting too far OT, I believe there is a difference between fares that are aggressively marketed as IF they were point to point (most ME3 fare exEU) and very complicated multi-cities. I am sure I don't have to explain my train of thought as I also understand why 'the law' cannot (yet) distinguish between the two.

I am arguing for exception on 'through tickets' where the fares are demonstrably marketed by the operating airline as if they were point to point itineraries. A bit like below. No mention of booking a flight to DOH and then a flight to xxx. Again, legally probably nonsense but I am sure that it is common sense.

Even on the T&C page it says "Valid on Qatar Airways operated flights only, departing/returning from/to Amsterdam (AMS)". No mention of DOH...

And in the fare rules, it says this fare consists of 2 components. Component 1 = AMS-BKK etc.

Attached Images

Last edited by henkybaby; Feb 15, 2016 at 8:40 am

Feb 15, 2016, 8:46 am

#164

NickB

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Feb 2000

Location: London, UK and Southern France

Posts: 18,364

Quote:

Originally Posted by henkybaby

If the way a fare or itinerary is advertised were a relevant factor, then the responsible carrier should be the marketing carrier or possibly the ticketing carrier. The fact that the Reg makes the operating carrier responsible suggests a different logic at play here.

Feb 15, 2016, 9:09 am

#165

henkybaby

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Nov 2007

Location: The Hague, NL

Programs: GMLFL, Life 2.0 - Mucci Premiere Classe & des Chevaliers Toulousiens

Posts: 22,911

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickB

I know that legally you are right and there will be no way in h*ll that they will pay, but you do understand the common sense line of reasoning in these scenarios I hope?