rapidex

So thats you buying the drinks at the JER do then Uncle T^

snuffi

Hello
A colleague of mine and his wife were on an AA-operated BA-coded ORD-LHR flight within the last couple of days that ended up being very delayed, with the reason given that they needed to extract birds from the engines. I think they eventually had to depart on a second aircraft, and ended up arriving in London +4.5 hours beyond their originally scheduled arrival time.

They were on a BA ticketed itin. Would they be in line for EU261? The story is slightly complicated by the fact that this was ex-DUB, and they did not continue to DUB on the return leg. I think by this time they were fed-up of travelling even though they would have been rebooked etc. In the light of this do they have a claim, or in fact would it be wiser to do nothing in case of incomplete ex-EU counter-claim!

For a 5 hour delay at O'Hare they got a $12 food voucher each!

corporate-wage-slave

No, not covered by EC261. And I'm frankly amazed they got as much as a $12 voucher! Always worth keeping this in mind when travelling on non European airlines. Codesharing a BA flight number isn't enough, it's the metal that counts.

UKtravelbear

It is always the operating carrier that matters not the ticketing carrier. As this was an AA operated flight into the EU then EU261 does not apply.

serfty

To be perfectly clear, if the flight had been "LHR-ORD" and so delayed then EU261 would have indeed applied, irrespective of the carrier.

That is, EU261 may apply to any flight originating in the EU.

melch

Hello,
While digging in the net and looking for some advice in my discussion with BA on due compensation for delayed flight, I have found this forum and I’m so happy to find a lots of useful information how to deal with such case.
My situation is following: our BA flight from Johannesburg to London Heathrow was delayed 26 hours due to technical fault (as it was stated in the letter that we have received at the airport after 3 hours waiting for boarding). We were given vouchers for meals, then provided accommodation (as we were staying overnight) with breakfast and lunch and finally got on board next evening after 26 hours waiting. As we had a connecting flight from LHR to WAW (also BA flight) we were re-booked from 08:05 am flight for 11:05 am flight next day and finally we have landed in WAW 27 hours later than originally scheduled.
So, based on hints found in this thread I’ve made a claim for compensation for delayed long haul flight through BA online form (600e per person) and after almost 6 weeks waiting for BA reply I’ve got the response:
"Your claim’s been refused as BA0056 on 15 February was delayed because the inbound aircraft suffered severe turbulence en route to Johannesburg. When an aircraft is affected by turbulence, mandatory safety checks have to be carried out in line with manufacturers guidelines. The safety of our customers and our crew is of utmost importance to us and we will never fly unless it is safe to do so. The flight crew notified our Engineering base in London and our engineers in Johannesburg as soon as the problem occurred, so plans could be put in place to have the checks done as soon as possible to help minimise the disruption. Under EU legislation, I’m afraid we’re not liable for a compensation payment in this situation. "
I’m a little bit confused as I thought that situation is quite obvious in terms of due compensation, but maybe I’m wrong? What should I do now? Should I approach BA once again insisting on compensation payment? Or the reason for flight delay stated by BA is one of these extraordinary circumstances? What do you think?
Many thanks in advance for any advice.
A.

corporate-wage-slave

Welcome to Flyertalk melch, welcome in particular to the BA board, it's good to see you here, and I very much hope that you will be able to participate in the many interesting other threads in this forum.

I'm afraid this one catches me out a bit. I can see it isn't as cut and dried as other claims. The key issue is whether the turbulence and resultant checks really were so extraordinary that they can't be called inherent. So, for example, bird strikes are no longer considered extraordinary since they are certainly inherent in operations - once in a while a few seagulls will get sucked into the engines. I guess a lot will depend on exactly what happened in terms of the turbulence, if it was a one in a thousand event or some such. I'm also a bit perplexed while that took a day to do the checks, the aircraft is also on stand in JNB for a very long time. Was something damaged perhaps? If they didn't have the staff available in JNB that would perhaps change my answer.

I have a feeling a lot will depend on your appetite for this. Whether you are prepared to test this in court or not. If you are, and you read up the casework, then I'm not sure how this would go. My reading of recent cases is that judges are using the term "extraordinary" to mean precisely that, so a lot would depend on the details of the case, and of course you weren't on the service concerned, which puts you at a disadvantage here.

What I would say is that this isn't a case where BA have definitely got it wrong. Whether they have definitely got it right is something that would need a lot more consideration.

That's my point of view, has anyone else got a view?

henkybaby

Isn't it the case that if your own flight is delayed because of something like severe turbulence (e.g. has to make a stop along the route) than this 'defence' works but claiming that the inbound had 'extraordinary circumstances' is not valid?

Also, the plane is on the ground for 12 hrs, which is enough time to ferry a replacement to minimise the delays. If this process is bog standard, as BA writes, than they knew they needed a replacement aircraft long before the inbound landed....


Disclaimer: this is Dutch farmer's logic speaking, not a legal mind.

PS: If you have the date of the flight, we could check thebasource.com if the plane had indeed suffered severe turbulence. Maybe request the maintenance logs of the flight?

melch

Thanks for this opinion. As I understand I should investigate more the reason of turbulences and so long checks. Is BA obliged to provide me with such detailed explanations? I don't remember the staff mentioning any significant damages occured in course of these turbulences. The aircraft landed in JNB early in the morning and our departure was scheduled for 8 pm. We were told that the aircraft has some technical problems and after servicing them we should be ready for morning departure (which finally turned out to be late evening). Maybe your right pointing out the staff availability - we were flying back with the same staff, so I guess that required a certain break period for pilots. Anyway, thanks for your advice.

henkybaby

I believe BA might be right....

If they can prove it, of course.

What was the date of the flight? I cannot find any reports online....

melch

PS: If you have the date of the flight, we could check thebasource.com if the plane had indeed suffered severe turbulence. Maybe request the maintenance logs of the flight?[/QUOTE]

That was BA0056 JNB - LHR on 15th Feb.

corporate-wage-slave

BA isn't obliged to give you a detailed explanation, however it is the airline's job to prove its case, the onus does not fall on you. Now that shouldn't stop you from asking, since (e.g.) if it gets to a legal process, BA may attempt to prevent the claim from going ahead, but if you didn't get full answers before proceedings then you are on stronger grounds to seek a remedy. I've a feeling, from what you've said there, that there may be several issues at stake here, so if a staff duty had commenced, and they then found out that they would have to rest again for the second attempt, that isn't extraordinary.

You can keep asking BA for more specific information, in my experience they tend to say the minimum at this stage. Which goes back to my earlier point that a lot will depend on how determined you are to see this through.

henkybaby

Not an expert in looking it up (I believe some here can find the reason this far back, but I can't) but I cannot find any report of BA55 (the inbound) being in severe turbulence. I believe that if it was so serious that the aircraft was grounded for 24hrs after, it would have been reported on thebasource or avherald. Thebasource just mentions a technical issue. I think others, like our aviators or KARFA can shine more light on the matter. It is the same aircraft that hit an airbridge in MIA a few weeks earlier.

I for one would not simply accept the explanation, and I would also argue what I stated before.

editionsofyou

Seems that JNB to LHR has been having rather a poor time of it recently. Here is the response just received from BA regarding the 27 hour delay caused by a bird strike on the incoming flight on 1/2 of March.

Your claim for EU compensation has been refused because flight BA0056 on 02 March 2016 was delayed because of damage caused by a bird strike and needed immediate repair. I'm afraid this was out of our control and caused unforeseen disruption to our schedule.

Perhaps not surprising that BA are playing hardball given it was a full A380 - is the principle now established that it is not extraordinary as c-w-s indicates above ?

PaulN

Hi all.

As mentioned in another thread my wife was involuntarily downgraded from Premium Economy to Economy last Saturday on the 1350 flight LHR-MIA. She was offered £75 at the time with no offer of rerouting (getting to TPA same day would have been difficult in any case).

A case had already been opened for what we think is a refund of the fare difference but I followed up with a specific request for EC/261 compensation for the downgrade. We got a response that said "I am unable to increase the compensation further".

I sent a further email asking again for EC/261 compensation and today we have just received the same response (see below)

As previously mentioned, the compensation we’ve offered you is a set limit, so unfortunately I’m unable to increase it. If you've any concerns regarding the refund, I'd suggest you to contact our Refunds department at the address mentioned in my previous email. They're better placed to help you with any concerns you may have regarding your refund.

Now, I'm assuming the refunds team will only do the fare difference not a compensation claim. So, any suggestions for what to do next please. Wife is only blue so a phone call I fear would involve a lot of time on hold.