Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > British Airways | Executive Club
Reload this Page >

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

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

Closed Thread

Old Jan 21, 16, 1:33 pm
  #91  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: BAEC silver
Posts: 427
Could not a pax failing to appear and an off load be manipulated by passengers? Say a large school party were going skiing to the USA - yep I went to the British museum, my nephew went to Aspen - the kids hear about this €600 wheeze, one goes missing for a couple of hours and all the party miss their connecting flight. The party of 24 kids plus teachers now all get €600 each, nice tickle that.
Swampz64 is online now  
Old Jan 21, 16, 1:35 pm
  #92  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London
Programs: BA GGL (90% to Lifetime Gold), SPG convert from IHG (and Marriott fan now!)
Posts: 4,518
Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave View Post
You seem to be entirely on the right lines here. I think you can also research Ash v. Thomas Cook Airlines, the bird strike case; and Davies v. British Airways the crew sickness case; to illustrate why the bar on extraordinary is fairly high. Both are county court judgements so not precedent forming, but the various materials should give you additional pointers.
Brilliant, thanks c-w-s!
lorcancoyle is offline  
Old Jan 21, 16, 1:45 pm
  #93  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Programs: BA Gold, CAMRA
Posts: 1,113
Originally Posted by vbroucek View Post
That's the way to do it! BTW, you're flying out on my BD - you will be lucky!!!
Happy Birthday - but b***er, the flight is delayed by about 1 hour, inbound flight was delayed

Consolation is an extended in BA T3 First lounge visit enjoying a magnificent Merlot
ginger50 is offline  
Old Jan 25, 16, 8:11 am
  #94  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London
Programs: BA GGL (90% to Lifetime Gold), SPG convert from IHG (and Marriott fan now!)
Posts: 4,518
Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave View Post
You seem to be entirely on the right lines here. I think you can also research Ash v. Thomas Cook Airlines, the bird strike case; and Davies v. British Airways the crew sickness case; to illustrate why the bar on extraordinary is fairly high. Both are county court judgements so not precedent forming, but the various materials should give you additional pointers.
On the Davies case I also came across a case from February where crew sickness led to claim being denied in court - link below. Seems like those situations may be a toss up depending on the specific facts and judge.
Have to say I'm having a bit of fun getting my detailed arguments together, spending too much time on it when it's only 200 at stake, but find it fascinating. Waiting for the directions questionnaire etc. to arrive next.

http://www.kennedyslaw.com/article/s...lnessaviation/
lorcancoyle is offline  
Old Jan 27, 16, 4:31 am
  #95  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London
Programs: BA GGL (90% to Lifetime Gold), SPG convert from IHG (and Marriott fan now!)
Posts: 4,518
Follow-up Q that the knowledge of the board may help me with! Is the offloading of unaccompanied baggage an airline policy, or a national regulation / requirement?

I had a look at the European security regs and they say that unaccompanied baggage can be transported if it has been through appropriate security measures. But I can't find anything relating to what that actually means in the UK context - seems (kind of understandably) that they don't like publicising all the rules around these things...

Although I have come across interesting docs on the Heathrow baggage screening system and Manchester Airport has some nice PowerPoint slides of their process.

If I draw a blank here I'll try again in the security forum
lorcancoyle is offline  
Old Jan 27, 16, 6:17 am
  #96  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,152
Originally Posted by lorcancoyle View Post
Follow-up Q that the knowledge of the board may help me with! Is the offloading of unaccompanied baggage an airline policy, or a national regulation / requirement?

I had a look at the European security regs and they say that unaccompanied baggage can be transported if it has been through appropriate security measures. But I can't find anything relating to what that actually means in the UK context - seems (kind of understandably) that they don't like publicising all the rules around these things...

Although I have come across interesting docs on the Heathrow baggage screening system and Manchester Airport has some nice PowerPoint slides of their process.

If I draw a blank here I'll try again in the security forum
Delayed 24 hours in a secure area or re screened or opened and visually inspected by an approved person.
rapidex is offline  
Old Jan 27, 16, 6:38 am
  #97  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London
Programs: BA GGL (90% to Lifetime Gold), SPG convert from IHG (and Marriott fan now!)
Posts: 4,518
Originally Posted by rapidex View Post
Delayed 24 hours in a secure area or re screened or opened and visually inspected by an approved person.
Thanks rapidex, this has made me realise how rubbish gov.uk site is at letting you find information. And how knowledgable FT is!
lorcancoyle is offline  
Old Jan 29, 16, 8:36 am
  #98  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: HEL
Programs: AY GOLD, HH GOLD, SIXT GOLD
Posts: 384
Originally Posted by aama View Post
My case against BA with flight-delayed.co.uk just hit the 6-week limit for BA to answer the claim and they failed to do so.

They're probably now going to use the national enforcement body. Any knowledge of how long does that usually take in the UK?
Just got info from flight-delayed.co.uk that BA came through and is willing to pay the full 600! So no need for CAA thank god!
aama is offline  
Old Jan 29, 16, 9:34 am
  #99  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London
Programs: BA GGL (90% to Lifetime Gold), SPG convert from IHG (and Marriott fan now!)
Posts: 4,518
Originally Posted by aama View Post
Just got info from flight-delayed.co.uk that BA came through and is willing to pay the full 600! So no need for CAA thank god!
Do you think it was worth the 150 fee? Thought from your earlier post it was a slam-dunk. It would be very handy if "the authorities" (CAA, Eurocontrol etc.) made airlines publish the flight delay codes they report for any flight that's delayed.
lorcancoyle is offline  
Old Jan 29, 16, 11:07 am
  #100  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: HEL
Programs: AY GOLD, HH GOLD, SIXT GOLD
Posts: 384
Originally Posted by lorcancoyle View Post
Do you think it was worth the 150 fee? Thought from your earlier post it was a slam-dunk. It would be very handy if "the authorities" (CAA, Eurocontrol etc.) made airlines publish the flight delay codes they report for any flight that's delayed.
BA declined it 2 times when I contacted them directly (even though it was a slam dunk).

The whole compensation system needs an EU controlled "compensation center" that would oversee every flight delayed over 3hrs or cancelled.

It's now too easy for airlines to decline the payment with excuses. Many people just leave it there and don't pursue the compensation.

Edit:

Oh and of course now that it didn't even reach CAA or Court, the 150 felt a bit hefty. But it is what it is.

Last edited by aama; Jan 29, 16 at 11:10 am Reason: .
aama is offline  
Old Jan 29, 16, 12:19 pm
  #101  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: bouncing C1&2
Programs: BAEC Silver
Posts: 277
If someone could help me or clarify some writing (regards EU261 Art. 5 (1) iii)).

The early-bird MUC-LHR (onward to JFK) got canceled and was rebooked onto a noon LH flight into JFK.

There was at no point any information being handed out verbally/written and upon asking for information regarding air passenger rights this request was basically denied. In accordance with that nothing from the obligatory things was done, neither providing care as in meal/drink vouchers, nor communication. Also the option of refund vs. reroute was not given, also no alternatives were being offered (except for EWR instead of JFK...). That is part one.

Second part is, the LH flight ultimately opened its boarding doors at [email protected] at something like 2:05 hrs after the initial STA of BA113. However, the flight stats claim that gate arrival is 1:55 hrs later.
So first -- does that (regardless of their failure to provide any information/care) mean that there's technically no means to claim comp?
Second -- does the failure of BA's ground staff to both provide information and care have any consequences? Primarily in terms of outcome for the pax?

Regarding the wording of the EU261, Art. 5 (1) iii).
I think this would be the dealbreaker. However, there was no advance notice AT ALL, we even waited several minutes in the check-in queue until they finally announced that there'll be a change to the flight status. And clearly the exceptions laid out in i) through iii) are concerned with advanced notice of the flights cancellation.

To bring in another datapoint. Even if my claim would end up being without any substance, I've overhead conversations between the agents and other pax who were e.g. flying to Lagos or some other more exotic destinations who were delayed at least until the late afternoon, but mostly the next day...
cvision is offline  
Old Jan 29, 16, 1:01 pm
  #102  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK and Southern France
Posts: 15,939
Originally Posted by cvision View Post
If someone could help me or clarify some writing (regards EU261 Art. 5 (1) iii)).

The early-bird MUC-LHR (onward to JFK) got canceled and was rebooked onto a noon LH flight into JFK.

There was at no point any information being handed out verbally/written and upon asking for information regarding air passenger rights this request was basically denied. In accordance with that nothing from the obligatory things was done, neither providing care as in meal/drink vouchers, nor communication. Also the option of refund vs. reroute was not given, also no alternatives were being offered (except for EWR instead of JFK...). That is part one.

Second part is, the LH flight ultimately opened its boarding doors at [email protected] at something like 2:05 hrs after the initial STA of BA113. However, the flight stats claim that gate arrival is 1:55 hrs later.
So first -- does that (regardless of their failure to provide any information/care) mean that there's technically no means to claim comp?
Second -- does the failure of BA's ground staff to both provide information and care have any consequences? Primarily in terms of outcome for the pax?

Regarding the wording of the EU261, Art. 5 (1) iii).
I think this would be the dealbreaker. However, there was no advance notice AT ALL, we even waited several minutes in the check-in queue until they finally announced that there'll be a change to the flight status. And clearly the exceptions laid out in i) through iii) are concerned with advanced notice of the flights cancellation.

To bring in another datapoint. Even if my claim would end up being without any substance, I've overhead conversations between the agents and other pax who were e.g. flying to Lagos or some other more exotic destinations who were delayed at least until the late afternoon, but mostly the next day...
On the lack of information and care, if you purchased food/drinks, etc..., I would claim them back. Other than that, you can always report it to the relevant authority (the German equivalent of the CAA) if you want as, in theory, they have the powers to compel and fine companies that do not comply with the legislation. I doubt that any action would be taken for an isolated incident. However, if there is a log of persistent compliance failure, then perhaps that could push the authority into action. I would not hold my breath on that, though.

On the arrival time, the relevant point in time is the opening of the doors. The fact that flightstats reports an arrival time 1H55 later than your original schedule is not in itself conclusive. You should therefore be entitled to compensation if the delay was over two hours. if you have made a note of the precise time at which they opened the door, it would help.
NickB is offline  
Old Jan 29, 16, 1:18 pm
  #103  
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: 39,412
Originally Posted by cvision View Post
If someone could help me or clarify some writing (regards EU261 Art. 5 (1) iii)).
Ok, the Regulations indeed say that airlines must provide information on EC261. Unfortunately they don't say precisely how that should be provided (proactively? on request? is the airline's website sufficient?). There is a notice on EC261 on the boarding desk at MUC but it doesn't say a lot and would be easy to miss being buried under a long shopping list of prohibited items on board.

More to the point, there is no sanction in this area and I'm not aware of the CJEU ruling on the issue - in a sense that's a circular argument since any case that gets to the CJEU is bound to be best on awareness of the Regulation. Unsurprisingly airlines have interpreted the rules as "be in a position to provide", though that isn't what the regulations state. If you specifically asked for information, and they specifically refused then you could complain to the CAA or your MEP, but you'd be wasting your time, frankly. BA can say "it's all on our website", which it is.

The one thing I can't make out is the reason for the cancellation - was it weather or ATC based? If so you're going nowhere anyway. The two hour rule could apply, one thing the CJEU has certainly ruled on is that the time relates to "doors open" ready for passengers to depart. So if you took an accurate time of that, you may be in with a shout, but with a further complication.

If the rerouting was scheduled to get you inside 2 hours, but you were a bit late on that then there is an argument - which airlines use - to say "that's good enough, we did our best, LH screwed up, see LH". There's another argument that says the Regulation says "arrival time", not "scheduled arrival time". So it would be good to know what the scheduled arrival time was here.

I have to say on the face of it the rerouting was within the spirit and intent of the Regulations, by the looks of it, there's a debate on whether it's within the letter of the Regulation. But a few more details needed here in terms of the times.

For the Right to Care, the rules suggest food and drink in "reasonable" proportion to the delay (but no opt out if exceptional circumstances). So if the delay was a say 3 or 4 hours, I think they might get away with it. At 8 hours they certainly would not.
corporate-wage-slave is offline  
Old Jan 29, 16, 2:42 pm
  #104  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: bouncing C1&2
Programs: BAEC Silver
Posts: 277
First cheers to the extensive responses.

Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave View Post
Ok, the Regulations indeed say that airlines must provide information on EC261. Unfortunately they don't say precisely how that should be provided
Actually it does state it. Though I have the German version of the regulation here its English counterpart should be equivalent. Art. 14 (1) states that at check-in there needs to be (at least) a sign stating that in case of IDB, extensive delays or cancellations you may request WRITTEN information on your air passenger rights especially regarding compensation. Furthermore section (2) of Art. 14 states that the operating carrier has to hand out this information in case of IDB / delays (from 2hrs on) / cancellations.

Here comes one fishy point into play. I think I arrived at MUC at around 6.15ish. To add as a note here, I could've handled the whole rebooking situation probably better if I wasn't lacking sleep for the last 36 hrs. Upon proactively checking the BA app it showed BA749 delayed with an ~0845 ETA (~0900 STA). While queuing in the prio lane I observed some people being directed to the ticketing counter while others were checked-in as usual. When it was my turn I was (initially) told that there was a 1 hour delay and that I should head over too, which in itself was very interesting regarding a 1 hour delay only and the fact that there are multiple flights out of LHR to JFK.
Anywho, before queueing up I called the Japanese BA line (0640AM CET) to see if they could reticket faster, which is they couldn't do due to airport control. When I got off the phone at around 0645 the - I assume ground manager - told everyone to queue up for rebooking as the flight was canceled. She explained to fellow pax next to me that there was a MECHANICAL issue since the day before that they've been working on since then. So no weather or ATC delay (also the BA crew has an overnight in MUC afaik, so no deadend).
When it was my turn to be rebooked I politely demanded information regarding my air passenger rights according to European Union regulation. I was then told that she cannot and will not give me that and that I would have to call Customer Service, which is a really good advice with all west-European offices being closed.

If you specifically asked for information, and they specifically refused then you could complain to the CAA or your MEP, but you'd be wasting your time, frankly. BA can say "it's all on our website", which it is.
True, however, it also took a CSR on the UK Gold line 5 minutes to find the online form which is referenced on the website and guide me to it.

If the rerouting was scheduled to get you inside 2 hours, but you were a bit late on that then there is an argument - which airlines use - to say "that's good enough, we did our best, LH screwed up, see LH". There's another argument that says the Regulation says "arrival time", not "scheduled arrival time". So it would be good to know what the scheduled arrival time was here.

I have to say on the face of it the rerouting was within the spirit and intent of the Regulations, by the looks of it, there's a debate on whether it's within the letter of the Regulation. But a few more details needed here in terms of the times.
I suppose that's the argument that would follow. LH410 was scheduled for an 15.50 arrival, the log states 16.20 as ATA.

For the Right to Care, the rules suggest food and drink in "reasonable" proportion to the delay (but no opt out if exceptional circumstances). So if the delay was a say 3 or 4 hours, I think they might get away with it. At 8 hours they certainly would not.
I might almost fully agree, at least for the food part. The drink part I think is way more important especially when you consider the fact that it is not an airport with fountains at all.

What makes me mad is not necessarily that I might miss out on some compensation, but the way who BA treated it on the ground. First telling everybody that the flight's been canceled and then reverting this back to an "indefinite delay", which then becomes a real cancellation less than two hours later smells very fishy to me. I have the feeling that this was an attempt to say "well it is just delayed for some time, not canceled, so we're not due any compensation or care". I overhead them say that the manager said that they should not say it'd be canceled but rather delayed without any estimate of how long.
cvision is offline  
Old Jan 29, 16, 3:00 pm
  #105  
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: 39,412
Well there is definitely a sign at the MUC check in desk, blue section at the bottom of the A4 sign, it's flat on the desk, and there's a sign on the MUC departure gate too, on the front side. Not giving the full letter on request is in breach of the regulation, however you look at it, but it won't get you far.

Irrops at airports are often poorly handled and it's difficult to come away from the experience with a positive impression. I doubt you could have done much more, and in the circumstances to get to NY within 2 hours or thereabouts was better than some other options.

You could try the EC261 route (BA may have set the MUC flight for payment anyway since I'm sure there would be many passengers who were delayed over the time limits), but on the facts it may need some arguing, and a statement from you about when the doors opened (and any other evidence you have). I don't have high hopes, there again I guess you have little to lose.

The alternative is to treat it purely as customer service remediation, and though you doubtless found it all annoying, it doesn't strike me as truly appalling experience. So I'm not overly confident that will get you more than a few Avios.
corporate-wage-slave is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread