Originally Posted by El_LioN (Post 27821244)

Hi there,

Small query regarding compensation claim.

I flew on BA2285 (LCY->GVA) on the 1st of January, 2017. Flight started on time, but landing approach was aborted. Pilot said weather conditions in GVA were bad (fog). He waited a few moments, then informed us that we would be diverted to BSL (no second try of landing).

After landing in BSL, captain said that he wasn't able to land in these conditions in GVA due to a technical failure which appeared during the flight. Interestingly, the aircraft (G-LCYU) was also diverted the day before. Unfortunately, I have no other proof than my testimony of this information (supposed technical failure).

In short, the diversion management in BSL was kinda catastrophic (no BA crew there). We were offered a bus transfer to GVA and a ground staff member gave us our passenger rights form. We finally arrived with more than 5 hours of delay in GVA by bus.

I contacted BA customer service and claimed for a compensation. They are rejecting it on the reasons of extraordinary circumstances due to adverse weather conditions and denying that there was a technical failure.

I countered and explained that all other planes landed safely in GVA this day and told them about the pilote's message, but they are still denying.

I forwarded the case to the swiss autorities but would like to have your opinion on this. Thank you in advance.

Originally Posted by winchpete (Post 27823889)

I suggest the "technical failure" could be that the aircraft was not equipped to land in the weather conditions encountered at Geneva or, if it was, the crew were not qualified to do so.

For example, aircraft and/or crews may only be certified to land in CAT I or CAT II conditions. As LCY is only CAT I, BA might have decided it is not worth their while to have aircraft equipped or crews trained for CAT III landings.

Originally Posted by HMG

The Government’s general approach to preserving EU law is to ensure that all EU laws which are directly applicable in the UK (such as EU regulations) and all laws which have been made in the UK, in order to implement our obligations as a member of the EU, remain part of domestic law on the day we leave the EU. In general the Government also believes that the preserved law should continue to be interpreted in the same way as it is at the moment. This approach is in order to ensure a coherent approach which provides continuity. It will be open to Parliament in the future to keep or change these laws.

Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave (Post 27854491)

Brexit and the future of EC261

This would be the wrong place to have a prolonged discussion of this, so I'll keep this fairly factual. The government's White Paper on "The United Kingdom’s exit from and new partnership with the European Union", issued today, gave a bit more information on the status of European Union Regulations, of which EC261 is an example. In section 1, relating to the Great Repeal Bill, there is a reasonably clear statement that the Bill will preserve existing EU law and incorporate it into UK law. Thereafter it could change, however the stress is on continuity:



In short: there will be no changes to EC261 for the next two years, and thereafter there is no indication of change either, other than that the UK Supreme Court will be the final appellate court, rather than the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The Great Reform Bill will also have its own White Paper in due course.

Originally Posted by lorcancoyle (Post 27854716)

Will CJEU judgements be binding on judges in small claims courts though - I have a feeling there might be some challenges and interesting approaches taken by the more painful airlines (not necessarily BA). But it may never happen, vive la resistance! ;)

Originally Posted by NickB (Post 27854826)

They will remain binding until exit from the EU. Afterwards, they would cease to be but may:
1) still retain persuasive authority
2) if the UK remains in the ECAA or gets into a similar type of arrangement with the EU, CJEU judgments would in all likelihood not formally have binding authority but might in practice be followed by UK Courts, especially if this would otherwise place the UK in breach of its international obligations.

Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave (Post 27854892)

There is a third option mentioned in the White Paper which is where an arbitration model is set up to resolve disputes. The outcome of the arbitration wouldn't set precedent or change law, it simply resolves any issues on a case by case basis.

Originally Posted by NickB (Post 27855940)

You could not have an arbitration body to resolve disputes relating to the interpretation of common rules. There is not a chance that the CJEU would consider this to be compatible with EU law and would allow the EU institutions to conclude such an agreement.

A UK-EU agreement could set up a body to settle disputes between the UK and the EU relating to the application of the agreement (and this is what I understand the WP to be talking about) but that is not the same thing. Any attempt to entrust that body with the power to interpret, directly or indirectly, EU rules would immediately result in the CJEU finding the agreement incompatible with EU law. That was, incidentally, the major issue that stood in the way of the EU acceding to the ECHR in 2014.

Originally Posted by pallan12 (Post 27857567)

I logged a claim through MCOL on 18/1/17 regarding what happened to my flights over Christmas as detailed a few pages back.

I received a letter saying BA have until 6th Feb to get back to me and just checked MCOL and it says 'British Airways plc. filed an acknowledgment of service on 02/02/2017'

Does this mean they have reached a decision as I cannot see anything on the claim to suggest this?

Thanks!

Originally Posted by lorcancoyle (Post 27855978)

So forum shopping for flights departing EU on BA. I see a new sticky being required in the 2019 thread to deal with this arbitrage opportunity (if it exists)

Originally Posted by Ldnn1 (Post 27855997)

Ultimately the 261 regulation question is relatively moot. The more interesting and difficult question, as indicated by NickB, is whether the UK remains in the ECAA.

Originally Posted by SinoBritAsia (Post 27785001)

BA11 flight to Singapore on Monday 16th January arrived more than three hours late.

The aircraft, the Airbus A380, reg: G-XLEA, formed the scheduled service to Singapore. The flight was delayed because the aircraft arrived late operating the outbound and inbound service to Hong Kong, and the subsequent Hong Kong-London Heathrow service on January 15th was delayed significantly causing a knock on effect on future services operated by G-XLEA.

Does it fall under EC 26/2004? And what is the compensation level because I still am struggling to work it out?

Scheduled departure time: 19:05 (rescheduled 22:00)
Actual departure time: 22:23
Scheduled arrival time: 15:55
Actual arrival time: 19:13
Doors open (estimate): 19:20

I can only point to the late arriving aircraft operating the Singapore service and doesn't appear to be other circumstances technical, weather, ATC or otherwise for this flight causing the delay.

Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave (Post 27790333)

You were over 3 hours late and it's not extraordinary circumstances, so I suspect this is covered by EC261. The issue of the previous rotations would be relevant if departing from SIN, but you were leaving T5 and unless there is some across the board weather or ATC issue, the issue of previous rotations isn't a valid get-out clause: at BA's base - which just happens to be about the best connected airport on the planet - there is some expectation that BA take reasonable measures to avoid delays to passengers. Rustling up another A380 may be non trivial but nevertheless BA have options. It's 300€ since you weren't 4 hours late on arrival.

Originally Posted by SinoBritAsia (Post 27875970)

Is this worth pursuing further? I know of no such technical delay that was communicated to my mum travelling on the flight. And I am curious about such an en-route delay they mention.

What should I do next?