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

The 2017 BA compensation thread: Your guide to Regulation EC261/2004

The 2017 BA compensation thread: Your guide to Regulation EC261/2004

Old Feb 2, 2017, 5:11 am
  #136  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by El_LioN
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.
Small update on my case. I sent it in a form of a complaint to the Swiss autorities (OFAC), who told me they were not competent with this flight (to my surprise). They forwarded it to the british CAA, who told me they were also incompetent and directed me to file the case at the CEDR. I did it, and now CEDR is telling me that I have to get a final decision from BA or wait until 8 weeks have passed since initial complaint... What a burlesque situation...

Originally Posted by winchpete
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.
Regarding this information, if this was the case, which could be possible IMO, especially regarding the fact that the flight took place on the 1st of January, i.e. when most of employees prefer not to work, and therefore there could have been a shortage in CAT III landings qualified staff, I assume that BA would be liable for the claim compensation or would this fall under the extraordinary circumstances?

Last edited by El_LioN; Feb 2, 2017 at 6:43 am Reason: Content added
El_LioN is offline  
Old Feb 2, 2017, 6:41 am
  #137  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 6
Double post, sorry!

Last edited by El_LioN; Feb 3, 2017 at 7:48 am Reason: Double post
El_LioN is offline  
Old Feb 2, 2017, 7:42 am
  #138  
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: 65,039
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:

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.
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.
corporate-wage-slave is online now  
Old Feb 2, 2017, 8:26 am
  #139  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London
Programs: BA GGL (for now) and Lifetime Gold, Marriott fan thanks to Bonvoy Moments
Posts: 5,124
Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave
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.
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!
lorcancoyle is offline  
Old Feb 2, 2017, 8:48 am
  #140  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK and Southern France
Posts: 18,408
Originally Posted by lorcancoyle
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!
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. This is more or less the situation under the series of bilateral treaties with Switzerland: Swiss courts are not formally bound by CJEU interpretation of EU rules but if their own interpretation diverges, this could place Switzerland in breach of its international obligations vis-à-vis the EU which, in turn, would allow the EU to restrict the application of the EU-Switzerland Treaties, i.e. restrict Switzerland access to the EU market.
NickB is offline  
Old Feb 2, 2017, 9:03 am
  #141  
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: 65,039
Originally Posted by NickB
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.
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.

My money is on 1) above, where the Supreme Court could use CJEU rulings or lines of argument under EC261 - or from any other jurisdiction for that matter - and decide whether it works under UK law or not. Which suggests relatively little change in the short and medium term, but it is possible that whether (e.g.) a specific cause of delay is Extraordinary Circumstances may diverge over the longer term.
corporate-wage-slave is online now  
Old Feb 2, 2017, 12:29 pm
  #142  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK and Southern France
Posts: 18,408
Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave
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.
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.
NickB is offline  
Old Feb 2, 2017, 12:34 pm
  #143  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London
Programs: BA GGL (for now) and Lifetime Gold, Marriott fan thanks to Bonvoy Moments
Posts: 5,124
Originally Posted by NickB
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.
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)
lorcancoyle is offline  
Old Feb 2, 2017, 12:37 pm
  #144  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,966
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.
Ldnn1 is offline  
Old Feb 2, 2017, 5:35 pm
  #145  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 160
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!
pallan12 is offline  
Old Feb 2, 2017, 5:46 pm
  #146  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London
Programs: BA GGL (for now) and Lifetime Gold, Marriott fan thanks to Bonvoy Moments
Posts: 5,124
Originally Posted by pallan12
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!
It means they've received the claim, filing the acknowledgement gives them more time to respond and make decision to contest or not. The small claims court guide published by HMCS gives details
lorcancoyle is offline  
Old Feb 2, 2017, 5:52 pm
  #147  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK and Southern France
Posts: 18,408
Originally Posted by lorcancoyle
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)
...except that cross-border litigation could also become more difficult and costly with the loss of agreements on mutual recognition of judgments, etc... All that, to be honest, is going to be so rarefied in significance that knowing whether your passenger rights are better protected by courts in Dusseldorf than London will be just about as important for the average traveler as the precise extent of cell phone coverage north of Norilsk.

Originally Posted by Ldnn1
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.
Indeed.
NickB is offline  
Old Feb 7, 2017, 4:28 am
  #148  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Hong Kong
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 386
*UPDATE* BA response: am I being fobbed off with inaccurate, incomplete answers?

Originally Posted by SinoBritAsia
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
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.
I managed to get a response from BA on the original posting.

They said no: "Your claim’s been refused because BA0011 on 16 January was delayed for 202 minutes. The technical delay was 157 minutes and further delay was caused due to en route delay. Since technical delay was less then 180 minutes, Under EU Legislation we are not liable for any compensation, as the technical delay was under three hours."

"We take all reasonable measures to avoid delaying a flight and we always consider if there are any operational options available before we make a decision. We’re very sorry the delay was necessary in this case."

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?
SinoBritAsia is offline  
Old Feb 7, 2017, 4:44 am
  #149  
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: 65,039
Originally Posted by SinoBritAsia
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?

En route delay could be the wind strength on the day, which presented a headwind delay, or an ATC restriction on the arrival time. That would be extraordinary circumstances. But the bit which doesn't add up is the 157 minutes you quote, and a departure of 22:23, over 3 hours late, assuming that is the pushback time (ie taken from BA.com). There are ways that could add up - e.g. a slot restriction, but there's not enough information in BA response to be sure. So you could ask BA to clarify how 157 minutes relates to the delayed departure time. It's actually arrival time that matters in terms of EC261 payment, but clearly if you leave far too late to make the 3 hour cut off, then the airline needs to get its ducks in a row a bit better. The Regs make it clear that the onus is on BA to prove this, not on you, so you could invite BA to clarify the 157 minutes in the next 16 days otherwise you will take the matter further.
corporate-wage-slave is online now  
Old Feb 7, 2017, 6:04 am
  #150  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Betwixt SEA and LHR
Programs: BAEC GGL/CCR, AS Gold MVP, IC RA, IHG Spire Elite, HH Diamond, Dennis The Menace Fan Club
Posts: 1,354
Just checking I have a valid claim under EC261 on this. Seems pretty cut/dried to me, but wanted the collective's wisdom on that before proceeding.

Myself and Mrs Opalfruit were booked on yesterday's BA8492 (TXL-LCY). Straight cash booking. Meant to depart TXL at 11:55, and the ETA should have been 12:40. Flight was delayed a couple of times at the gate and was finally called as cancelled at 13:15. Pax were eventually loaded onto a bus and led back landside for rebooking.

We were quickly rebooked by the nice GGL folk onto the BA8494 (the 80+ pax queue for 1 agent was a very pleasant bullet to dodge), which departed at 17:26 and arrived at LCY at 18:13. I make that a little over 5 and a half hours after our intended arrival time.

So, 2x €250 EC261 claims, right?
opalfruit is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.