second row

My Flight from Tampa to LGW was delayed by 2hr 59 minutes but Ba have conceded that by the time the doors were opened it was over the necessary 3 hours.(So far so Good).
The delay was caused by a faulty IFE which delayed the outbound aircraft. Again BA concede that this was the primary cause of the delay.
However BA tell me that 21 minutes of the outbound delay from LGW was due to the airport not being able to provide a tug and as this was "outside of our control "my claim is denied.(ie the delay due to the IFE issue was less than 3 hours)
I have expressed my incredulity but they are not budging.(e mail and phone call).
Should I go to my "learned friends"?

simons1

Yes you should. The provision of the tug is a supplier management issue for BA.

Just get on with either MCOL or CEDR. They won't defend it because such statements are indefensible.

djwam

+1. The tug part is an operational issue, not extraordinary circumstances (which are limited to, roughly, weather and -to some extent- plane technical issues for your flight only (not for inbound flight).

Ancient Observer

It would appear that they are using this tactic more and more recently. Variations around "we caused this bit of delay, but someone else caused the other bit" . Quite simply they are being economical with the truth. As I read the rules, anything that is within their overall management of delivering a service to you is down to them. Anything to do with the airport service is down to them.

Tafflyer

I really think airlines should be fined or in some other way penalised for this dishonest behaviour. Many passengers might accept that reason as truth and give up valid claims. If only airlines would invest as much creativity into running their operations more efficiently rather than deflecting blame for mishaps.

HarryKUK

It does surprise me that there haven't been more test cases brought against airlines, including BA, to stamp out this sort of behaviour. My claims have always been minor (one person, short flight, etc). But there must be thousands of families travelling long haul that have potentially lost out on huge sums. Is there nothing in law to protect consumers against these sort of practices?

PUCCI GALORE

What utter balderdash - I might just as well say - I can't serve any wine because the wire on the bottle won't come off - the Gate Agent arrived late - the Jetway was frozen.

I absolutely loathe this compensation culture but the EU rules are quite specific and I suggest that you take this further. It may all be true but that is BA's problem with their incompetent servicce providers.

Utterly disgraceful.

Ldnn1

It's not being economical with the truth. If it is true that "we caused this bit of delay but [extraordinary circumstances] caused the other bit", then BA is within its rights to argue that.

Equally the passenger is within their rights to argue that either (a) the other bit wasn't in fact extraordinary circumstances (e.g. because it was a subcontractor within BA's control) and/or (b) even if the other bit was extraordinary circumstances, it's irrelevant because that extra delay wouldn't have happened but for the original delay which was BA's fault.

These are not all black and white cases as some members here seem to make out. I appreciate the airline does often throw up completely spurious or simply incorrect excuses, but often it does at least have an arguable defence. When the law is as imprecise as it is (and it is) I think it's not surprising the airline tries to defend some marginal cases.

Porky Speedpig

First line assessment is carried out by people with no operational experience so this could just be a genuine mistake - as soon as you challenge it a more educated bunch are wheeled in. Agree, this looks to be a valid claim.

slanty

Hi all, just wanted to come back and update the thread. 4 months later and CEDR have just ruled in my favour!

My flight was delayed due to a mouse on board back in February and that was initially dismissed by BA as "extraordinary circumstances", after which I proceeded to CEDR (thanks for the advice c-w-s!)

The defence from BA was, in short, that:

1. This couldn't be predicted
2. It isn't preventable
3. It's out of BA's control

I argued that due to the fact that two aircraft within the same week had the same issue, the pest control and procedures in place were clearly not good enough.

I also took issue with it being out of BA's control. I understand that the airport operation is somewhat out of their control but I believed that someone within BA should be responsible for ensuring the service they receive from Heathrow is adequate.

BA also provided a statistic of 1 in 15,000 flights having an issue with rodents. I put forward that 2 flights within 3 days of each other from the same airport exceeds this greatly.

CEDR's decision essentially comes down to the fact that they do not believe this was out of BA's control. They believe that measures can be taken to prevent this from happening and in this case BA have not.

I really appreciate the help from everyone on this, especially c-w-s. Worth the effort in the end

amanx

I was also on a BA flight to TPA, delayed for 5 hours.

I claimed and they paid u w/o question. They did try to fob me off with an offer of 60K avios, I said no thanks give me the cash (in GBP). They did.

BTW, I take this flight a min of 2x per year, and this was my first significant delay- in case anyone thinks it is routine lol.

I did incur costs, I had to book a cheap motel not far from the AP as it was so delayed it wasnt safe for me to drive the 2 hours I needed to. I didnt claim for this.

corporate-wage-slave

I agree and clearly it is arguable.

That said, unless BA had made non standard arrangements for this particular flight, BA owns 100% of the shares in the LGW handling company, plus there is now a well established concept that suppliers can be rebilled by the operating carrier. I would MCOL this rather than CEDR, since I doubt BA would want their day in court.

Kgmm77

What was imprecise about the case mentioned?

Incorrect recording of the delay time?
incorrectly identifying a failure of an outsourced service provider to do something in a timely manner as "extraordinary"?

Am I missing something? Where's the shades or grey or "marginality" here?

its as clear as day and should be subject to punitive enforcement by an effective regulator (as it would in other industries).

baITcomp

My understanding is that MCOL can only be used by those with a UK address, but I see no restriction of the sort for CEDR arbitration. (I am a citizen of the United States.) However the address format in the claim did not seem to be in tune with allowing foreign addresses.

Does anyone know if the CEDR option is still available to me? I'd prefer to avoid paying 25 GBP for submitting an auto-lose claim.

Ldnn1

I wasn't actually commenting on this specific case - you'll see I was responding to the more general assertion that I quoted of Ancient Observer that airlines are using 'variations of this tactic' more and more.

My point is that there are indeed many cases where part of the delay is caused by the airline, and that is then compounded by something beyond the airline's control (or vice versa) and there are arguments to be had around that.

An example would be if, on the day of the recent LGW runway closure, an aircraft was due to take-off before the AC 767 but was delayed by 20mins due to a tech issue... and then the AC blew its tyre turning causing the closure and turning the initial 20 min into a 6 hour delay. It's an arguable one.

Also not all ground handling issues are as clear-cut as you make out - for example there have been arguments around queues for de-icing equipment.

I completely agree that if I were OP I would absolutely push his particular case, and would expect to get paid out. Especially since, as c-w-s points out, BA's tugs at LGW are actually operated by BA's wholly owned subsidiary.