warakorn

Report on a won EC261/2004 case against BA was removed, because fellow members thought it was "outrageous", "off mark", and "not substantiated".

corporate-wage-slave

There are quite a lot of statements in your post which are somewhat wide off the mark, but let me home in on this: HMG have already (and repeatedly) stated that these and other protections will not be ending in March 2019, in fact because they will be embedded into UK law / statutory instruments they will to be more natively controlled than now. Moreover the draft legislation enabling this to happen has been published. The only thing which may end is CJEU oversight, but I even suspect CJEU judgements will be regarded as significant under UK law.

vbroucek

This particular poster makes rather outrageous claims fairly regularly in other forums (e.g. Miles and More)... He never ever substantiates them...

warakorn

What is your point?
Are you suggesting that I made up the story about the EC261/2004 and the court case?

The issue of calculating the distance was often discussion in various threads (even here). I've thought that my information is a contribution to this forum. Apparently, it is not appreciated and found to be "outrageous", "off mark", "not substantiated" ....

Well, I think I have the right to say that your statement is speculative, as well. It's questionable whether the Great Repeal Bill (and other legislation) will make it through the parliament - with the current political landscape at the moment.
Of course, no one can predict with 100% certainty what'll happen in March 2019. We can only look at past events. Especially, LX is refusing EC261/2004 delay claims because LX states that the ECJ court case does not apply in Switzerland. Of course, Switzerland is not part of the EU, but you can find many published statements that Switzerland adopted EC261/2004, as well. When looking at this complicated thing, I honestly do not believe that the EC261/2004 delay protection will be in place after March 2019 (for UK airlines). And of course, you have the right the call this line of argumentation as "off the mark".

NWIFlyer

No, the poster is suggesting that there are many claims, in many fora, quite possibly by many people, that are simply not true.

One of these, which has been propagated here, is that suddenly many laws - including those under EC261 - will disappear when the UK leaves the EU in March 2019. As c-w-s has said, this simply isn't true because the UK Government is legislating that all laws will initially carry over - and contrary to your belief, the Great Repeal Bill will certainly make it through Parliament because it has broad cross-party support (the real only other viable alternative being to remain in Europe). Whilst still subject to negotiation, it also seems highly unlikely that BA and all other UK airlines will get access to European airports at the same level as currently if the Government doesn't agree to retain key parts of aviation legislation and control, so I think most of us fully expect to see a 2020 and beyond Compensation thread (which will still apply for ex-EU departures anyway, of course). Anyway, we really shouldn't get too far into this because we'll drift into OMNI/PR territory, so really this is just a background as to why no-one should be unduly worried that aviation consumer protection will be substantially diluted shortly.

There's also the issue of the level of the German court, and here's something you might be able to clarify for those of us less familiar with the legal system there. It would normally take a CJEU ruling to establish law, and currently all the airlines (unsurprisingly!) do not interpret the law as you and many others of us do here. It's highly unlikely BA would bother to fight a 50 Euro liability when no precedent would be set, so - whilst very useful information - it's probably stretching it too far to assume a UK or Dutch or Spanish court would come to the same conclusion. What level is the German court that heard this case? Significant enough for the CJEU to really take notice?

corporate-wage-slave

You certainly have every right to be totally wrong. However, may I suggest you are using a tactic that you may have used before, namely sliding the argument along from your original statement? Which was a definitive, no hedging, just "these protections will end". Now you are saying you do not believe they will be in place. Your first statement is totally misleading to someone unfamiliar with this area, your second nuanced version is fair comment but subjective. It's a view shared by pretty much no-one in the UK political firmament, regardless of party: consumer and other protections will stay in place.

UKtravelbear

The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19 to give it it's proper title will have no effect on the implementation of EU261 in the UK.

That is because EU261 is ALREADY law in the UK because it was implimented as a statutory instrument .

The current bill will have no effect on the SI unless it makes specific provision to repeal it - which it dosen't. The only impact will be that the Bill will make all current ECJ rulings part of UK law unless they are already.

Of course the UK Government could decide to drop all the ECJ rulings relating to EU261 but that would not mean the repeal of it. It would mean that in the UK it would be administered as the current regulation is written so no delay compensation for example as that was imposed via a court ruling.

DYKWIA

For those who missed it, it was a €50 win against BA.

Oxon Flyer

The 'point' is that FT doesn't work at all well when posters pass off their own opinions and prejudices as 'fact'. @:-)

Now, let's move on, and get back to EU261.

warakorn

I can give more details on that. The court is the lowest one (Amtsgericht). They handle cases up to EUR 6000.
As I understand it - if another passenger sues an airline in German court, she may reference to that court verdict. The other court (Amtsgericht) does not have to follow that ruling. However, a positive verdict from another court, increases your chances of winning.

Let's say it that way - a court verdict is worth much more than no verdict at all. The issue of distance-calculation pops up on many EC261/2004 threads.

Secondly, the court verdict can be used to better persuade another government body (e.g. CAA in the UK or LBA in Germany) to take action against the airline. Without a verdict, the body may say "we cannot force the airline to pay you". With an enforced verdict it's not about that anymore, rather, the passenger can direct the body towards the wrong behaviour of the airline.

warakorn

The court win is a fact.

It's not only about EUR 50. A court (albeit a lower one) has confirmed that the distance has to be calculated based on the entire intenary, and not just the delayed segment.

warakorn

If those flat words are thrown around here, the people - complaining about my texts - should at least write in detail what is bothering them.

botham

My family have had their EU261 compensation, hotel and other expenses.

I still await the payment for the replacement lights, which BA have said they will cover as soon as I notify them that the travel agents have refunded the outbound cancelled flights. The TA (Gotogate - never again!) tells me that they await authority from BA to refund the flights. It's a crazy frustrating situation. I booked another ticket for the same flight, which the different TA refunded ages ago. BA CR wont take any calls, so my head's getting sore from banging it against the brick wall.

vbroucek

This above is a best example of what's bothering... You repeatedly claim success at Amtsgericht, but you never provide any details. Give us case numbers and we will believe you. Otherwise, these are just plain claims without any substantiation.

NWIFlyer

Folks, my colleague Oxon Flyer has already asked for the discussion to move on from a personal exchange to concentrating on EC261, so let's do that now please. There are many examples here where a poster's words alone have been taken as being reliable in documenting cases against BA ...

/mod