Ancient Observer

Challenge to Pre-amble 14?

Has anyone challenged interpretations of para 14 of the whereas/preamble ??

"extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken." is the wording that leads to......
"Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier.

It seems to me that BA has not been taking all reasonable measures. They have known about these strikes for a long while. They have hired in some non-BA planes and staff. If they can hire in some, why not hire in more? There are always things that can be done if they wanted to.

IMHO they should be challenged...........

Tobias-UK

You can stand by it, but it won't help you succeed in a claim for compensation. My advice is to concentrate on the relevant legal and evidential issues. It matters not which fleet normally operates a particular route, BA state a particular flight is cancelled because of industrial action, that is not an excuse in law but a reason. To succeed in an EC261 claim a claimant needs to demonstrate that the reason for the cancellation (the 'industrial action') is not an extraordinary circumstance under the Regulation.

Any sensible airline faced with industrial action will redeploy its available workforce in order to operate an optimum schedule and to minimise disruption to as many customers as possible. This is why you see QR aircraft operating non-MF routes, why WW/EF/GF crew are operating some MF sectors and why some WW/EF flights are being cancelled. The strike is not an excuse for the cancellations but the reason.

Tobias-UK

Indeed.

Tyzap

Bott & Co also do not believe that the BA strikes are an EC...

and they should know, as they have won many major court cases which have forced the airlines to adhere to the regulation.

See also...

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/new...-months-strike

simons1

Indeed. It will be interesting to see if and when someone brings a test case. That's why it would be worth seeing if Bott and Co would take it on a no success no fee basis.

simons1

"What does British Airways say?

A BA spokesperson declined to say whether the airline would pay out compensation claims resulting from the strike, but said: "We always meet all of our obligations under EU261."

I love the transparency and honesty from BA here....

Tobias-UK

Perhaps they are not prepared to put their money where their mouth is?

KARFA

Have they won any similar cases for compensation where they operating airline is also the one where the industrial action is happening?

strichener

At least the discussion regarding IA is now taking place, it is more helpful than the post I originally responded to:

Tyzap

Not that I know of.

The higher the number of PAX affected becomes, the more commercially viable it will become to a solicitor offering a NWNF service, so it will be interesting to see what happens here.

Often1

The strike is a red herring unless OP is seeking compensation for the flight change, but it sounds as though he is seeking compensation based on the rebooked flights. Those were not the subject of the strike and unless the BA delay on the first segment was strike-related, the strike did not impact his ultimate ticketed journey.

But, if EC 261/2004 applies only to strikes against entities other than the operating carrier, it would seem that this is an obvious drafting point rather than a lack of clarity. More important, it is always the case than an IA is avoidable. All the subject need do is capitulate and there will be no action. So, in that sense, all strikes are entirely avoidable and far from extraordinary.

But, that makes no sense and the notion that the sword of the Regulation hangs over negotiations is a hard argument to make.

kaka

Ah. finally gotten the 2 earlier claims. (1 was easy, 1 needed push and went thru in CEDR)

Now the final one (the 3rd event i had last year was "quite clearly" weather in London as I discussed with our c-w-s so is a non-claim - I only had 3 trips to europe last year and 1 was on *A!)...

We were booked on a 0850 LCY-EDI flight (it flew ok and arrived on time). We arrived LCY Terminal (ie, after car retruns and crap) fairly late at 0820 with bags. Us 3 OWSs arrived the BA queues and waited at the priority/club europe line, and 2 parties were in front of us.. and some 2-3 on the bag drop line. We told the "Line Dragon" of our flight and he indicated OK. After the 2 parties in front of us proceeded, the "Line Dragon" directed people on the bag drop line to the priority/club europe checkin desks. And when we eventually made to the desk it was a few minutes before 0830. say 0827.

Then at the desk, the agent first said we were too late (>20mins still!) and refused to check us in. We argued it wasnt 0830 yet she started talking with her neighbour colleague. for 1-2 minutes then started typing. another 1-2 minutes later she then told us the system had closed.

In "short", this was it. Would this constitute as "invol denied boarding"? (We dont have time-photo proof if it were required.)

corporate-wage-slave

Had you previously checked in online?

To answer this fairly generally, you can claim IDB if you presented yourself by the required timings (and for LCY you appear to have done this) and had a ticket for the flight in question. Now I think it is somewhat unlikely that BA will roll over on this one, they don't readily agree to IDB cases at the best of times. So you may need to think in terms of getting a Statement of Truth, naming the staff member concerned, bearing in mind BA will have its computer records and could ask the staff member for their version of events. When there is divergence in timings then only a judge can decide the on the balance of probability.

However I have a sneaky feeling that anyone turning up at a fairly large international airport 23 minutes before departure is going to have quite a task on their hands here. The Regulation was intended to protect consumers interests, but the Regulations own default timeline - if nothing was stated - of 45 minutes.

Nagolnagol

Hi,

BA have cancelled our LHR-LAS departure at 12:10 for a 16:40 departure instead. This means we miss our 19:00 to Seattle.

I kindly enquired if that meant we could be re-route to Seattle on the 15:30 but wa told that because SEA was 850 miles away from LAS, it fell outside their 300 miles re-route rule

The agent did say that if it had been 350 miles she could have made an exception, so if the rule is there to be broken why not do it for Seattle. She kept saying it was 3 times the distance of their rules, but I think that against a Trans-con flight, it's peanut.

By all account, I think they have simply re-assinged the LHR plane for a new LGW service, which is another possibility, but without enjoying the benefits of T5 lounge and treatments

Has anyone come across this or can advise what I should do? What are my options here?

Kind Regards,
Kevin

BA6501

Are these two flights on separate tickets? When are you travelling?