The 2017 BA compensation thread: Your guide to Regulation EC261/2004
Sep 4, 2017, 2:35 am
#1321
Join Date: Oct 2014
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 168
Question: it was both him and his girlfriend who were delayed, can that be done in a single claim or does it need to be done separately as they each individually are due their compensation?
Sep 4, 2017, 2:36 am
#1322
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA GGL. HH Diamond. CC, SPG, MR Gold.
Posts: 59
Hello all. I'm just looking for some advice with regards to the first EU261 claim I've been involved in. Many thanks to all of those involved in the Wiki as it's an incredibly valuable source of information.
My wife and her friend were on BA 2716 on 13th Jul '17, which arrived at Gatwick over 3 hours late. The flight was operated by G-GATK. On the same day the plane operated:
BA2616 LGW - CAG - Dep 5min E, Arr 12min E
BA2617 CAG - LGW - Dep 3hr 24min L, Arr 3hr 18min L
BA2716 LGW - AGP - Dep 3hr 18min L, Arr 3hr 20min L
BA2717 AGP - LGW - Dep 3hr 32min L, Arr 3hr 19min L
Prior to departure from AGP, the Captain apologised to the passengers on 2717 for the delay, and stated that this was caused by a 'technical fault' in Sardinia (CAG).
I submitted an EU261 claim upon their return, and BA have today replied stating that:
I'd like some advice on where we stand on this; is there any point in pursuing it back through CR and then further if we don't get anywhere?
From my view, not only was the direct reason for the delay of 2717 a late inbound aircraft, but there is a dispute over the origin of the delay which caused that knock-on affect, with the pilot having told passengers a different story.
Is this a lost cause, as BA have decided that EU261 isn't payable, or is it worth pushing?
Many thanks for your time and advice.
My wife and her friend were on BA 2716 on 13th Jul '17, which arrived at Gatwick over 3 hours late. The flight was operated by G-GATK. On the same day the plane operated:
BA2616 LGW - CAG - Dep 5min E, Arr 12min E
BA2617 CAG - LGW - Dep 3hr 24min L, Arr 3hr 18min L
BA2716 LGW - AGP - Dep 3hr 18min L, Arr 3hr 20min L
BA2717 AGP - LGW - Dep 3hr 32min L, Arr 3hr 19min L
(Times taken from FlightAware)
Obviously, the delay occurred on BA2617, and left 2716 & 2717 both delayed by late inbound aircrafts.Prior to departure from AGP, the Captain apologised to the passengers on 2717 for the delay, and stated that this was caused by a 'technical fault' in Sardinia (CAG).
I submitted an EU261 claim upon their return, and BA have today replied stating that:
Originally Posted by BACR
Your claim's been refused because BA2717 on 13 July was delayed because of airspace restrictions being in place that were outside of our control.
From my view, not only was the direct reason for the delay of 2717 a late inbound aircraft, but there is a dispute over the origin of the delay which caused that knock-on affect, with the pilot having told passengers a different story.
Is this a lost cause, as BA have decided that EU261 isn't payable, or is it worth pushing?
Many thanks for your time and advice.
As a follow on from the above BA have once again responded refusing the claim but this time they have changed the reason for the delay from ATC. They state:
Originally Posted by BA
Your claim's been refused because BA2717 on 13 July was delayed because of aircraft damage which wasn't caused by us, there was a power supply fault which prevented the aircraft operating as scheduled. Under EU legislation, we're not liable for a compensation payment in this situation.
Sep 4, 2017, 3:18 am
#1323
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
As a follow on from the above BA have once again responded refusing the claim but this time they have changed the reason for the delay from ATC. They state:
They in no part mention this being an exceptional circumstance, but I note the conflicting use of 'damage' and 'fault'. I'd be grateful for any opinions on whether this is eligible for compensation, as I am under the impression that technical faults are indeed covered, and, if so, would appreciate advice on whether it is best to continue with BACS or continue to CEDR/MCOL. Many thanks.
They in no part mention this being an exceptional circumstance, but I note the conflicting use of 'damage' and 'fault'. I'd be grateful for any opinions on whether this is eligible for compensation, as I am under the impression that technical faults are indeed covered, and, if so, would appreciate advice on whether it is best to continue with BACS or continue to CEDR/MCOL. Many thanks.
Technical faults are not exceptional and damage caused by one of their contractors is not exceptional as contractors are within their control.
No point wasting further time on BA as they will just try to stall you. Given them 14 days notice of your intention to pursue it further then stick in your CEDR request/MCOL claim, unlikely they will defend it.
Sep 4, 2017, 4:50 am
#1324
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club, easyJet and Ryanair
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 15,927
BA are clearly lying to you to avoid compensation.
Technical faults are not exceptional and damage caused by one of their contractors is not exceptional as contractors are within their control.
No point wasting further time on BA as they will just try to stall you. Given them 14 days notice of your intention to pursue it further then stick in your CEDR request/MCOL claim, unlikely they will defend it.
Technical faults are not exceptional and damage caused by one of their contractors is not exceptional as contractors are within their control.
No point wasting further time on BA as they will just try to stall you. Given them 14 days notice of your intention to pursue it further then stick in your CEDR request/MCOL claim, unlikely they will defend it.
Sep 4, 2017, 5:19 am
#1326
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
1. Said it was due to ATC - lie - captain told passengers it was due to technical fault in Sardinia.
2. No eligible for compensation due to "aircraft damage that wasn't caused by us" - lie - that isn't exceptional, suppliers are under BA's control. Unless of course the aircraft was hit by a bolt of lightning, unlikely, but in that case both reasons given in 1 were lies.
3. Then it was caused by a "power supply fault", must mean that at least one of the previous reasons was a lie.
It really doesn't look good when BA treats people in this way.
2. No eligible for compensation due to "aircraft damage that wasn't caused by us" - lie - that isn't exceptional, suppliers are under BA's control. Unless of course the aircraft was hit by a bolt of lightning, unlikely, but in that case both reasons given in 1 were lies.
3. Then it was caused by a "power supply fault", must mean that at least one of the previous reasons was a lie.
It really doesn't look good when BA treats people in this way.
Sep 4, 2017, 5:24 am
#1327
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club, easyJet and Ryanair
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 15,927
When it comes to law, these kind of questions are very important. And whist one may not be true, that doesn't equate to a lie. If you are going to allege a lie in court proceeding you'd better be able to substantiate that allegation evidentially.
Sep 4, 2017, 5:31 am
#1328
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
I suppose to be charitable perhaps they are just so badly organised that nearly 2 months later they don't know the true cause of the delay. But I doubt it - these are standard BA fob off tactics as a ready through this thread will show.
Sep 4, 2017, 5:43 am
#1329
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club, easyJet and Ryanair
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 15,927
1. Said it was due to ATC - lie - captain told passengers it was due to technical fault in Sardinia.
2. No eligible for compensation due to "aircraft damage that wasn't caused by us" - lie - that isn't exceptional, suppliers are under BA's control. Unless of course the aircraft was hit by a bolt of lightning, unlikely, but in that case both reasons given in 1 were lies.
3. Then it was caused by a "power supply fault", must mean that at least one of the previous reasons was a lie.
It really doesn't look good when BA treats people in this way.
2. No eligible for compensation due to "aircraft damage that wasn't caused by us" - lie - that isn't exceptional, suppliers are under BA's control. Unless of course the aircraft was hit by a bolt of lightning, unlikely, but in that case both reasons given in 1 were lies.
3. Then it was caused by a "power supply fault", must mean that at least one of the previous reasons was a lie.
It really doesn't look good when BA treats people in this way.
You make unhelpful and unnecessary assumptions that will not assist in pursuing the case. There may have been ATC restrictions affecting the flight in question, you have no evidence to show otherwise. There may also have been damage/technical issues with the aircraft, you have no evidence to show otherwise. The power supply fault may have been caused by damage to the aircraft, you have no evidence to show otherwise.
There may be circumstances in any of the events mentioned above where a court might find that those events do amount to 'extraordinary circumstances' under the Regulation.
In my view it would be prudent to ask BA to confirm and to provide details of what caused the delay together with an explanation of why they believe compensation isn't payable under the Regulation.
If memorex is not satisfied with the answer, then take this to CEDR.
Sep 4, 2017, 5:57 am
#1330
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
Offering different reasons for an event is not a lie in itself. Saying that compensation is not payable is not a lie, it the position of the other party. It is up to the one seeking compensation to set out their entitlement to compensation (although the burden of proof in establishing the cause of the delay is with the airline).
You make unhelpful and unnecessary assumptions that will not assist in pursuing the case. There may have been ATC restrictions affecting the flight in question, you have no evidence to show otherwise. There may also have been damage/technical issues with the aircraft, you have no evidence to show otherwise. The power supply fault may have been caused by damage to the aircraft, you have no evidence to show otherwise.
There may be circumstances in any of the events mentioned above where a court might find that those events could amount to 'extraordinary circumstances' under the Regulation.
In my view it would be prudent to ask BA to confirm and to provide details of what caused the delay together with an explanation of why they believe compensation isn't payable under the Regulation.
If memorex is not satisfied with the answer, then take this to CEDR.
You make unhelpful and unnecessary assumptions that will not assist in pursuing the case. There may have been ATC restrictions affecting the flight in question, you have no evidence to show otherwise. There may also have been damage/technical issues with the aircraft, you have no evidence to show otherwise. The power supply fault may have been caused by damage to the aircraft, you have no evidence to show otherwise.
There may be circumstances in any of the events mentioned above where a court might find that those events could amount to 'extraordinary circumstances' under the Regulation.
In my view it would be prudent to ask BA to confirm and to provide details of what caused the delay together with an explanation of why they believe compensation isn't payable under the Regulation.
If memorex is not satisfied with the answer, then take this to CEDR.
I seem to remember being told before that my assertions had no basis in law (Oman diversion case) and the airline was more likely to prevail. Of course when it came to the crunch the poster got their cash (after 3 attempts ironically) and I'm sure they will here too.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/briti...hen-mct-5.html
Of course it is quite possible that the power fault caused damage to the plane which caused it to get caught in an ATC delay, and the pilot was just misinformed when he said it was a technical delay, and that BA were being entirely reasonable in serving up a different answer each time the poster asked. But we both know it's highly unlikely.
A recent reading of this thread indicates that after a decline from BA it is usually worth going through the gears to CEDR/MCOL as soon as possible. I wonder how many people get declined compensation by BA's manoeuvres and don't realise they have the right to follow this process - must be saving BA a few quid.
Sep 4, 2017, 6:06 am
#1331
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 935
I am more surprised that some are evidently blind to the practice.
I also take issue with you stating that the entitlement to EU261 is expressed as an opinion or position as the wording presents this as a fact.
Sep 4, 2017, 6:07 am
#1332
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club, easyJet and Ryanair
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 15,927
Sep 4, 2017, 6:17 am
#1333
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club, easyJet and Ryanair
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 15,927
You say yes, they say no - deadlock - off to court for an adjudication. Neither party are lying, they just disagree.
Sep 4, 2017, 6:23 am
#1334
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
"those on the cancelled inbound, well, I wouldn't hold out much hope. I suspect even if court proceedings were issued BA would defend given the potential value and I am not convinced a District Judge would side with a Claimant in this case given the weather."
"where is your basis in law for this assertion?"
"In this particular case, on the balance of probability, I suspect the airline is the more likely to succeed"
Anyway for the avoidance of confusion I see this case as broadly similar, the poster will get paid as common sense will prevail BA will not attempt to defend it when escalated.
Anyway I will leave it there to avoid derailing the thread.
Sep 4, 2017, 6:33 am
#1335
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club, easyJet and Ryanair
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 15,927
Indeed - but you have used very selective editing there to give an inaccurate synopsis of the exchange. There were two separate cases under discussion, the successful one (the one you are claiming victory for) was not the case you and I were discussing.