corporate-wage-slave

I think you are OK to proceed. The purpose of the letter before action is to give BA a fair opportunity to head off legal action should they wish (and get themselves sufficiently organised) rather than mirror the legal channelling. So you could go straight to either 2 MCOLs or 1 paper form without further delay. One option, if MCOL is easier, is to apply just for one of you in MCOL now, putting a note in that a second action will follow separately after the first. I suppose it drags out the process, but there is a chance you can liaise with BA after round 1 to head off round 2.

BobServant

I am in correspondence with BA after an involuntary downgrade from F to CW. We are two rounds in and I don't immediately see my situation covered elsewhere in this hugely informative and helpful thread.

The downgrade happened shortly before boarding on a eastbound TATL due to a broken seat in an full F cabin. Customer Services have offered me a sum as "compensation", which on its own is wholly inadequate, but as an ex-gratia would be nice while we sort out some proper reimbursement per my entitlement under Reg 261 (i.e. 75% of the fare).

In correspondence I have set out what I believe my entitlement is under Reg 261. CS have studiously ignored responding to this directly, and the direct question as to whether the "compensation" is additional or part of Reg 261 has also been ignored. We are 2 messages each and about a month into this already.

What strikes me as odd is that I have been told to write to Refunds as I am "due the difference between F and CW" (nice try, BA...).

I (naively, it seems) thought CS would be a one-stop-shop for, well, customer service and deal with Refunds as part of the overall. Is this approach normal for BA?

Thoughts/ experience most welcome, thanks in advance.

corporate-wage-slave

BA have always struggled to efficiently process EC261 refunds properly, and using the word compensation here is a bit confusing, since EC261 gives a refund procedure (essentially 75% of the net sector fare) but not compensation for downgrades. However BA irrespective of EC261 have their own involuntary fare refund mechanism. Depending on the precise details, the latter can often be more generous than EC261. However both calculations are done by the same refunds team, very slowly, and they are currently overloaded work wise (hurricanes and what-not, but they always seem to be overloaded).

So my suggestion is if you're OK to wait, then you may get a better outcome. If you aren't keen to do this, then calculate the precise amount due to you, give 16 days notice to pay, then go MCOL. Alternatively wait for 8 weeks and go CEDR. However you better do an approximate calculation now so that if you do wait you know whether BA have used the Involuntary Fare Refund route or EC261 correctly.

BobServant

Thanks, most helpful.

I am in no hurry so I think I will write to refunds, enclose the correspondence with Customer Service, ask for their calculation of the refund due. The booking is a bit of a mess, which doesn't help matters, so would like to see their workings. I plan to get the letter out to BA at the weekend and give them such time as it takes us to 8 weeks from downgrade.

At that point if no/ unsatisfactory response, I will then decide whether to go via CEDR at 8 weeks or do notice ahead of action with my calculation of reimbursement, then proceed to MCOL after that.

mycity68

Hi All, looking for some help/advice please.

Last Friday we flew from China to Heathrow in F, then onto Man in Business Claas, this was using Avios.

All went well on the China to Heathrow leg, however we had major issues on the Heathrow to Man. We took off about 10 mins late, arrival time should have been 7.15pm, however at 7.10 the captain came on to say that Man Airport was closed because of a runway issue and we were diverting to Liverpool to refuel and then fly on to Man. We landed at Liverpool at 7.25pm, on arrival we were informed that the earliest we could refuel would be 9pm, at 9.15pm the captain came on to say the flight was now terminated at Liverpool by BA, (5 mins later the fuel tanker turned up) we disembarked the plane at 10pm and waited for our luggage which arrived at 10.50pm, coaches were waiting to transport us to MAN, we arrived at MAN at 12.20am, just over 5 hours late.

Do I have a case for a claim on the EU261 (this seems to state that things outside the airlines control wont be compensated) If so what can i expect.

How do i go about claiming this from BA?

Thanks

mikeyfly

Did you have a read through the intro of the main thread? There's also same situations as you on there

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/briti...2004-a-71.html

NWIFlyer

A runway issue would be outside the control of the airline, and would therefore be considered extraordinary - so I'm afraid no compensation will be due here.

DYKWIA

Such a shame MAN hasn't got 2 runways... Oh yeah, it has.

mycity68

Thanks guys, I thought as in the OP I'd was on a loser as it's not within the control off BA.

Not sure what happened but Manchester closed the airport for under a hour whilst repairs were undertaken,

madfish

Although MAN have two runways they don't always operate both. Not sure how easy it is to switch operations from one to the other, but the other runway may also have been closed for maintenance.

simons1

So has Heathrow, Dubai and several other places. I wonder whether if one was closed it would have a similar impact on arrivals or departures?

DYKWIA

The issue with the southerly runway at MAN is that it hasn't got a parallel taxiway. So, Landing aircraft would need to back track, blocking the runway. I think this was the issue, and why there were diversions. Take offs would have not been affected.

Tyzap

What the captain told you was not correct.

MAN has 2 runways and the second runway remained open throughout with aircraft landing and departing from it. The airport did not close but was severely restricted from roughly 18.30 to 19.30 whilst the main runway was closed following the appearance of a hole that needed urgent repair. The BA1402 shuttle did not enter the hold at MAN but diverted to LPL whilst en route.
Within a few minutes (5 - 10) of you landing at LPL both runways were operational again at MAN.

After you landed at LPL why did the captain need extra fuel before being able to hop the 30 miles to MAN. Only minimum fuel had been used on the journey from LHR with no holding. To add some context to BA's handling of the situation a comparison should be made with the Emirates EK19 A380 which entered the hold at MAN at about 18.50. After holding for around 15 - 20 mins it diverted to BHX and then returned to MAN landing at around 22.15. Passengers relatively happy to be at destination with a 3+ delay. Did BA take all reasonable measures to ensure passengers were not delayed?
Well possibly not compared to the EK flight who were at their destination by 22.15, over two hours earlier than the BA passengers.
The regs stipulate that to be exempted from paying compensation the airline must meet both limbs of the extraordinary circumstance (Wallentin) test. The first was met but the second limb says...

That party must establish that, even if it had deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its disposal, it would clearly not have been able – unless it had made intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time – to prevent the extraordinary circumstances with which it was confronted from leading to the cancellation of the flight.

In this regard there are a few areas of doubt imo.

1)Did the aircraft carry sufficient fuel for holding.
2)Could the passengers have been transferred to MAN by coach in a more expeditious manner.
3)Was the right diversion airport chosen given that the runway at MAN was closed around 15 mins after BA1402 departed LHR or would a return to LHR have been a better option. Why divert to LPL which is not normally used by BA.
4)Problems refuelling at LPL are not an EC.

I’d ask for your claim to be passed to CEDR if BA turn you down, they can take a view on the above.

mycity68

Thanks for the great post Tyzap, the captain stressed they didn't have enough fuel to hold, suggests to me that they put a bare minimum in. We were treated poorly at Liverpool a Ryanair Hub basically so we're told no answers were coming from the ground staff, the captain himself stated landing at Liverpool was madness and he'd told BA this.

Based on your reply I will take it further and keep you allposted

Thanks

corporate-wage-slave

There have been some CJEU judgements in this area in the last year which have, to paraphrase mightily, effectively said that while extraordinary circumstances is still a valid defence, it remains the airline's responsibility to get themselves out of difficulties as swiftly as possible.

Now from my knowledge of LPL, I imagine BA didn't have a fuel contract, whereas Ryanair (etc) all do, the fuel supply to BA would be "best endeavours" and that on a Friday night the fuel rigs would be tightly scheduled with no-one free to take up any slack. A bit like the previous problem with a lack of pushbacks late at night at T5, which was tolerable until stuff happens.

I wouldn't play back-seat pilot in terms of fuel loading, incidentally: you're on a hiding to nothing there. From what little I do know, the act of any extra unplanned take off alone would require additional fuel.

Personally I don't think this is going anywhere, there just too much here out of BA's control and add it all together it looks "extraordinary" to me. But my first paragraph gives the basis you could use.