The 2017 BA compensation thread: Your guide to Regulation EC261/2004
Sep 26, 2017, 3:20 am
#1426
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 698
Interesting that they did divert to LPL.
Wasn't there some issue at MAN a few weeks back where the decision was made not to go to LPL?
Wasn't there some issue at MAN a few weeks back where the decision was made not to go to LPL?
Sep 26, 2017, 3:32 am
#1427
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club, easyJet and Ryanair
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 15,926
IIRC that flight diverted to BHX, not sure we can assume there was a decision not to go to LPL. It is possible, I suppose, that BHX was too busy to accept the BA flight and LPL was ready and willing.
Sep 26, 2017, 3:34 am
#1428
Ambassador, British Airways; FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Leeds, UK
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, GfL, HH Diamond
Posts: 42,958
I think the point made by several BA pilots on this forum though is that they do have complete discretion to take as much fuel as they think they may need over and above what's in the flight plan, and that they have not been challenged when exercising that discretion.
Sep 28, 2017, 12:38 am
#1429
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Programs: BA Silver Card
Posts: 120
You might find the CAA's letter to Ryanair interesting.
https://www.caa.co.uk/uploadedFiles/...r%20270917.pdf
It specifically states that re-routing includes other airlines. In this case, other airlines means not Ryanair. I understand BA sometimes claim they can only re-route on BA or BA partner airlines, and the Regs themselves are silent on this.
This clarification from the CAA could be helpful.
https://www.caa.co.uk/uploadedFiles/...r%20270917.pdf
It specifically states that re-routing includes other airlines. In this case, other airlines means not Ryanair. I understand BA sometimes claim they can only re-route on BA or BA partner airlines, and the Regs themselves are silent on this.
This clarification from the CAA could be helpful.
Sep 28, 2017, 4:31 am
#1430
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: UK (MAN)
Programs: BAEC - Gold, VS - Silver, Hilton Gold, IHG Platinum Elite, Bonvoy Gold
Posts: 248
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.
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.
In speaking with the agent, the log he read seems to stretch the truth, certainly about what was announced onboard. I felt like it had been doctored frankly.
They are admitting on the phone that the contract for fuel or lack of at LPL is a problem and that had it been a "BA airport" we'd have gotten to MAN. He told me that NATS made the call on where to divert 1402 which I have to admit, seems odd. Would they not look at fuel load etc and make a call? If it's diverted on route, wouldn't that open up East Midlands? (I've been on a diverted MAN there before and there is a cargo fuel contract I believe)
Looking at the comments from CWS, I also feel this is difficult now. I'll refer it and see where it goes.
Sep 28, 2017, 4:37 am
#1431
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: LHR Air Traffic Control
Programs: BAEC Silver
Posts: 875
"NATS made the call"? No, sorry. ATC have no ability to tell a pilot where to divert. they can pass on information about where might be suitable, or pass on messages from airports regarding them refusing to take the diversion etc.
If a pilot says "I'm diverting to xxxx" ATC will accommodate.
If a pilot says "I'm diverting to xxxx" ATC will accommodate.
Sep 28, 2017, 4:49 am
#1432
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: UK (MAN)
Programs: BAEC - Gold, VS - Silver, Hilton Gold, IHG Platinum Elite, Bonvoy Gold
Posts: 248
"NATS made the call"? No, sorry. ATC have no ability to tell a pilot where to divert. they can pass on information about where might be suitable, or pass on messages from airports regarding them refusing to take the diversion etc.
If a pilot says "I'm diverting to xxxx" ATC will accommodate.
If a pilot says "I'm diverting to xxxx" ATC will accommodate.
I thought that gave of the smell of BS. Honestly, they read the log back and it sounds like it's been doctored. Cruzified if you like. I'll push it CEDR I think as this seems like a bad call. They chose an airport where the BA plane was according to the captain, the last in and therefore back of the queue. Add that to no fuel contract and limited capacity.
I don't want to second guess but this just doesn't add up.
Sep 28, 2017, 4:52 am
#1433
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ireland
Programs: VS Silver, EK Gold, BA GGL/CCR
Posts: 487
You might find the CAA's letter to Ryanair interesting.
https://www.caa.co.uk/uploadedFiles/...r%20270917.pdf
It specifically states that re-routing includes other airlines. In this case, other airlines means not Ryanair. I understand BA sometimes claim they can only re-route on BA or BA partner airlines, and the Regs themselves are silent on this.
This clarification from the CAA could be helpful.
https://www.caa.co.uk/uploadedFiles/...r%20270917.pdf
It specifically states that re-routing includes other airlines. In this case, other airlines means not Ryanair. I understand BA sometimes claim they can only re-route on BA or BA partner airlines, and the Regs themselves are silent on this.
This clarification from the CAA could be helpful.
Its interesting that that for years the CAA has had relatively little interest in assisting with EU261 and didn’t intervene in a similar manner despite months of BA strikes / disruption etc., yet choose to get involved when it’s FR at fault.
Sep 28, 2017, 4:55 am
#1434
Ambassador: Emirates Airlines
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 18,612
Thank you!
I thought that gave of the smell of BS. Honestly, they read the log back and it sounds like it's been doctored. Cruzified if you like. I'll push it CEDR I think as this seems like a bad call. They chose an airport where the BA plane was according to the captain, the last in and therefore back of the queue. Add that to no fuel contract and limited capacity.
I don't want to second guess but this just doesn't add up.
I thought that gave of the smell of BS. Honestly, they read the log back and it sounds like it's been doctored. Cruzified if you like. I'll push it CEDR I think as this seems like a bad call. They chose an airport where the BA plane was according to the captain, the last in and therefore back of the queue. Add that to no fuel contract and limited capacity.
I don't want to second guess but this just doesn't add up.
Sep 28, 2017, 5:01 am
#1435
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: UK (MAN)
Programs: BAEC - Gold, VS - Silver, Hilton Gold, IHG Platinum Elite, Bonvoy Gold
Posts: 248
Sep 28, 2017, 5:25 am
#1436
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 67
I was also on this flight and BA have just contacted me to deny the EU261 compensation.
In speaking with the agent, the log he read seems to stretch the truth, certainly about what was announced onboard. I felt like it had been doctored frankly.
They are admitting on the phone that the contract for fuel or lack of at LPL is a problem and that had it been a "BA airport" we'd have gotten to MAN. He told me that NATS made the call on where to divert 1402 which I have to admit, seems odd. Would they not look at fuel load etc and make a call? If it's diverted on route, wouldn't that open up East Midlands? (I've been on a diverted MAN there before and there is a cargo fuel contract I believe)
Looking at the comments from CWS, I also feel this is difficult now. I'll refer it and see where it goes.
In speaking with the agent, the log he read seems to stretch the truth, certainly about what was announced onboard. I felt like it had been doctored frankly.
They are admitting on the phone that the contract for fuel or lack of at LPL is a problem and that had it been a "BA airport" we'd have gotten to MAN. He told me that NATS made the call on where to divert 1402 which I have to admit, seems odd. Would they not look at fuel load etc and make a call? If it's diverted on route, wouldn't that open up East Midlands? (I've been on a diverted MAN there before and there is a cargo fuel contract I believe)
Looking at the comments from CWS, I also feel this is difficult now. I'll refer it and see where it goes.
It's only being made difficult by the stream of mis information from BA.
I feel that there is more to this fuel situation than meets the eye, and I'm not just talking about the lack of fuel at LPL.
From the captains announcement, and I quote from the previous op
"the captain himself stated landing at Liverpool was madness and he'd told BA this."
It does not sound like LPL was his choice of diversion airport and he also sounds pretty annoyed about it. We know that he would not have been directed their by ATC from Heathrow Towers informative post. So why did he div to LPL and who's decision was it?
At the moment there are more questions than answers.
Sep 28, 2017, 5:43 am
#1437
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: UK (MAN)
Programs: BAEC - Gold, VS - Silver, Hilton Gold, IHG Platinum Elite, Bonvoy Gold
Posts: 248
Hi bradders81,
It's only being made difficult by the stream of mis information from BA.
I feel that there is more to this fuel situation than meets the eye, and I'm not just talking about the lack of fuel at LPL.
From the captains announcement, and I quote from the previous op
"the captain himself stated landing at Liverpool was madness and he'd told BA this."
It does not sound like LPL was his choice of diversion airport and he also sounds pretty annoyed about it. We know that he would not have been directed their by ATC from Heathrow Towers informative post. So why did he div to LPL and who's decision was it?
At the moment there are more questions than answers.
It's only being made difficult by the stream of mis information from BA.
I feel that there is more to this fuel situation than meets the eye, and I'm not just talking about the lack of fuel at LPL.
From the captains announcement, and I quote from the previous op
"the captain himself stated landing at Liverpool was madness and he'd told BA this."
It does not sound like LPL was his choice of diversion airport and he also sounds pretty annoyed about it. We know that he would not have been directed their by ATC from Heathrow Towers informative post. So why did he div to LPL and who's decision was it?
At the moment there are more questions than answers.
Somebody made a bad call and it cost everyone their Friday night and some expense. It's not a huge amount of money but I kind of want to push BA on principle here. Something just isn't right.
Sep 28, 2017, 7:38 am
#1439
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,596
The CAA are now taking enforcement action against Ryanair for not putting passengers on other airlines when flights are cancelled.They have scheduled a week of meetings with Ryanair to discuss what actions should take effect.
As BA are also guilty of this,and there are many threads here regarding the matter,should the CAA also look into BA's actions,and for that matter also Easyjet.
Has the time come for the CAA to sort this out?
As BA are also guilty of this,and there are many threads here regarding the matter,should the CAA also look into BA's actions,and for that matter also Easyjet.
Has the time come for the CAA to sort this out?
Sep 28, 2017, 1:30 pm
#1440
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: NC
Programs: AA ExecPlat, UA Silver, Marriott Titanium, Hilton Diamond, Hyatt Explorist
Posts: 25
After reading through this thread and the AA version, I wanted to get a quick confirmation on my understanding related to the following trip:
MIA - LHR (BA codeshare, operated by AA)
LHR - OTP (BA operated)
The first leg was delayed due to baggage issues, resulting in a missed connection for LHR-OTP and a final destination delay of 8 hours.
Am I correct in reading this forum (and the EU regs) in that BA has no responsibility on the delayed final arrival, as AA was the root cause with the operations of the first leg, thus no EU261 compensation is due?
Thanks for the help!
MIA - LHR (BA codeshare, operated by AA)
LHR - OTP (BA operated)
The first leg was delayed due to baggage issues, resulting in a missed connection for LHR-OTP and a final destination delay of 8 hours.
Am I correct in reading this forum (and the EU regs) in that BA has no responsibility on the delayed final arrival, as AA was the root cause with the operations of the first leg, thus no EU261 compensation is due?
Thanks for the help!