golfmad

It's not clear to me what you are looking for the insurer to cover? You can take a full refund from the original ticket issuer and then you're free to book something else. If you're asking whether the insurer will cover the additional cost because it's closer to departure (and presumably prices are higher) then I think that's extremely unlikely.

ringingup

Yes, the latter. For now they've said that they would cover for any additional expenses incurred to travel to Milan (minus the refund I'd get from AZ) under Travel Inconvenience, but not to the final destination... which does not seem to make much sense. The representative wasn't sure, hence why she will have to check with her supervisor.

wanderingjock

Help request: What time did the AY839 land at LHR on 30th Apr 2017? thanks.

I'm going to civil county court on Friday pursuing AY (tickets purchased from BA) for delayed TLL-LHR flights due to "crew rest". Usual AY response of Norra was the carrier, not us.

KARFA

It may be worth comparing notes with @nufnuf77 as I believe he is currently pursuing a claim with AY who are similarly trying to palm him off to Norra.

Tyzap

14.05 UTC.

wanderingjock

thanks very much Tyzap.

Globaliser

Don't forget to correct for local time at LHR, if comparing it to scheduled arrival time (which is always expressed in local time).

Tim_T

I've now received my response from BA via CEDR of their defence, and I have the opportunity to respond before it is considered by CEDR

Any advice on how to provide a response to CEDR? Should it be detailed or keep it brief?

BA's defence focuses on two aspects; that strikes are extraordinary circumstance - they highlight various bits of evidence for this (all of which are focused on strikes external to the airline), and that they did everything possible before making a decision in advance to cancel our flight. They state "Selecting to cancel this flight was the most efficient to the airlines operation in respect of crew availability.", which to me is an admission that it was a commercial decision wholly within BAs control!

I'd rather no post the whole document here, but if anyone wants to PM me I can share, especially if you want to provide pointers :-)

petez

Hope this may be of use to others ...

Flew YYC - LHR -MAN in early July. Delayed at YYC for just under two hours - check in and boarding were chaotic and announcement on board saying IT problems. Missed connection to MAN. Ended up five hours late.

Early July (Week 1) - emailed Customer Services with all info and request for EU261

Week 3 - Email prompt to BA

Week 4 - BA respond saying ´weather delay´- no entitlement to EU261

Week 5 - I respond saying it was IT issues

Week 6 - Not having had any reply, I send a Letter before Action outlining my case

Week 9 - No response at all to Letter, so start MCOL

Week 10 (Day 3 after latest date of service) - BA acknowledge service

Week 11 (Day 8 after service) - BA indicate will defend in full

Week 14 (Day 27 after service) - BA file defence formally stating delay was due to IT issues but these were extraordinary, therefore not entitled to EU 261 but given the circumstances will pay full EU261 compensation without any admission of liability !!!!!!!

Tyzap

Well done petez,

Perseverance pays off, but why did they put you through all of that in the first place!

It is completely perverse of them following their IT outage in May, which cost a small fortune in compensation and costs. They know full well that IT issues are not an EC. Extremely disingenuous of BA.

Thanks for the update.

corporate-wage-slave

Many thanks for this information, I think it does give people a clear expectation as to what to expect. I recent update from someone going the CEDR route (in terms of timing) would also be useful, but I suspect actually MCOL may currently be the faster route at the moment. I think you were perhaps a bit kind to BA in the first few weeks, I think it is reasonable to wait (say) 3 weeks to get BA's response, but thereafter you may as well give them 16 days to settle in full.

armouredant

This might have been an anomaly, but last week I was on a BA Openskies flight EWR-ORY that was delayed owing to a problem with a windscreen wiper and a wet seat. As a result of the delay, I misconnected with my onward ORY-LCY, and had to spend seven hours in the lounge at ORY enjoying the wine and the cheese there before the next flight back to London. I wasn't offered alternative transport via CDG or Eurostar.

The flights were part of the return leg of an ex-EU, and the booking included another sector LHR-GOT departing the next day, which landed on time. I raised a claim for compensation for the delay getting to London anyway, which has been accepted without argument, and paid today. I expected to have to argue that my night in London constituted a stopover, even though GOT was my final destination, but that wasn't the case. Anyway, €600 (Ł530) arrived today, which I'm very pleased about.

pilki42

Hi folks,

Wonder if anyone could help shine a bit of experience on my little predicament.

My partner and I were delayed over four hours on BA17 from LHR-ICN.

At the time, we were told that there was a technical issue with the cargo doors and extra checks were needed because it was a 787.

After chasing up on the phone with Customer Relations, they tell me that it's not eligible for compensation because it was a ground ops issue. (Although, isn't ground ops at T5 operated by BA themselves?)

On the e-mail I've received they gave me a full lowdown on their opinions on the delay:

"260 minutes of delay was caused by damage during ground ops (code DG) This isn't payable under EU Legislation

3 minutes caused by airfield slot delay (code ATZ) : This isn't payable under EU legislation

4 minutes caused by equipment blocking the stand (code GTB) Payable under EU legislation but not enough of a delay to be eligible"

Does this sound like I've got much of a chance here?

BA6501

Damage during ground ops normally means something has crashed into the aircraft. If this were an external contractor, then they "could" be off the hook (though I'd argue against that). If it were damage by a company not involved with BA (e.g. an AA truck going to an AA aircraft hitting BA) then fair enough. If it is BA themselves then they are IMO liable.
In this case it seems like a simple technical issue rather than anything crashing into anything, in which case BA is liable.

simons1

You have a good chance as ground ops are in most cases BA's issue.

Give them 14 days notice of your intention to pursue this further and then file a MCOL case.