the_real_a

There are several cases where county court judges have found on favour of passengers who were effected by knock on effects of "extraordinary circumstances". The test IMO seems to be that the delay clock begins at the moment a replacement aircraft could theoretically be provided to to fly from A to B, irrespective of the practicalities.

Bad weather must also affect the ‘flight in question’ in order for airlines to use it as a defens according to Bott + Co.

A very politically correct CAA statement
"A delay caused directly by bad weather is generally considered outside an airline’s control and therefore airlines do not have to pay compensation," he said. "However, if an earlier delay is affecting later flights – or causing a knock-on effect - airlines may find it harder to demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable measures to avoid disruption. If they are unable to do this, passengers may be entitled to compensation as the airline has been unable to prove the delay was unavoidable."

Often1

The issue on FT is the use of the word "reasonable". People here are often not reasonable. Some are quite fanciful.

Those are non-precedential.

The claims agency types tend to get it right because they only get paid if they win, so fighting for claims which are losers is bad business.

The statement is quite clear, it falls to the carrier to demonstrate "all reasonable measures." That is not simply the time to fly in a replacement. It could be less and it could be more. By way of example, a replacement from where? How about the time to pull a standby crew and what if there are 5 standby crews and a 6th flight is delayed?

EsherFlyer

If nothing else sells and isn't already oversold (may well be with those figures) you could end up in F or J if there's a no show in the cabin, or J if they move someone forwards. I'd ask if they don't offer it.

BA15 is J5 to SIN now, so looks like you'll be OK to get on there.

ESFLYER95

All sorted in the end. On the BA 15, was told by CC in the air of rebooking. It went from J1 to J9 during the day so plenty of space in the end.

the_real_a

You sound like my lawyer I cannot disagree with your statement, however this is more our view on probability of success. I am comfortable that i may be more bullish than many on the thread and totally accept that one is subject to the mood of the judge on the day.

All the factors you mention are in the hands of the airline. Its an operational decision of how many "spare" aircraft or spare crew to maintain in the schedule. The legislation is very pro-consumer and the rulings i have seen have set a very low bar to "extraordinary". Personally i would be very inclined to raise a money claim in view of any knock-on delays. (Or at the very least hand it to one of the claims companies). I can also respect that for many its just not worth their time.

Tobias-UK

NWIFlyer

Based on my experience of MCOL proceedings with BA recently, I’d entirely agree with this. Now, mine was for a downgrade from BA F to VS J on an invol re-route after an A380 went tech, so different to a delay, but I can assure you BA’s defence was very, very comprehensive, running to 10 pages - and I only got a satisfactory settlement in mediation because I sent a well researched and arguably more legally accurate response back. I also needed to be bullish and hold my nerve and in the end BA effectively folded, but without that first response there’s no question they’d have gone to court.

Tobias-UK

Sadly, many deserving cases are lost in court because one party has gone totally unprepared or because they failed to understand the legal or evidential complexities. Some turn up and present a great claim, but become a cropper when it comes to attacking the defence or finding rebuttle for the crossexaminaion or defence arguments.

When going to court, a claimant is wise to consider the possible defences when preparing their own case.