Andriyko

OK. I won't be like some people who throw words out there without checking whether they are factually correct, so I will take back 'all airlines.' But I did check that LX, LH, KL, TP, AA did cancel. LX canceled more than half of its flights, and LH canceled almost half of its. All other operated with substantial delays.

Again, de-icing takes time (and requires space which LHR lacks), and reduced traffic alone would have ensured some cancellations.

Some people would not accept anything less than being prepared for anything at any time no matter what the costs are. I would not be surprised if someone suggested that airlines should design an all weather airplane as a reasonable measure. We had suggestions here that BA should keep a spare airplane/crew at outstations because it is reasonable to expect that a plane will break down/a member of crew will fall ill. Whether any of these suggestions pass the test of reasonableness is a different question.

dylanks

I thought that the reason HAL (not ATC) asked for reduced flights into LHR was because the airport was out of stands due to crowds due to delays in deicing which was due initially to weather. One of the reasons that the cost for the propose third runway is so high is that LHR really needs more land/space to operate beyond just having an extra runway.

I think it's clear there's no obvious answer here. At a minimum the following factors contributed to Sunday and Monday's issues:

• Freezing rain caused a delay in initial deicing which got progressively more delayed as conditions worsened
• BA did not have sufficient deicing capacity (whether that's because of constraints at LHR or their own fault is not clear)
• Heathrow is too small in terms of land, stands, terminals, and runways, and runs close to 100% capacity every day
• BA's IT, phone, and airport capacity to manage and rebook customers during IRROPS is really shockingly poor

The last point I think comes down to BA having some of the most rigid rules in the industry, which makes it difficult for staff to help until the problem has turned into a crisis. By comparison AA seems incredibly flexible. Not that they never have problems, but they seem very quick to rebook people at even a hint of bad weather, and just in general seem to give their employees a lot more power to make changes. It also helps that they seem to have a lot more staff that can modify tickets (e.g. pretty much every agent working at the desk at their lounges, and at every gate).

LTN Phobia

I agree with what you are saying. I think we used to tolerate the 'risk of inconvenience while travelling' better somehow, and almost expected it, but it appears that perfection is demanded at lower and lower fares. I guess it is the effect of competition combined with the mentality created by the EU261 that anything that may remotely be the airline's fault could be compensated (thus it is in passengers' interest to apportion blame to the airline whenever possible).

That's all fine, but we sometimes forget that everything has costs, including deicing equipment, personnel, facility, larger airports so that they don't jam up with aircraft, etc etc. Eventually comes the point, if everything was done perfectly, and we don't incur more than 10 minutes' delay (or none at all) due to snow and/or ice, ever, then probably the fares will have gone up enormously to take all the costs into account. It might even result in cuts in some other areas while the demand for lower fares persist.

Given how long it takes to deice each aircraft, in order to avoid extensive delays, you'd need a lot of equipment when you have a lot of flights. For something that might happen 5 times a year at LHR (if that). You'd also need a lot of extra people with airside security clearance more or less on permanent standby so that they can be called out any time at 3-hours notice for example. That's in addition to having a couple of more runways, placed far enough apart so that the airport can clear the snow while continuing with take-offs and landings. The costs may be prohibitive for not a huge benefit in terms of the number of days per year that are affected.

Then, it could end up pricing the flights well above what a lot of people can afford. I am not sure if that is the right thing to do. In fact those extreme schedule-keeping measures advocated could end up pricing out some of the very people who are advocating it, which would be rather unfortunate.

It's one of those balancing acts between commercial viability and reasonable preparation and achieving perfect or near-perfect reliability.

I've been affected by a lot of winter weather-related disruptions (too many times to keep track of), although not this one. I would of course like to see things work much more smoothly, and I am by and large rather cost-insensitive but I am really not sure a huge amount of contingency that could end up with people being priced out of flying is actually the right way to go when it comes to convenience issues rather than safety issues (flight disruptions in this circumstance is largely a convenience and commercial issue rather than safety issues).

Tobias-UK

Jagboi

I notice Air Canada got all their flights out, in most cases with less than a 2 hour delay. Perhaps BA should be run by some Canadians in the winter who don't panic at the sight of 3 flakes of snow?

Surely BA should be asking what's the cost of a few more de-icing trucks vs the cost of hotels, rebookings, overtime for staff, loss of business from flights not run and 261, plus general loss of goodwill. That can't be cheap either, especially when they do it every year.

Orange.Man

Yes they were, in fact I think it was the first or second press release (public statement?) on the day which states words to the effect of 'we were unable to pro actively de ice aircraft overnight in preparation for the days flying because of heavy rain.'

So they were prepared for de icing, as I think all airlines and airports are in the Winter, however prevented from doing so because of heavy rain.

snaxmuppet

The conditions were fine for an airplane to fly. Many did! But you had to de-ice first and that was the issue. You might as well say that there was no fuel so the conditions were not right. An airplane that is fueled and de-iced can fly in most conditions nowadays. It was the responsibility of BA to ensure they had fuel and that their planes were de-iced. It was not the weather that caused the delays.

The reason there was such a lack of space at LHR was that aircraft could not get de-iced and so could not vacate their stand. This knocked on to aircraft waiting on the ground.

I do accept that there is an argument to support the idea that BA need not invest in de-icing as much as say, JFK or ORD, where the snow runs into feet each year and temps regularly into the -20s. But if they don't provide the level of service that is legally required then they much pay the compensation. It might be the better business option to do that and that might be why there is a shortage of de-icing equipment to handle such cold spell. However, none of that alters the basic issue... the aircraft could have flown, many didn't because of a lack of de-icing causing a blackage at LHR for all... BA should pay up.

It is a good question and not an easy one to answer. What is desirable for the passenger may not be realistic nor good financially for the airlines. However, while the EC261 exists then the rules for compensation should be honoured and perhaps it might make the airlines sit up and think a bit harder about it. It seems little was done after the last big snow event... was the deliberate or negligent management? Who knows

Knickam

Is there any way to find out how much de-icing machines BA had available?

I remember being stuck on a plane at heathrow for over 4 hours waiting to be deiced back in 2002
If I remember correctly the pilot said there were only around 6 machines available and it was a 1 hour round trip for them to get filled up again.

Orange.Man

I wasn't at Heathrow on Sunday, however with a queue of 45 aircraft (I think someone reported) I would bet (a helluva a lot) it wasn't purely BA aircraft sitting waiting for de-icing.

snaxmuppet

I actually agree with this post. It is very much a balancing act and one that requires careful assessment by the management team. however, I am making my claim not on whether I agree that it is an acceptable business decision to have a limited de-icing capability at LHR or not. My claim is based purely on whether I am entitled to compensation under the current rules. I believe my cancellation was not weather related and so I believe I am entitled to compensation.

Tobias-UK

Corpt

Tobias-UK

snaxmuppet

I didn't say it wasn't weather related... I said weather wasn't the primary cause of my cancellation according to the definition as per EC261. I didn't make up the rules! however, once they are in place then they should be complied with IMO

Can I well... only as well as any non-legal eagle. If I do my research thoroughly then I can't see any reason I couldn't put my case forward clearly.

I haven't yet started to investigate or research. I don't pretend to know the answers now. I may investigate further and decide that I don't have a case and drop it. Right now, with what I know and with my interpretation of what I have read here and elsewhere, I feel I have a pretty good case so I will press on.

BA235

Being caught up in Irrops is a frustrating - indeed frequently lousy - experience but it will always happen and sometimes you just have to get on with it, especially when weather related. Seeking compensation seems a little over the top.