Dec 11, 2017, 3:39 am
Last edit by: corporate-wage-slave
BA current newsflash here / London Cancellation list for Tuesday here
Rebooking policy for operating flights on Monday and Tuesday here / EC261 main thread here
ba.com/helpme one stop shop on BA.com giving lots of advice and pointers to where to claim expenses.
For EC261, delay/cancellation compensation is not payable for this event but BA is still liable for the Regulation's “Right to care” provisions. Refreshments can be claimed after 2 hours of delay departing (3 hours for flights longer than LHR-Rome, 4 hours for longhaul), Ł200 guideline for hotels - OK to book your own and charge back. Ł50 guideline for taxis. Meals, drinks and communication costs are also covered. Keep / photo receipts. If on a Buy on Board aircraft, use Avios to buy items - it will be faster to refund. For missing baggage, it's OK to claim essential items, such as clothing, toiletries. Keep / photo the receipts.
Rebooking policy for operating flights on Monday and Tuesday here / EC261 main thread here
ba.com/helpme one stop shop on BA.com giving lots of advice and pointers to where to claim expenses.
For EC261, delay/cancellation compensation is not payable for this event but BA is still liable for the Regulation's “Right to care” provisions. Refreshments can be claimed after 2 hours of delay departing (3 hours for flights longer than LHR-Rome, 4 hours for longhaul), Ł200 guideline for hotels - OK to book your own and charge back. Ł50 guideline for taxis. Meals, drinks and communication costs are also covered. Keep / photo receipts. If on a Buy on Board aircraft, use Avios to buy items - it will be faster to refund. For missing baggage, it's OK to claim essential items, such as clothing, toiletries. Keep / photo the receipts.
Bad weather disruption - UK/AMS/NW Europe - 10 & 11 December 2017
Dec 14, 2017, 4:20 am
#556
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Programs: Mucci, BA Gold, TK Elite, HHonors Lifetime Diamond
Posts: 7,683
But the aircraft wasn't stuck in London because of weather. It was pre-emptively cancelled 25hrs before. I could understand if it was a weather-related delay... as I understand it, the vast majority of these delays were not weather delays but operational delays due to slow or unavailable de-icing. This was not an extreme event. It was a dusting of snow and some below zero temps. Something that happens almost every year and they should have been able to cope with it way better than they did.
To me, very few flights were weather-delayed and mine was not one of them. I believe that mine should be considered "knock on" and I have applied for compensation. If they refuse I will take it to the next stage.
As customers we should not have to put up with this kind of business mismanagement and incompetence. Having just got Silver status I now find myself not wanting to travel much at all now.
To me, very few flights were weather-delayed and mine was not one of them. I believe that mine should be considered "knock on" and I have applied for compensation. If they refuse I will take it to the next stage.
As customers we should not have to put up with this kind of business mismanagement and incompetence. Having just got Silver status I now find myself not wanting to travel much at all now.P.S. I wonder how do you decide which flight was canceled due to weather?
Dec 14, 2017, 7:08 am
#557
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
So, when the airport asks the airline to reduce the schedule because the airport anticipates bad weather and much slower flow of traffic, it is not weather related? And the airline was supposed to do what? Would it really have made a difference if the flight had been canceled 5 minutes before departure rather than in advance? The airline did not cancel the flight because it did not want to operate it. The flight was canceled because the airline knew that it would not be able to operate it. That it was canceled proactively means nothing (well, it was a good thing as passengers did not have to go to the airport in vain). The flight would not have gone anyway.
P.S. I wonder how do you decide which flight was canceled due to weather?
P.S. I wonder how do you decide which flight was canceled due to weather?
I agree though, I would be surprised if there was much of a case under EC261. Weather is usually a good get out for the airline.
Dec 14, 2017, 7:10 am
#558
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Plymouth, UK
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 1,159
I would say it's a different argument, not so much "knock on" but more "there was more BA could/should have done to avoid this". That's a perfectly respectable argument, and it's certainly worth a go. I can't see it working at CEDR level since they are fairly conservative in this area, from what we've seen, but it may get a more favourable hearing in MCOL. I still don't fancy your chances since the relevant wording is "meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned", for which BA would have a reasonable set of evidence to support its case.
I am surprised that so many are saying that most of the cancellations were weather related. Sure... some obviously were - the first ones I expect and there must have been some that were unavoidable if the runway/taxiways needed to be cleared. But to say that it is weather related when the weather is perfectly fine to fly but they could not because of an operational delay in de-icing is rather stretching the point IMO. I ask myself this question: if they had adequate de-icing capability could most of those flights have flown? AFAIK the answer to that is yes... the weather was actually fine to fly but they couldn't because they couldn't get de-iced. Therefore it was not the weather delaying the flights... it was the lack of de-icing facilities.
I will fight this as far as possibly can. Obviously if I go to CEDR or MCOL and they disagree with me then I will have to accept it but IMO they would be wrong to call the bulk of these delays weather related IMO.
Last edited by snaxmuppet; Dec 14, 2017 at 7:16 am
Dec 14, 2017, 7:24 am
#559
Moderator, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges, and Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold; Flying Blue Life Platinum; LH Sen.; Hilton Diamond; Kemal Kebabs Prized Customer
Posts: 63,736
So yes, that's not "knock on", it's failure to take "all reasonable measures". Good luck with that endeavour, but I think you have to be very clear in your arguments, since, for example stating the meterological conditions were "fine", when ice on wings = no flight, whether in London or in your location. So I suspect you will need to establish that BA failed to take all reasonable measures to keep its fleet going, and that may (for example) hinge on a lack of de-icing equipment relative to the schedule. This may work for you, I don't know for sure, but if (e.g.) you ask how many de-icing machinery units BA had available on the day in question and the answer (e.g.) is 3, then a district judge may gently hint to BA that it's time to buy a few more units. But this is quite a complex area, I'm not at all sure of all the details about this, and I think you're going to have to do a fair bit of investigation and analysis to be successful. And I would advise you to steer well clear of CEDR on this one.
Dec 14, 2017, 7:34 am
#560
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
But the meterological conditions were fine... it was the lack of de-icing facilities that caused the problems... not the weather.
I am surprised that so many are saying that most of the cancellations were weather related. Sure... some obviously were - the first ones I expect and there must have been some that were unavoidable if the runway/taxiways needed to be cleared. But to say that it is weather related when the weather is perfectly fine to fly but they could not because of an operational delay in de-icing is rather stretching the point IMO. I ask myself this question: if they had adequate de-icing capability could most of those flights have flown? AFAIK the answer to that is yes... the weather was actually fine to fly but they couldn't because they couldn't get de-iced. Therefore it was not the weather delaying the flights... it was the lack of de-icing facilities.
I will fight this as far as possibly can. Obviously if I go to CEDR or MCOL and they disagree with me then I will have to accept it but IMO they would be wrong to call the bulk of these delays weather related IMO.
I am surprised that so many are saying that most of the cancellations were weather related. Sure... some obviously were - the first ones I expect and there must have been some that were unavoidable if the runway/taxiways needed to be cleared. But to say that it is weather related when the weather is perfectly fine to fly but they could not because of an operational delay in de-icing is rather stretching the point IMO. I ask myself this question: if they had adequate de-icing capability could most of those flights have flown? AFAIK the answer to that is yes... the weather was actually fine to fly but they couldn't because they couldn't get de-iced. Therefore it was not the weather delaying the flights... it was the lack of de-icing facilities.
I will fight this as far as possibly can. Obviously if I go to CEDR or MCOL and they disagree with me then I will have to accept it but IMO they would be wrong to call the bulk of these delays weather related IMO.
That didn't happen here. So that may mean one of two things.
1. Conditions at the airfield were such that movement of aircraft was impeded in turn requiring cancellations beyond those mandated by ATC. That to me is a HAL issue and outside BA control.
2. There was a problem getting aircraft de-iced. In that case well sub zero temperatures in December are not unusual and BA knew the schedule to be operated therefore I would have thought BA were responsible for ensuring sufficient de-icing capacity was available.
Or perhaps something else?
Whether a judge would agree is a different matter.
Personally I am unconvinced that CEDR is really that independent so if it was to be pursued further then MCOL would seem a reasonable option.
Good luck.
Dec 14, 2017, 7:43 am
#561
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Plymouth, UK
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 1,159
Many thanks.
You say "ice on wings = no flight" but that is not the weather stopping the flight is it. Remove the ice (or prevent it forming in the first place if possible) and flight would be fine so it is the non-removal of the ice, not the fact that the ice is there in the first place, that is preventing the flight IMO and that is directly down to BA... if they had invested in more deicing machines then this whole scenario would have been at worst made a lot better and at best avoided altogether.
What I am quite frankly gobsmacked at is that when there are conditions that require de-icing it is all aircraft that operate through the airport that will, potentially, need de-icing... Ice is not particular to BA... it would affect all airlines and all aircraft... so to say it is a freak or unusual event is again, really stretching the point as there will be days when de-icing is required every winter. BA didn't get a forecast for the snow and that caught them out but the fact that the temps were so low would have suggested that they should be prepared for deicing... they were not.
I really do see this whole debacle the fault of BA and not the weather... the weather played a part but it was not the main player.
I do know that there was some traffic restrictions for some of the period and I will have to find out more on those details (if anyone can help with that then please private message me if you don't want to post in public). But that notwithstanding, the fact that there were 10s of aircraft waiting hours to get de-iced is clear evidence of a lack of BA planning.
I shall do the research and we'll see.
You say "ice on wings = no flight" but that is not the weather stopping the flight is it. Remove the ice (or prevent it forming in the first place if possible) and flight would be fine so it is the non-removal of the ice, not the fact that the ice is there in the first place, that is preventing the flight IMO and that is directly down to BA... if they had invested in more deicing machines then this whole scenario would have been at worst made a lot better and at best avoided altogether.
What I am quite frankly gobsmacked at is that when there are conditions that require de-icing it is all aircraft that operate through the airport that will, potentially, need de-icing... Ice is not particular to BA... it would affect all airlines and all aircraft... so to say it is a freak or unusual event is again, really stretching the point as there will be days when de-icing is required every winter. BA didn't get a forecast for the snow and that caught them out but the fact that the temps were so low would have suggested that they should be prepared for deicing... they were not.
I really do see this whole debacle the fault of BA and not the weather... the weather played a part but it was not the main player.
I do know that there was some traffic restrictions for some of the period and I will have to find out more on those details (if anyone can help with that then please private message me if you don't want to post in public). But that notwithstanding, the fact that there were 10s of aircraft waiting hours to get de-iced is clear evidence of a lack of BA planning.
I shall do the research and we'll see.
Dec 14, 2017, 8:10 am
#562
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
You say "ice on wings = no flight" but that is not the weather stopping the flight is it. Remove the ice (or prevent it forming in the first place if possible) and flight would be fine so it is the non-removal of the ice, not the fact that the ice is there in the first place, that is preventing the flight IMO and that is directly down to BA.
"ice on wings = no flight" is similar to "no fuel = no flight" or "technical fault = no flight".
Responsibility for fuelling the plane is BA's. Responsibility for dealing with technical faults is BA's. Responsibility for de-icing planes is BA's.
The only difference is that technical issues or refuelling are things that happen regularly day after day, week after week. Sub zero temperatures on the other hand do not happen throughout the year, but do occur regularly in December.
Interesting debate really.
Dec 14, 2017, 8:19 am
#563
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Programs: Mucci, BA Gold, TK Elite, HHonors Lifetime Diamond
Posts: 7,683
I am not sure why you are so sure that the reason for the cancellations and delays was the lack of de-icing machines. People here assume that (because they always think the worst of BA), but one big reason could have been the lack of space at LHR for de-icing. I don't know what reasonable measures you would want for BA to take to fix that. And, regarding reasonableness. Sure, we, as passengers, believe that a reasonable number of de-icing machines is infinite - as many as it takes for the airline to keep to the schedule. However, a reasonable judge may accept that delays and cancellations are a necessary evil for LHR where de-icing is required only a few days a year and where it is simply unreasonable to keep a large number of de-icing machines. BA was not the only airline that experienced delays and cancellations. All airlines did. Some canceled half of their flights out of/to LHR. Had it been a BA only issue I'd have accepted that BA was not doing everything reasonable to avoid delays and cancellations. But it seems that all airlines decided that it was reasonable to cancel/substantially delay some flights than invest a large amount of money into de-icing machines,
I agree with your line of thinking, but we need to also take into account what is reasonable and what is not. Fueling planes and dealing with technical issues is something that airlines do every day, and no reasonable person would assert that it is extraordinary that BA found itself with no fuel at LHR (although I hope the revised EU Reg would limit compensation for delays and cancellations due to technical reasons if they were caused by the airline's negligence only). But what level of preparedness and readiness for icy conditions is required for LHR is a question.
Last edited by Andriyko; Dec 14, 2017 at 9:52 am Reason: Spelling
Dec 14, 2017, 9:03 am
#564
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Mexico City
Programs: Life Miles, Miles and more
Posts: 518
The conditions were not fine as airplanes cannot fly with ice on the wings.
I am not sure why you are so sure that the reason for the cancellations and delays was the lack of de-icing machines. People here assume that (because they always think the worst of BA), but one big reason could have been the lack of space at LHR for de-icing. I don't know what reasonable measures you would want for BA to take to fix that. And, regarding reasonableness. Sure, we, as passengers, believe that a reasonable number of de-icing machines is infinite - as many as it takes for the airline to keep to the schedule. However, a reasonable judge may accept that delays and cancellations are a necessary evil for LHR where de-icing is required only a few days a year and where it is simply unreasonable to keep a large number of de-icing machines. BA was not the only airline that experienced delays and cancellations. All airlines did. Some canceled half of their flights out of/to LHR. Had it been a BA only issue I'd have accepted that BA was not doing everything reasonable to avoid delays and cancellations. But it seems that all airlines decided that it was reasonable to cancel/substantially delay some flights then invest a large amount of money into de-icing machines,
I agree with your line of thinking, but we need to also take into account what is reasonable and what is not. Fueling planes and dealing with technical issues is something that airlines do every day, and no reasonable person would assert that it is extraordinary that BA found itself with no fuel at LHR (although I hope the revised EU Reg would limit compensation for delays and cancellations due to technical reasons if they were caused by the airline's negligence only). But what level of preparedness and readiness for icy conditions is required for LHR is a question.
I am not sure why you are so sure that the reason for the cancellations and delays was the lack of de-icing machines. People here assume that (because they always think the worst of BA), but one big reason could have been the lack of space at LHR for de-icing. I don't know what reasonable measures you would want for BA to take to fix that. And, regarding reasonableness. Sure, we, as passengers, believe that a reasonable number of de-icing machines is infinite - as many as it takes for the airline to keep to the schedule. However, a reasonable judge may accept that delays and cancellations are a necessary evil for LHR where de-icing is required only a few days a year and where it is simply unreasonable to keep a large number of de-icing machines. BA was not the only airline that experienced delays and cancellations. All airlines did. Some canceled half of their flights out of/to LHR. Had it been a BA only issue I'd have accepted that BA was not doing everything reasonable to avoid delays and cancellations. But it seems that all airlines decided that it was reasonable to cancel/substantially delay some flights then invest a large amount of money into de-icing machines,
I agree with your line of thinking, but we need to also take into account what is reasonable and what is not. Fueling planes and dealing with technical issues is something that airlines do every day, and no reasonable person would assert that it is extraordinary that BA found itself with no fuel at LHR (although I hope the revised EU Reg would limit compensation for delays and cancellations due to technical reasons if they were caused by the airline's negligence only). But what level of preparedness and readiness for icy conditions is required for LHR is a question.
Dec 14, 2017, 9:13 am
#565
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
The conditions were not fine as airplanes cannot fly with ice on the wings.
I am not sure why you are so sure that the reason for the cancellations and delays was the lack of de-icing machines. People here assume that (because they always think the worst of BA), but one big reason could have been the lack of space at LHR for de-icing. I don't know what reasonable measures you would want for BA to take to fix that. And, regarding reasonableness. Sure, we, as passengers, believe that a reasonable number of de-icing machines is infinite - as many as it takes for the airline to keep to the schedule. However, a reasonable judge may accept that delays and cancellations are a necessary evil for LHR where de-icing is required only a few days a year and where it is simply unreasonable to keep a large number of de-icing machines. BA was not the only airline that experienced delays and cancellations. All airlines did. Some canceled half of their flights out of/to LHR. Had it been a BA only issue I'd have accepted that BA was not doing everything reasonable to avoid delays and cancellations. But it seems that all airlines decided that it was reasonable to cancel/substantially delay some flights then invest a large amount of money into de-icing machines,
I agree with your line of thinking, but we need to also take into account what is reasonable and what is not. Fueling planes and dealing with technical issues is something that airlines do every day, and no reasonable person would assert that it is extraordinary that BA found itself with no fuel at LHR (although I hope the revised EU Reg would limit compensation for delays and cancellations due to technical reasons if they were caused by the airline's negligence only). But what level of preparedness and readiness for icy conditions is required for LHR is a question.
I am not sure why you are so sure that the reason for the cancellations and delays was the lack of de-icing machines. People here assume that (because they always think the worst of BA), but one big reason could have been the lack of space at LHR for de-icing. I don't know what reasonable measures you would want for BA to take to fix that. And, regarding reasonableness. Sure, we, as passengers, believe that a reasonable number of de-icing machines is infinite - as many as it takes for the airline to keep to the schedule. However, a reasonable judge may accept that delays and cancellations are a necessary evil for LHR where de-icing is required only a few days a year and where it is simply unreasonable to keep a large number of de-icing machines. BA was not the only airline that experienced delays and cancellations. All airlines did. Some canceled half of their flights out of/to LHR. Had it been a BA only issue I'd have accepted that BA was not doing everything reasonable to avoid delays and cancellations. But it seems that all airlines decided that it was reasonable to cancel/substantially delay some flights then invest a large amount of money into de-icing machines,
I agree with your line of thinking, but we need to also take into account what is reasonable and what is not. Fueling planes and dealing with technical issues is something that airlines do every day, and no reasonable person would assert that it is extraordinary that BA found itself with no fuel at LHR (although I hope the revised EU Reg would limit compensation for delays and cancellations due to technical reasons if they were caused by the airline's negligence only). But what level of preparedness and readiness for icy conditions is required for LHR is a question.
I may be wrong but I thought I read up thread that the count was BA over 150, other airlines less than 10. Also I thought I read that all 6 EK flights got away albeit with delays of 2/3 hours.
Dec 14, 2017, 9:21 am
#566
Join Date: Jul 2009
Programs: BAEC Silver, IHG Diamond
Posts: 7,747
A lot of flights going to airports that may or may not have their own problems.
Even de-iceing say 30 planes and hour, you've still got quite a job on your hands and that's before extended take off delays, gates being occupied and taxiways busy etc.
Dec 14, 2017, 9:27 am
#567
Ambassador: World of Hyatt
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: UK - the nearest airport is named after a motorway !
Posts: 4,230
So if the weather was not 'unprecedented', can it lead to 'exceptional circumstances'? How many times do things have to happen before they stop being 'exceptional'?
Dec 14, 2017, 9:31 am
#568
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club, easyJet and Ryanair
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 15,914
Dec 14, 2017, 9:59 am
#569
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,596
One reason is that the remaining fuel in the tanks gets cold soaked at -56 for a few hours.When the aircraft lands this can cause ice to for on the wings from the moisture in the atmosphere.In summer months the ice melts rather quickly,but in winter it can remain for some hours.This means that even on a sunny day in temperatures below 5 or 6 the aircraft may need deicing.And engine anti icing needs to be selected on in temperatures of +10 or lower when in cloud or precipitation.
Dec 14, 2017, 10:02 am
#570
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Plymouth, UK
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 1,159
I suppose you could say it is the fact that BA was not prepared for the weather... but then the argument is the same because why would an airline at Heathrow not expect de-icing events to occur in December when the forcast was for near or below zero temps.
Either way it was BA's lack of planning and investment that stopped the flights... the weather was just incidental.