Just to close the loop properly - I submitted my claim to BA yesterday afternoon and today i have had an email asking for bank information to pay the 600 Euros into.

I received virtually the same response from BA on CEDR. We were scheduled on a 787-800 by BA's own admission on 25/08/2018. Unfortunately for them the tails they cite the following is true;

Tail Type Out From Out to
G-ZBKD 787-900 17/08/2018 17/09/2018 787-900 Not the aircraft allocated to us by BA's own admission!!!
G-ZBKI 787-900 15/08/2018 29/10/2018 787-900 Not the aircraft allocated to us by BA's own admission!!!
G-ZBKL 787-800 Flying on 25/08/2018 Flying on 25/08/2018 A 787-800 was allocated to our flight flying on day in question
G-ZBJA 787-800 Last Flew 06/08/2018 Still out 21/12/2018 Last flew more than 2 weeks before our flight still not flying as of 21/12/2018
G-ZBJB 787-800 Flying on 25/08/2018 Flying on 25/08/2018 A 787-800 was allocated to our flight flying on day in question
G-ZBJE 787-800 Last Flew 07/03/2018 Still out 21/12/2018 Last flew more than 5 Months before our flight still not flying as of 21/12/2018

Looks like a planning issue to me rather than "Unexpected safety shortcoming". We must have been due to fly G-ZBJA or G-ZBJE, both pulled from service more than 2 weeks before our flight so had plenty of time to notify us and not have to pay EU261. Given they are still out of service BA knew it wasn't a quick fix.

Please can you give me the 'IATA IC' code, is it 788 or 789?

G-ZBJA G-ZBJE G-ZBJF are 787-800's confused why BA refer to them as 787-900's. Anyway first two one was taken out early August and hasn't returned yet, the other was taken out in March and hasn't returned. The third was out from 15/09 to 19/09. If your IATA IC code is 789 they pulled a switch on you for dare I say commercial reasons.

G-ZBKI G-ZBKD are 787-900's taken out of service on 15/08 returned 29/10 and taken out 17/08 returned 17/09 respectively.

I asked for a final response etc. and mentioned CEDR to BA and got something along these lines:






https://ci6.googleusercontent.com/pr...vsg/balogo.png







Dear Mr Xenole



Thanks for your most recent email. I’m sorry to hear you remain unhappy with our resolution to your complaint. I’ve reviewed all of the information you’ve given us, however, our response will not change and we’re unable to respond to any further requests for compensation.



You can refer your complaint to the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR) for an independent decision to be made. CEDR is an independent dispute resolution provider, certified by the Civil Aviation Authority, to adjudicate disputes between airlines and their passengers which haven’t been resolved through the airline’s own complaints procedure.



You can find out how to refer your complaint to CEDR by visiting their website: CEDR



Please note that the scope of the adjudication scheme is limited and it could be that your complaint falls outside of it. If you choose to contact CEDR, they’ll be able to advise you if they’re able to deal with your complaint. You may also use the European Commission’s online dispute resolution platform to submit your complaint if you wish. This can be done by completing the electronic form available via this link: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/odr/mai...main.home.show



If your claim falls within the scope of the CEDR Scheme Rules and your application to CEDR is accepted, any previous offer of settlement made by British Airways will be withdrawn. If the application is taken to adjudication, the adjudicator's decision will be final.



I hope this helps and thanks again for contacting us.







Best regards



[Mod: agent name redacted]
British Airways Customer Relations
Your case reference is **********



Please use the following link to send us a reply and quote your case reference ********* in any correspondence with us: *********


**Please do not send payment card details via email**

Hi @seagull88, are you asking me for that info? I had a look at the attachment mentioned and it shows the IATA Ac as a 787-800. However the tail number is nowhere to be seen.

Okay I meant to say 788 not 789. That would mean you'd have to have been allocated G-ZBJF or the two 787-900's because the other two were out more than a month before your flight. BA by their own admission knew they needed new engines to get the other birds in the air so had plenty notice. G-ZBJA G-ZBJE taken out on August 6th and the other in March.

G-ZBJF has only done 5 return flights from Newark in the past 9 months. BA188 is almost always flown by a 787-900.

G-ZBKI G-ZBKD were both taken out around a month before your flight (both 787-900's)

Likewise G-ZBJA G-ZBJE the 787-800's taken out more than a month before your flight.

So what are the chances you're one of the rare flights allocated G-ZBJF a 787-800 when normally flown by a 787-900 one of only 5 times in the past 9 months. Seems like they did a a swap to me. Sorry if I didn't explain that well.

I don't know how I can get the tail number this far out from the flight having been cancelled.

You can't get the tail number but you can question whether what BA did was an underhand switch. My case is almost identicle. British airways states 787-900s being pulled in their defence but the IATA IC code shows 788. So which is it? Their defence is structured around 787-900 but you were due to fly on a 788 according to attachment 2

But the guys are right that on a route with many many flights a day you should have been able to arrive within -+ 3 hours of your original time. So that's your main point of argument.

Ah, I see your point now. So I assume that this paragraph highlights that the only aircraft pulled for service at that time were 787-900s:

"The Boeing 787-9s with the registrations G-ZBKD, G-ZBKI, G-ZBJF, G-ZBJE and G-ZBJA and were all subject to the inspections during September 2018. These aircraft failed the inspections for both engines and accordingly replacement engines were required. These aircraft were therefore grounded and were out of service until new engines had been fitted. The manufacturing of new engines was in the complete control of Rolls Royce, the engine manufacturer, there were therefore no measures which the airline could adopt to speed up this process."

Can you or someone remind me, is it only the 787-900s that are affected by the RR engine issue or are there any 787-800s also affected? Because if it is only 900s that are affected, then you are spot on that our 800, which one assumes was NOT affected, was pulled for some other flight and they have used the excuse of the RR engines to get around it.

EDIT - Sorry, just checked and of course only G-ZBKD & G-ZBKI are 787-900s. The others are all 787-800s. So where does this leave their defence? The fact that they don't even know what types of aircraft their own tail numbers refer to.

Both are affected, but why are there two versions of the truth? They claim you're meant to fly on a 788 but defend the pulling of a 789. Three of the 5 tails are 788 and two are 789's. The 789's were pulled long before your flight. Two of the 788's were too but one of the 788's was pulled just a couple of days before. So 4 of the 5 aircraft regardless of model were down for maintenance long before your flight so it would be reasonable to cancel more than 7 days in advance.

So ask why their defence states 789's but their evidence attachment 2 states 788?!

BA is passing around the defective planes to cover for flights that are the least commercially viable. If one flight is 99pct booked and another 30pct of course they'll switch them and using EU261 as a lame cover.
​​​​

Right - I fully understand your point now and I believe it's definitely worth referring to it in my response. If nothing else, it simply goes to show a shoddy bit of defence by BA which makes one wonder how much of everything they have said can be taken as truthful. This reminds me how one of those 'cowboy' car parking companies tried to offer a response that was so full of holes it resembled Swiss cheese. Their version was thrown out by the adjudicator.

Thanks for your help.

Here is Attachment 2, FWIW.

I have compiled a list of comments in response to BA's response to my CEDR claim (Post 1751). I'm going to place it here in case anyone has any comments to make before I submit it. It may also help anyone else who is facing the same issues with the RR Engines. I have copied in certain statements from those who have either helped me directly or who have stated their defence in previous posts.

Comments on BA's CEDR Response

BA, by their own admission was made aware officially on April 13, 2018 that urgent checks would have to be made. So BA had from 13 April to get Mrs. PAL62V (and all the other passengers) on time between the two biggest cities on BA's network.

BA refers to item 18 of the NEB Guidelines issued by the EU Commission dated 19 April 2013, which sets out a list of circumstances which are extraordinary circumstances. This Item states in part: "Discovery of a hidden manufacturing defect by the air carrier." Given the time that had lapsed since the Airworthyness directive it's hard to define it as hidden five months later.

Also several small claims cases have tried to define a hidden manufacturing defect and have found this defence can only be used if it's a defect that immediately impinges on flight safety. As the Airworthiness Directive had a set compliance time, it is up to BA to prove that the aircraft in question was put to inspection on the threshold of flight cycles on the outbound, or that the return flight would put it in breach of the threshold, otherwise the aircraft is deemed safe to fly by the Airworthiness Directive. BA has not provided any information as to the number of flight cycles that the aircraft in question had completed.

BA's Attachment 2 shows that the cancelled flight was to be operated by a 787-800, yet they go to lengths to explain how five 787-900s were taken out of service during September. BA states that: " The Boeing 787-9s with the registrations G-ZBKD, G-ZBKI, G-ZBJF, G-ZBJE and G-ZBJA and were all subject to the inspections during September 2018. These aircraft failed the inspections for both engines and accordingly replacement engines were required. These aircraft were therefore grounded and were out of service until new engines had been fitted." A further piece of basic research then shows that only G-ZBKD & G-ZBKI are 787-900s. G-ZBJF, G-ZBJE and G-ZBJA are 787-800s. I am astonished that BA does not seem to be able to correctly identify its own aircraft. This leads me to wonder how many other inaccuracies are to be found in their defence.

BA states that they considered wet-leasing options to avoid cancellation of the flight. However they then go on to say that the lead time for such action is approximately 21 days. They then state that: "At the time of making the decision to cancel the flight, there was not sufficient time to arrange a wet-lease." 'Reasonable Precautions' would have led to them looking to wet lease an aircraft at least 21 days and not 72 hours before this flight which was when it was cancelled.

BA also states that: "Wet-leasing aircraft is much more difficult in the spring/summer season..." I might remind BA that this cancellation happened on a flight scheduled for September 16th, generally regarded as autumn in the northern hemisphere and outside of the usual spring/summer tourist season.

CEDR has ruled in past cases that were very similar to this in favour of the passenger and from what BA has submitted in this case, their line of defence has not changed. I do not believe that BA have met the burden of proof that that they took reasonable precautions to avoid this cancellation. And if that is the case, they cannot use the defence of 'extraordinary circumstances' in this matter.

Nice almost exactly like my case. Push the 90 percent probability aspect that's per engine so for both to pass is 1/10*1/10 or one in one hundred. So hardly unexpected.

Also

https://www.paddleyourownkanoo.com/2...t-should-they/

"Thinking of" When others are already taking action. Also if that article is referring to the EASA of 13/04/2018 then its only 900 series, which would explain BA trying to pass off 800 series as 900's. It's hard to tell from the EASA because I've no idea what serial numbers of engines are fitted to what variants.

In our case our flight was cancelled @ 1520 and replaced with a non-direct flight leaving at 0720. I booked a hotel and tried to claim it back as an expense on the basis that £110 for a hotel is a lot cheaper than the £220 taxifarefinder quotes to get us to LHR. Public transport was not an option due to how early the flight was (long haul). Might be a tough fight to get that back in addition to the EU261 but will let you know how my small claims progresses. What are your thoughts?

My wife submitted a CEDR I went straight to small claims for my portion largely because I hadn't read good things about CEDR on other sites, although her experience so far has been good. Interestingly the defence served to me via their nominated lawyers does not marry up with the in house defence served to CEDR so the parallel nature has been beneficial.

Anyone happen to know what the Cruise speed is for one engine operation of a 787?