kosy91

Hi

I was on the 19:20 service from LBA to LHR this evening which was eventually cancelled. Im now back home and flying out from MAN tomorrow

There were alot of passengers flying to N. AMerica tomorrow who took cabs to Heathrow for £250-£300. The BA staff adviced them to takr a cab and claim it back from BA. For some passengers, the BA agents booked cabs to heathrow for them. But remember this was because they couldnt get trains to LHR at this time of the night

So I'm guessing you should be fine with the train ticket. reimbursement. Whether youll be allowed 1st class or not is another. If I were you. I would take a screenshot of standard class fare and as for that to be reimbursed if you're not allowed FIrst.

I've previously taken a train down to kings cross an LHR when my flight was cancelled and I was reimbursed promptly

stevekinguk

I had my LBA flight cancelled in January, and was told at by BA agents at SFO and LHR, and by phone, that if I got the train I'd get my train ticket refunded. When I put in expenses for my (second class) train fare, lunch, and a taxi from my local train station to my home the customer relations team told they wouldn't pay the train fare (but would pay everything else), and would never have said that they would pay the fare. They were insistent that they would not pay for my train ticket, whatever I was told at the airport and by their agents. One MCOL later and we're now even (they settled before action was taken, so I withdrew my case, but they paid the MCOL fee).

So, if anyone told you that you could get the train paid for I'd stand your ground, but it seems like their policy is that they won't pay for your train. Good luck! MCOL was very easy to do, the hardest bit was summing up my case in only a few characters.

Ajm1987

Thanks a lot cws and others for the info. I fear I may have forfeited any rights then as I was offered the later flight at 19.20 but decided against it as, if it were cancelled too there'd be almost no way home for me at that time, living nearly 2 hours from Heathrow. Seems that turned out to be a legitimate concern! I hadn't considered Manchester at all mind you.

I ended up getting a taxi to Heathrow with 2 other people, which we realised would cost less per person than a taxi to the train station and a train ticket. I guess just speculatively try and claim for 1/3 of the taxi cost and don't hold out too much hope? I also bought some food and non alcoholic drinks. I expect they'll refund for that at least?

DYKWIA

Which no doubt BA will deny when the claim goes in...

corporate-wage-slave

I think that is all you can do, I doubt you would get more than £50 maximum, and they may say no to that, with some justification. For the food and drink, that would be OK but it depends if you are going to claim a refund on the unused ticket, at which point BA would probably suggest that since you were not travelling with BA then they don't have a right of care liability.

testycal

BA kept us in the aircraft on the ground at the gate for greater than 4 hours on March 1....BA 163 departure time 835 pm, actual departure 130 am to Tel Aviv. Reason for delay was queue for de icing. We departed T5C so perhaps it was more comfortable on the flight than in the terminal. I viewed a couple of threads and noted a reference to a German Court decision accepting a de icing delay as compensation grounds and other who claimed with BA for other such delays being denied but receiving compensation when taking up the legal challenge. Delay was simply a lack of adequate de icing equipment but BA would have known that when we boarded....it was clear BA wanted us captive audience on board and were willing to pay the late night take off penalty but not deal with the passengers in my opinion.



��According to the Higher Regional Court of Brandenburg (19.11.2013, RRa 2014, 81), delay or cancellation of flights because the airport ran out of de‐icing liquids does not qualify as “extraordinary circumstances”. It would be an inherent part of the operational business of the airline.
��In the specific case, the airport company for De‐icing would be a legal person used by the airline to fulfil its obligations (Erfüllungsgehilfe). Therefore, fault of the airport company’s management to order enough de‐icing liquids would be attributable to the airline.

https://www.reiserecht-fuehrich.de/P...es%20final.pdf

Tobias-UK

Running out ou de-icing fluid is a very different proposition to waiting to be de-iced at a busy airport affected by meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of a flight.

corporate-wage-slave

And I would agree that I don't think this is going anywhere on this line of argument. Where the OP may get some traction, as it were, is if they were to argue that BA should have had more equipment available: there are two areas for de-icing and separately some mobile units, which can de-ice at some (but not all) gates. The first area is largely constrained by HAL / Sheer Weight of Traffic, the second area is mostly under BA's control, but some gates can't be used (e.g. too near passengers using the buses). It's a line of argument that could be used (BA could have had more equipment), however I can't see CEDR entertaining it all, nor any district judge who may well take the commonsense view that LHR went through 3 days of the worst weather in 7 years and some delays due to meteorological conditions are unavoidable. The delays 7 years ago were far worse.

simons1

Suggestion - speak to Bott & Co and see if they are willing to take the case on.

The deicing issue is something that has happened twice in a short space of time so they may be willing to test whether it is so exceptional after all.

If on the other hand they say no then forget it.

SinoBritAsia

Thanks for responding. I did detail a lot of what happened on March 1.
So here goes:
- The aircraft was operated by an Airbus A380, registration G-XLEF
- The flight was 4 hours and 50 minutes late from the scheduled original arrival time to the "doors opening" time in Hong Kong which is used to calculate the final delay.
- The delay is attributed to the outbound aircraft arriving late from Los Angeles. Not a weather delay.
The main points:
- The delay was an operational delay caused by the late turnaround of the Airbus A380 aircraft G-XLEF from London Heathrow-Los Angeles-London Heathrow service on February 28. Weather was the cause of the delay for London Heathrow-Los Angeles. Operational delay, not a weather delay, was the issue for the London Heathrow-Hong Kong service as BA268 arrived late from Los Angeles (approx. 7.30pm instead of 3.25pm)
- Delay to the BA31 service increased as the scheduled departure time of 18:25 moved to 22:10, then revised down initially to 21:50, then 22:45 and 23:30.
- BA ground staff announced at the gate, the aircraft’s late arrival from Hong Los Angeles, then exacerbated by slow cleaning, catering and engineering, which accounts for the rolling delays.
- Weather was still not a direct factor in the delays to the London Heathrow-Hong Kong service as the aircraft concerned did not require de-icing post-pushback.
- Ultimately, it was a BA decision to roster G-XLEF to Hong Kong and therefore induce a delay on the service. Flights from Los Angeles do not always go on to operate the Hong Kong flight, too. Sometimes flights from Johannesburg may operate the BA31 service, for example.
- In fact, G-XLEF: prior to its Los Angeles scheduled service at 15:30 on February 28, 2018, the aircraft had landed from Hong Kong around 04:35 earlier in the day and was on-the-ground for an extended period of the day itself. It took off for LAX at 8pm.
- Similarly, (and in the real world ops planning is a very complex beast), G-XLEI which took off to JNB the same evening, March 1, scheduled at 9.10pm had been on the ground at LHR since Feb 26. JNB appears to be more suitable for the LAX post-rotation than the HKG one.
- On the day of the Hong Kong BA31 service, 25 per cent of Heathrow departure and arrivals were cancelled. The reduction of services was designed exactly to prevent weather-related disruption and delays.
- The BA27 London Heathrow-Hong Kong service on the same day (and which takes off later than BA31) did not manage the same lengthy delays and managed to arrive into Hong Kong close to its scheduled arrival time.

Therefore, I argue, BA was within its control to better manage the delays.

corporate-wage-slave

I think you have put a very cogent and compelling argument there, particularly the point about clearing the schedule down to make it viable, that's 90% of what a skeleton for MCOL could look like. I say MCOL since BA will simply state it was all down to bad weather, and I am fairly sure CEDR would agree with BA on this. So by all means submit that and see if BA pay up - I may be wrong in not being confident - but at the back of your mind you will have to consider if you are prepared to take it further. Using Bott may be another option too, but I'm not sure how much extra they can add given what you have already detailed.

SinoBritAsia

Thanks CWS. I will wait for the first round of responses from BA and supplementary follow-up replies before considering the next course of action.

testycal

testycal

One excuse that is used a lot is that the plane can’t be de-iced. A scenario in which a flight is cancelled because the temperatures fall below zero and there is no de-icing agent was often declared as “extraordinary circumstances” by the airlines in the past. Fortunately, court judgments are now available holding the airline responsible for the lack of de-icing. Airlines have to have a sufficient supply of de-icing agent available and use it in good time to ensure that flights can run to schedule. Often, weather-related delays also mean that the crew members end up exceeding the maximum permitted working hours, which is why flights are cancelled. Again, these are not extraordinary circumstances and passengers are entitled to compensation.Extreme weather conditions almost always release the airlines from their obligation to pay compensation. There are, however, a few special cases in which passengers have received compensation. The following judgments were made in passengers’ favour.

• Anti-freeze: Airlines have to have enough anti-freeze or de-icing agent on hand to cope with heavy snowfall or sleet. If a flight is significantly delayed because there is no de-icing agent or the de-icing process took a considerable length of time, then this cannot be described as “extraordinary circumstances". Passengers are entitled to compensation. These conditions are based on the Local Court (Amtsgericht) of Frankfurt confirmed previous court decisions (judgment of 22 May 2015, case ref.29 C 286/15 [85]).

Cannot find a link to the case....interesting reading I am sure though. Follow up is interest sake rather than compensation as I appreciate a de iced plane is a safe plane.

Often1

Not only might there be a wait for deicing, but depending on the specific meteorological conditions at the moment, there is a limited time which may elapse between deicing and departure. Once the aircraft "times out" it must return and be deiced again. Thus, it makes a great deal of sense to slow the deicing down to match the taxi and departure flow. That, in turn, is dependent on where the deicing takes place in relation to the gate and the runway.

In the case at hand, the poster does not even suggest that there was no deicing fluid, simply that deicing took longer than he in his apparently expert opinion believes it should take.