|
Originally Posted by Tobias-UK
(Post 29509702)
if you overcome that hurdle you will then have to prove your entitlement to interest |
This link is an interesting case related to technical issues cancelations (but lengthy) especially the statistics at the end under Significance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huzar_v_Jet2.com. one of many
Figures from the CAA show that on average 221.1 million terminal passengers per year use British airports.[11] According to statistics released by the European Commission an average of 1.5 percent of flights to/from British airports each year are delayed or cancelled by more than three hours and so could potentially be claimable.[12] This is equivalent to approximately 3.27 million passengers per year for each of the previous six years, which is the period covered by the regulation in England and Wales (total 19.6 million passengers). |
Originally Posted by sledge1
(Post 29510365)
This is equivalent to approximately 3.27 million passengers per year for each of the previous six years, which is the period covered by the regulation in England and Wales (total 19.6 million passengers). |
Purpose of consumer legislation
Originally Posted by KARFA
(Post 29494934)
I think the only way you are going to get any resolution to that issue testycal is to go to court. Are you planning to file a claim and pursue in in court when BA refuse?
Seems to me that lack of equipment not weather is the reason for the delay. LHR had already been exposed to cold weather for days prior to my departure and took no steps to increase its ability to de ice aircraft. De-icing in cold weather is a given not an unexpected task. All about capacity and an unwillingness to invest in equipment that would allow meeting demand. I lodged a claim and will update and of course am expecting a denial. At the end of the day, consumer legislation is intended to protect rights ...is it reasonable to keep passengers including elderly, kids and others not feeling well (speaking of myself who wanted to either find a bed or arrive at my destination as opposed to counting the hours sitting on the plane wondering what was next) on a plane for 4 hours while waiting to be de-iced because there is not enough equipment. We were not offloaded because BA knew that eventually equipment would come free. The option was to offload us and deal with billeting and providing for 250 passengers at midnight which would have been even worse of course and perhaps cost BA even more assuming duty of care covers at least those expenses. If rights are not pursued they are never created. Perhaps a court ruling would be welcome as another step in the direction of protecting rights. |
One must be careful to separate out a lack of de-icing fluid or equipment from the delay post de-icing to wheels up. It does no good to instantly de-ice an aircraft only to have a departure hold of a time which may be as little as 20 minutes as once that has passed, the aircraft must be deiced again.
It is faster, more efficient and, of course cheaper, to hold aircraft pre-deicing until ground control can clear a departure slot and then work backwards. "Cheaper" may not be an EC 261/2004 factor, but the first two certainly are. There is also the thorny question of limited space. Vast as LHR is, it is not vast enough for those who blithely say that a carrier could have had backup aircraft ready, more deicing pads and so on. Perhaps the answer is to cut flow through LHR by 25% and have carriers send their less profitable routes through some much less inconvenient airport. |
Interesting comments re Thomas Cook 2016 de icing
Originally Posted by testycal
(Post 29510595)
Issues that don’t qualify as “extraordinary” include “poor operational planning by the air carrier....airlines and airports make operational decisions akin to insurance companies based on risk factors. Seems to me that there is no reason why LHR should not have adequate de icing equipment to handle the aircraft that use the airport. A lack of capacity of equipment to service departing aircraft is an operational decision and business decision taken based on risk aversion. No reason why LHR cannot have equipment in reserve or better equipment but a business decision is taken based on cost LHR is willing to absorb and cost airlines are willing to have passed onto them.
Seems to me that lack of equipment not weather is the reason for the delay. LHR had already been exposed to cold weather for days prior to my departure and took no steps to increase its ability to de ice aircraft. De-icing in cold weather is a given not an unexpected task. All about capacity and an unwillingness to invest in equipment that would allow meeting demand. I lodged a claim and will update and of course am expecting a denial. At the end of the day, consumer legislation is intended to protect rights ...is it reasonable to keep passengers including elderly, kids and others not feeling well (speaking of myself who wanted to either find a bed or arrive at my destination as opposed to counting the hours sitting on the plane wondering what was next) on a plane for 4 hours while waiting to be de-iced because there is not enough equipment. We were not offloaded because BA knew that eventually equipment would come free. The option was to offload us and deal with billeting and providing for 250 passengers at midnight which would have been even worse of course and perhaps cost BA even more assuming duty of care covers at least those expenses. If rights are not pursued they are never created. Perhaps a court ruling would be welcome as another step in the direction of protecting rights. http://conversation.which.co.uk/trav...million-claim/ reference to Patterson va BA Location:
Paterson v British Airways Goes In Our FavourThere has been yet another victory for the passengers in court, this time in Paterson -v- British Airways. To summarise, the flight was delayed due to cold weather and four cases of de-icing along with staff rotation. We argued that Chicago has these conditions at this time every year making them inherent to the running of the airline and the District Judge agreed. We have included some extracts from the case report below: "Mr Paterson flew back to Glasgow from Chicago in January 2014 using flight carrier British Airways, due to the weather, de-icing on four occasions and a staff rotation in Shannon Airport, Ireland; the flight was delayed by 16 hours and 8 minutes." "I began my submissions on the law using my Skeleton Argument and the instructions received from Instructing Solicitors relying heavily on the case of Siewert (2014). I emphasised the fact the one expects wintry conditions in Chicago at the time of the delay, the details of the weather conditions in Chicago were not extraordinary circumstances, de-icing is part and parcel of everyday procedures one would expect in an airport in the winter at the latitude of Chicago. De-icing is an indispensable procedure for the operation of an aircraft; airlines are regularly faced with situations arising from use of de-icing and de-icing causing delay was not outside the normal categories of airport services. Submissions were made on the need for Regulation No. 261/2004 to protect consumers for cancellations and delays due to airport carriers and the need to compensate for delay over three hours. The cases of Wallentin- Hermann (2008); Huzar (2014); Sturgeon (2009); Folkerts (2013) and Finnair (2012) were referred to in support of this claim to compensate Mr Paterson for the delay to his flight. I also submitted that the delay due to British Airways staff rotation was over three hours at Shannon Airport." "We returned at 2.00 pm and District Judge Bell gave his determination and judgement. It was a long judgement but in short; he rejected the submission that all weather could amount to extraordinary circumstances. He pointed out that the NEB guidance did not mention de-icing in this context, it is only referred to when stocks of de-icing run out. He referred and relied heavily upon the case of Wallentin which determined that weather could be extraordinary circumstances when it results from ‘freak weather conditions’ such as a volcano erupting McDonagh v Ryan Air> (2014). District Judge Bell did not accept that the weather on the 4 January 2014 in Chicago amounted to ‘extraordinary circumstances ‘ rather it was weather to be expected at that time of the year. It may be that in other cases weather will give rise to ‘extraordinary circumstances’ but not in this case." |
Deicing continued
Reading headlines seems this is an ongoing issue at LHR in 2013, December 2017 and now February 2018. Same issue over and over again that LHR cannot handle any curve balls as it runs at almost full capacity all the time with no margin for error. In other words, it is all about the money ie profitability and nothing else. |
Originally Posted by testycal
(Post 29510595)
Issues that don’t qualify as “extraordinary” include “poor operational planning by the air carrier....airlines and airports make operational decisions akin to insurance companies based on risk factors. Seems to me that there is no reason why LHR should not have adequate de icing equipment to handle the aircraft that use the airport. A lack of capacity of equipment to service departing aircraft is an operational decision and business decision taken based on risk aversion. No reason why LHR cannot have equipment in reserve or better equipment but a business decision is taken based on cost LHR is willing to absorb and cost airlines are willing to have passed onto them.
Seems to me that lack of equipment not weather is the reason for the delay. LHR had already been exposed to cold weather for days prior to my departure and took no steps to increase its ability to de ice aircraft. De-icing in cold weather is a given not an unexpected task. All about capacity and an unwillingness to invest in equipment that would allow meeting demand. I lodged a claim and will update and of course am expecting a denial. At the end of the day, consumer legislation is intended to protect rights ...is it reasonable to keep passengers including elderly, kids and others not feeling well (speaking of myself who wanted to either find a bed or arrive at my destination as opposed to counting the hours sitting on the plane wondering what was next) on a plane for 4 hours while waiting to be de-iced because there is not enough equipment. We were not offloaded because BA knew that eventually equipment would come free. The option was to offload us and deal with billeting and providing for 250 passengers at midnight which would have been even worse of course and perhaps cost BA even more assuming duty of care covers at least those expenses. If rights are not pursued they are never created. Perhaps a court ruling would be welcome as another step in the direction of protecting rights. |
Not trying to persuade anyone...sharing information others may find useful
Originally Posted by KARFA
(Post 29510971)
It's not me you need to persuade. As I said, if you are convinced of your argument go to court. If you don't want to do that there seems little point spending time presenting your case on an internet forum. There are already some really good comments up-thread which should help you identify and focus on the pertinent issues.
http://www.icax.co.uk/Heathrow_Winte...e_Enquiry.html |
Originally Posted by testycal
(Post 29511054)
EDIT: just to add that the Begg report relates mostly to the poor performance by BAA (now HAL) a few years ago. For the recent snow events in December and last month it wasn’t HAL resources which were lacking, they are responsible for taxiways and runways and they were mostly clear. |
Hi
This may or may not be the thread for this question - I'm trying to submit an expenses claim for a cancelled BA flight. On the final review page there is no link or button to submit the claim. Only option is to add another issue, which one clicked takes me back to the starting page. Anyone come across this? |
Originally Posted by kosy91
(Post 29513627)
Anyone come across this?
|
Originally Posted by kosy91
(Post 29513627)
Hi
This may or may not be the thread for this question - I'm trying to submit an expenses claim for a cancelled BA flight. On the final review page there is no link or button to submit the claim. Only option is to add another issue, which one clicked takes me back to the starting page. Anyone come across this? |
Hi we flew LGW to Dubrovnik yesterday BA2678 and should have arrived at 11.45. We were then told that because of low cloud and the fact that Dubrovnik airport were undergoing work the equipment that helps landing in those situations was not working. The pilot was then left in a holding pattern for over 40 minutes in case the cloud lifted he said he had enough fuel, good. Then he said we would be going to land at Split.. On arrival at Split we were then transported to Dubrovnik by coach and arrived at Dubrovnik after 6pm. https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/imag...ser_online.gif https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/imag...ons/report.gif We were given a bottle of water and cheese/ham roll. We had booked Hotel transport from Dubrovnik airport to hotel so of course he heard at the airport that we had gone to Split, we will probably have to pay for this. On arrival at Dubrovnik from Split we than had to get a taxi to the hotel. I know weather can be an issue when trying for EU261 but this was down to a piece of equipment. The pilot and CSD told us this. Would we have a claim. We had arrived at our destination although not the airport as the coach driver dropped us off at the bus station, it was 5 hours 15 minutes and would have been 6 hours if we had gone back to the airport. Thank you just one more thing there is no seat map on my booking for the return Flight from Dubrovnik to LGW on Friday 16th, so cannot check or book seats anyone know why. Thanks |
Originally Posted by bubbah
(Post 29518411)
I know weather can be an issue when trying for EU261 but this was down to a piece of equipment. The pilot and CSD told us this. Would we have a claim. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:10 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.