Personally I wouldn't advise CEDR. MCOL may be a better idea, and I would probably go down this road if it was me. However my view is that this is not 101% certain, BA do have an arguable case, perhaps drawing on some recent senior court cases. However EC261 fundamentally is for passenger protection and I would hope that a judge would favour that side of the argument in any dispute between the two positions. For that reason I'd not advise CEDR unless we get news of someone being successful down that particular route - and I don't think we've had that yet.

From post #1 : Should this not be revised as a result of the Mennens v. Emirates ruling.

With Mennens, basically, where passengers are downgraded on a particular flight, the ‘price of the ticket’ refers to the price of that particular flight, but if not indicated on the ticket, the price of that particular flight is calculated by the pro-rata cost based on distance of that flight and the total distance of all flights on the ticket. Taxes, levies and charges are not included in the refund calculation, unless the tax/levy/charge is dependent on the travel class.

"Mennens" is briefly mentioned with the 2018 update within thread's prologue, but without further detail.

e.g. https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/brit...l#post28946419

Hi folks, wondering if anyone well versed in this can assist me.
Auldladdie and I flew BA LHR-ATL in First on 17th Dec 2017. ATL airport had a power outage during our flight. The pilot diverted to Washington, with the hope of continuing later to ATL. Note, at the point he chose to divert, ATL was still technically open, although many planes were backed up on the tarmac. Once we landed at IAD, pilot said, we were to disembark and would not be continuing to ATL, as the crew would be over their hours if they were to attempt to fly to ATL. Collected luggage and went to the BA desk where we waited in complete chaos for well over 3 hours. Promised a re-routing, as BA chief of staff there announced to the queue that he realised that as ATL was a hub, many of us would need to be re-routed if we were missing connections. None of that happened. Eventually he said that was "proving difficult" and if we waited until next morning, they might be able to arrange something. We realised, as they did too, that flights were being re-booked all over the eastern seaboard and we felt they would all be booked out if we waited. We were eventually offered a hotel, a meal and an 11 hour bus journey from Washington to ATL next morning. We felt this was completely unacceptable as an alternative to a flight, let alone a First flight. 2 economy seats were available on an AA flight next day to MIA (where we finally needed to be) but BA point blank refused to re-route us, so we had to pony up the money and re-book it. When we arrived at the airport the next morning every single BA desk was closed. No BA staff in the airport at all (as their normal schedule would not require it I presume) so how their promise of help next day would have panned out I cannot imagine. We took our AA flight to MIA and continued with our trip.

BA say they offered us a hotel and a meal (which they did) and "transport" to get to ATL the following day so we have no successful claim to anything at all. Are they correct? Would you find an 11 hour bus journey the following day (missing our onward travel connections) an acceptable alternative when you had booked a flight in First?

If your ticket ended in ATL then they are probably correct, though it's an unfortunate way to end the trip. My guess is that there was very little alternative open to them, the ATL meltdown was pretty comprehensive, but if you were able to get a flight with another airline instead of the bus then I think you would be able to seek redress for that fare under the implied CAA guidelines for this area. If your ticket ended in MIA then they are incorrect, they are required to reroute you. There is a 300 mile rule which allows rebooking to another location within that radius, MIA is unfortunately 600 miles from ATL.

Assuming that your ticket with BA was to ATL rather than MIA, BA doesn't owe you anything. BA offered you hotel and alternative transportation albeit by bus. You could have waited in IAD until seats on a flight became available and BA would most likely have rebooked you straight away, but when would such seats become available? BA has no obligation to take you to MIA or pay for for travels to MIA.

Needless to state that the meltdown at ATL is to be considered extraordinary circumstances exempting BA from paying comp. under EU reg. 261/04.

I am not sure bus transport for 11h is appropriate for a first class customer - I would have refused that and bought a ticket in F to ATL via whatever point and then claimed even vie MCOL.
Complication here is that you needed to get to MIA...

Thanks all for replies. Just to clear up a few points that those replies raised, BA never offered us ANY other flights to anywhere, not ATL, not MIA, nor anywhere in between. They said there were NO flights they could offer, point blank, not even their codeshare partners. I take it they do not fly IAD to anywhere, but their codeshare partner AA does and it did have flights available, albeit only a few seats in economy. 2 of those we paid for later ourselves(at the BA desk and payment was taken for those by BA at that desk) as all airlines flights were selling out. They had offered re-booking earlier in the wait, then retracted that offer, so we had to make our own arrangements. I was therefore never a question of waiting in IAD for BA flights to "become available".

Thanks for the info!
For context, there were a few planes parked with us, amongst which I had friends on a Transavia plane and one on a Lufty (hence LH) aircraft, at some point we wondered whether we could have done the route together since load on BA was light, which would have saved us half an hour waiting for them at the airport :-)

I imagine that this would not have been easy. You can't just move a load (whether it's self-loading or inanimate) from one aircraft to another. AIUI, you'd have to account for the weight and balance of the additional load (and I don't know whether the pilots would necessarily have all the information and tools to do so on the spot). And you'd also have to do security and legal stuff before accepting more passengers. For example, those on the Lufthansa aircraft had contracted to be carried by Lufthansa - so how do you sort out the legalities, and with whom, for them to be carried by British Airways instead, and on what terms and conditions; and what would be the legal arrangements for British Airways to be reimbursed by Lufthansa for doing so, and at what price? It's not like getting half a dozen people off the number 6 bus and asking them to board the number 6 bus that's right behind.

How many Avios is €250 worth?
How many avios is ‘not re-routing at the earliest opportunity ‘ worth ?

Hi

I asked BA for proof of my flight on Jan 3 being cancelled, and I've got back an emailed letter saying

"Reason for the cancellation: Operational"

This seems a) brief, and b) unexpected as I'd expect them to have put air traffic restrictions which is the reason I was given over the phone.

Does this letter mean I stand a chance of asking for compensation? From what I've understood just "operational" isn't enough detail or a reason to withold eu261 compensation.

Thanks

Well, it's not clear if you asked for EC261, but if this was a cancellation in the wake of Eleanor then I have my doubts that this would be successful. If you haven't applied for it then I guess there's no harm trying, but in the absence of other information I doubt this will go far. Operational - as in we cancelled because we were short of aircraft that day due to maintenance over runs - would facilitate an Article 7 claim.

Yes, the cancellation was because of the storm or so I was told, but I've now learned to not believe what BA tell me. At LHR on the day I was told I would be eligible for compensation (but was also told I'd get my train fare home back...), but on the phone I was told I wasn't eligible for ec261. Is it worth me pursuing this, or is it just going to be a waste of everyone's time? To be "operational" could mean anything and nothing.

I'm currently out of pocket, and going through the MCOL process, so don't really want to bother with this unless it's got a good chance of being worth my time.

Thanks

The details of your trip are to be found here:
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/29326028-post48.html

The question is whether you can use MCOL to reclaim the train fare given that BA offered a flight the next day. I don't think you will get anywhere on Article 7 compensation but as I say, no harm in trying. You can only go down the MCOL route if (a) you have given BA a specific request for a remedy (b) given them enough time to refuse and (c) are prepared to go through the process, bearing in mind there is paper trail to get through. The only person would can decide whether using the train rather than staying overnight is reasonable, under the Regulation, is a judge. You would have some background material to back you up, such as the blue CAA leaflet that BA hands out in these circumstances, which kind-of implies that you can make your own arrangements if BA doesn't offer a replacement flight on the same day. This isn't a rock solid case but if argued properly you may be in with a chance.

Now by the sounds of it you have had your refund amount, to know that you are out of pocket, and that is presumably less than the train fare. How much is the train fare claim for at this point? If it is a low figure you may want to give BA Customer Relations another call.

I gave BA customer services ample opportunities, they have said that I can't take it any further and that it was the end of the line with them with nothing else they could do and they refused to do any more (I have all of this in a recorded phone conversation). The train ticket was a bit under £140, so not a huge amount, but it's enough for me to want back on principle.

On the day I travelled I asked for what I was told in writing from the BA staff at LHR, but was given nothing and was told that everything I needed was all online at ba.com and to get home and not to worry about it. The agent even suggested how best to get to Kings Cross (tube instead of Heathrow Express as it was easier to do with my bags).

I have no idea about my refund amount, I have asked how much this would be, and been told the customer services don't know and that they can't find out but that it wouldn't cover the cost of the train. How they can't tell me what my refund would be is proof of how un-integrated the BA systems must be! They did offer me a BA voucher for the difference but I explained that I didn't have any travel plans involving BA in the foreseeable future so that offer would be no use. So to answer your points:
(a) my train fare amount, nothing more
(b) they verbally refused to do any more to help me, I did give them ample chances to settle and they point blank refused.
(c) I am, on principle! The MCOL was completed after the BA customer relations person told me they wouldn't do any more for me other than say sorry for being told the wrong information (I have this apology in writing from BA, which seems like an admission of guilt to me)

It's not too late for BA to change their mind, it's one click on the MCOL to say I've got my money... but I don't fancy calling Customer Relations again, I don't think I could stand to hear the on hold music/announcements for another hour!

Thanks

I guess you have to do what you have to do, I can see you have a sense of injustice here. Normally e-vouchers can be used on other travellers, not just yourself, so if it was for the full amount it may have been a way out here.

Normally I would advocate doing MCOL in a careful structured way. It is intended to be used by the layman or woman, but the legal overlay is never far away. So if you were looking for my advice I would say hold on until you know what the refund is for otherwise you could be claiming for £140 when BA may be willing to pay a similar sum in a few weeks anyway. This might not sit well with a judge, who may struggle to see why this case needs a rapid solution for a relatively small sum.

The alternative is to work out what the LBA refund would be - using any rational method that you would be able to explain coherently in court - and structure a claim on that basis. You would then give BA 16 days to pay the LBA refund of £x and the train difference of £140 minus x, which of course adds up to £140. However before you start MCOL you need to have given BA a proper opportunity to resolve the claim on the same basis that would end up in MCOL, otherwise BA can simply apply to terminate the action and leave you with the legal costs.

You can just crash through all of this, it's possible BA will simply decide it's not worth defending this, and there is an arbitration stage in the middle where BA are in the habit of capitulating when challenged. But personally I think it's best to do it properly and cautiously.

13hr delay owing to "insufficent rest" -- good case?
 

Hello,

I hope I'm posting this in the right place. I'm wondering whether I have a good enough compensation case under EC261 to pursue via CEDR or MCOL.

My BA flight from Atlanta to LHR earlier this month was delayed by 13 hours -- we were told at the time it was because the crew had not had sufficient rest. BA did all the right things in terms of offering hotel accommodation etc and rebooking connections (at least for me . . .). I wrote via the web complaints form claiming compensation under EC261, and was refused. The reply said that the lack of rest was caused by "noise outside the hotel", and presumably BA reckon that is an extraordinary circumstance outside their control. My question, really, is whether CEDR are likely to agree with them, or to side with me. Any opinions?

(happy to give more detail if needed)

Kick off the MCOL process, when asked later on say you are happy for a phone meeting for arbitration - BA will likely give you the cash at this point. You have a very strong - but not 100% - case.

Welcome to Flyertalk kropotkin, and welcome to the BA forum. Yes you have come to the right place and I would certainly encourage you to look at the rest of this forum for all the interesting information it has. Welcome on board.

Now for the specifics of your complaint: I have been participating in this thread series for a few years now, and just went you think there is nothing new under the sun, up pops a post like yours. I have never heard of this reason being used before and I am unsure that I can offer good advice on this one. Clearly if the crew didn't have a good night's sleep then you don't want them going over the Atlantic on sleep deprivation. I suspect this was flight crew related, rather than cabin crew. There may be a line of weakness here, since if it was cabin crew, BA have been known to put staff in hotels by freeways and other less glamorous spots - that would be BA's choice to do that as part of a union agreement several years ago. However flight crew negotiated their own terms and usually their hotels are pretty sensible. Hotel specifics are not discussed publicly for good security reasons.

If this had been in LHR I would have said you would have had a good case. Because it was done at a one-a-day out-station service then the cause of the problem was outside BA's control, and at that point they would have an arguable case. I think you would struggle to counter the legal phrasing here, which isAs a non lawyer, BA would seem to have (a) the extraordinary (b) unavoidable (c) no reasonable counter measures available. So I'm not sure what legal lines of approach you can take here to construct an argument to counter BA's position.

Having said that, it's only a judge that can make a ruling here. Don't bother with CEDR - this is too far from being cut and dried. You could try MCOL, not least because BA would have to put up the evidence in their submission to court, however it may well be a waste of the court fee if it turns out they have a rock solid case.

Thanks for the reply, corporate-wage-slave. Some very detailed and useful info there. What you're saying agrees with my own feelings on the matter—I think BA are probably in a good position on this one, it does sound pretty far out of their control, and I don't think I'd have much of a chance. (And yes, I definitely do not want my transatlantic flight piloted by people who've not slept!) However, some of the more, um, optimistic members of my family feel it's worth pursuing, so I wanted to seek some outside opinions!

Nobody wants to fly with a sleep deprived flight crew, but that doesn't mean that passengers shouldn't be compensated for delays caused by this. Surely it is BA's responsibility to place their crews at hotels where they are not going to be disturbed by noise from outside the hotel? Shouldn't lack of noise be one of the criteria for crew hotel selection?

HilFly, I agree that this is BA's responsibility, but it's precisely the fact that this doesn't happen often that makes me think the noise was truly exceptional—that is, that a normally quiet hotel was afflicted that particular night—and that is what makes me think that I don't have much of a case here. But I will think about it.

And that would probably be the best line of approach, which I did mention in the previous reply. However from what little I know about hotel selection for crews, the hotel does have to conform to certain criteria, such as blackout curtains, and the risk of noise is on the checklist. But what happens when a bunch of teenagers in the next room start partying at (say) 9pm? Or more likely in this case night-time roadworks that happens once in a blue moon. You can tell if you're in a crew hotel since many of them will have signs up in particular areas asking for guests to be quiet in the common areas at all times.

I have stayed in hotels where I have been able to hear every word of every conversation in the corridor, the wedding in the ballroom, car alarms, car doors slamming, and trucks backing up all night long. I have also stayed in hotels that were well soundproofed where I heard nothing from inside or outside of the hotel. Location within the hotel can also make a big difference. I would have thought these factors are all within BA's control.

For most of us most of the time a standard hotel room in a respected hotel chain is adequate. I don't think it's reasonable for the airline to have to research specific hotels and specific hotel rooms that are soundproofed to the extent that would have been required in this particular case. After all, I don't and I doubt that many other people do. For that reason I would suspect the airline has a very strong case should it wish to fight it.

BA don't have to seek out rooms where there crew can get adequate rest. But maybe they should bear the consequences of their decision and compensate the passengers delayed and inconvenienced by it.

If I missed a flight because I had overslept after being disturbed by noise at a hotel, I don't think BA would give me a free pass due to circumstances beyond my control.

British Airways would indeed investigate every hotel in person before signing an agreement to stay there.

Something strange has gone on, and I would say this would normally be seen as an extraordinary event at an outstation. However, it may be worth progressing with a few more steps to have BA provide the evidence (as they are obligated to do) on the basis that they have frequently not been exactly honest with other claims documented in these threads.

The trouble is that there is a £35 or £60 court fee involved to get to that evidence, and that is what kropotkin will be risking, along with the moderate paperwork hassle. CEDR would be free but I doubt either of us has the confidence to suggest going that route.

A letter before action is worth the cost of a stamp, and the response might guide him as to whether the extra cash is worth it. But to be clear to kropotkin and BA's leadership, this is entirely down to BA's history of duplicitousness in dealing with previous passengers.

I was booked on a long haul flight (HKG to LHR) where the A380 was replaced with a 777, and as a result many people were denied boarding. I was rerouted onto QR, arriving into LHR about six hours later than I would have been on the original flight. At the airport, I was given a card with £250 on it. When I returned, I used the BA website to file a claim, believing I was entitled to 600 euros (not in addition to the £250, but in total). I didn't say I'd received the £250 card, assuming they could see that anyway, which indeed they could. In their response to me, they acknowledge I was denied boarding but say that I am not due any further compensation other than what I received at the airport, because the flight itself was not delayed or cancelled. I find this most peculiar - the original flight may well have been on time, but the point is that I wasn't allowed on it, and the rerouting made me six hours late.

I am right in claiming for the difference aren't I? And if so should I just base it on the GBP/EUR exchange rate from that day?

Thanks for all your thoughts. I think my thoughts are still, more or less, that this genuinely was an extraordinary circumstance, and that I'm not going to get anywhere with it; but given what 710 77345 says, I might at least go to the trouble of sending a letter. I'll take my instructions from the top of the thread . . . thanks!

Please do report back here with the outcome... Thanks

You see British Airways, it's nonsense like this that causes people with perhaps a genuine case of extraordinary circumstances like kropotkin to pursue your company as the 'gamble' is effectively staking £35 or £60 on a 10/1 return that you might be lying to them.

Yes, you are of course due the full €600 - was there anything said at the time you were given the card that suggested this was or was not part of your compensation? Did you sign anything to say that you agreed to receive £250 of your compensation via a cash card? These answers would determine whether I claimed the delta or the full amount. As for calculating its worth, people aren't going to quibble if you use the FX rate at the time, today, or took off a couple a quid in ATM charges. I'd be tempted to claim the full €600 on my claim if I hadn't signed a document saying this was my EU261 cash, then see if you can get this via arbitration (not accepting their first offer of course) and being prepared to accept the delta in court.

I don't know what it is about BA and IDB but this isn't the first time they have developed a blind spot to the provisions in EC261. They appear to be treating it as if it were a cancellation / delay and not as IDB, one the four main areas of EC261, the other being downgrades (about which they are also a bit reluctant).

Unless it was a case of you agreeing to denied boarding and the cash alternative in a genuine offer which you could have refused, then BA can't avoid paying IDB. In this case I would go the CEDR route, since it is clear-cut what the problem is and as soon as a paralegal has looked at it they will concede the case. CEDR is overloaded at the moment, but it will avoid a fee and it may be quicker if CEDR allocate your case swiftly. Your first step is to ask for a deadlock letter, which may in itself trigger a review of your case. Make it clear you are claiming under Article 4.3 which is crystal clear and has no opt outs. Article 7 is the compensation area, it's indeed 600€ in your case.

I had a very quick resolution to my claim. Last Sunday I filled out the online form for BA287 31-December LHR- SFO that was delayed due to technical issues. The flight landed at SFO 4:01 minutes late. BA offered to book us on the same flight the next day, same class of service, which we took them up on. I wasn't sure if agreeing to fly out the next day would negate our claim. This morning, I received an email stating we were entitled to €600 each. Before sending them my bank account information, I may ask them if they'd prefer to pay us out in Avios.

They will normally agree to do this. Just work out what average value you get from Avios before deciding what to do (you could also ask for an e-voucher instead but unless they put a value over the 600€ level I can't quite see the benefit of that). If you are getting a lot more than 1 UK penny per Avios value out of them then it's certainly worth considering - however nothing beats cold hard cash in terms of flexibility. There's no time advantage incidentally, usually if they are in the cash payment mode that takes just a few days so it would only be a day or two behind an Avios or e-voucher gesture.

BA are continuing to refuse my claim. Just a quick question about accepting cash cards at the airport with less on them than you are actually entitled to under EU261. Is it possible that by signing for such a card, you sign away your right to full EU261 compensation? I think I still have the piece of paper that came with it somewhere at home so will read the small print, but I just wondered if this has been known to happen with BA.

Regardless of any wording, it is not binding - you are due the full amount.

You cannot sign away your rights to EU261, and BA well know that. Follow the good advice from C_W_S.