That's not extraordinary in my book, so you should be OK for Article 7 compensation. You may not get your excess parking fee (and usually EDI lets you off if you explain the reason) since that is regarded as consequential.

Many thanks for your advise CWS.

**** NEWSFLASH ****

It appears that the ECJ has just ruled that strikes need not be considered extraordinary circumstances, paving the way for EC261 claims. I believe the test case was the TUI strikes in 2016, which the ECJ deemed to be avoidable.

Thanks for picking that up, LondonElite.

Here is an extract from Reuters:https://www.reuters.com/article/us-e...-idUSKBN1HO17R

The bit I've highlighted is interesting since to my mind this would address the first question a BA traveller during the Mixed Fleet strikes in 2017 might have: that was an organised, registered course of industrial action, but seemingly in scope for Article 7 compensation. It should be pointed out, though, that an aspect of the TUI dispute was that a lot of staff went on "sick leave" when the restructuring of their terms and conditions was announced.

I'll amend this with the English Curia link from CJEU when it is translated. and it is probably worth updating the top posts to incorporate this. There can be no appeal against this. The French language CJEU ruling is here:
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30dd4be7e22262024a 959d0bdddeee3b24f1.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxyNbxz0?te xt=&docid=201149&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=req&d ir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=330030

There is a headline rolling through on Bloomberg at present that says 'EU 261 - Airlines on hook to compensate passengers hit by strikes'.

Not sure whether that heralds some changes - I can't find anything online.

Thanks for posted I might get to finally see my compensation from last years MF strikes now. Fingers crossed

i wonder if this is the test case that bott and co were waiting for.

So, the ultimate EU261 scenario ....

Todays BA56 arrival (scheduled 05:30) landed on 27R at 09:25. It's only a short taxi to the C gate, and the passenger on board noted the time the plane comes to a halt as 09:30.

"Doors opened ready for passengers to depart" happened sometime after 09:30.

BA show the "Arrival time" as 09:29. Funny that.

Could it be that an itchy finger may have been influenced to press the "Arrived" button prematurely ?

Assuming the Regulation datum is "doors opened and ready for passengers to depart", it's just not possible to do this within 4 minutes of an A380 runway touchdown.

So, advice sought. Will BA refuse the claim based on the 'official' arrival time ?

Too much cynicism!

ba.com's stated arrival time is the industry standard arrival time, usually automatically recorded as the application of the parking brake. The passenger's watch might show 0930 when the true time is still 0929 if the passenger's watch is only 30 seconds fast (or even less).

Although the experts will know more, my impression is that it may be easier to manipulate the automatic reporting of departures than of arrivals.

Arrival time is not the endpoint for 261/2004 purposes, although I suspect that it only seldom makes any difference. It might here, and you might need to push.

No, because it was over 3 hours late. But Iwould expect them to offer the reduced rate for being under 4 hours. If pursued further, it would formally BA's responsibility to prove it was under 4 hours, but that may need the usual pushing to get the full amount.

And not that the passenger would report the sensation of taxiing to the gate rather more, er, positively than usual, either ....

Bit of a shame the plane disappears from the FR24 playback half way along the taxiway at 09:28 too.

Indeed. This is literally a matter of only a small number of seconds, and will be moot if the datum is "doors open" rather than "handbrake on".

Hi Guys

I have recently had a claim rejected by BA for a flight I took from Manchester to Heathrow on 11th December 2017.
We were told at the airport that due to bad weather the previous day, BA had issues with both planes and staff out of position.
In the rejection statement they are saying that the flight was delayed by bad weather!
Is there any way to find out the actual cause of the delay? For if it was staff and planes out of position, I assume this is an indirect cause of the delay and as such I can claim compensation?
The flight arrived at Heathrow 2 hours and 59 minutes late, but meant we had missed our BA connection to Marseilles and had to fly the next day. So ultimately we arrived at our final destination around 20 hours late.

Welcome to FT!

Just for some context, this was on the Monday, the day after the big snow related meltdown at LHR, so relates to this thread https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/brit...er-2017-a.html

Just a datapoint here. I was booked on BA 212 BOS-LHR on 2 April. It was cancelled, I called and was rebooked on the same flight for the following day Claimed EU261 a few days later on the webform and received confirmation of the 600€ compensation due to be paid. I received the funds about 2 weeks all told.

All in all, easy and stress free compared to the aggrivation FR put me through on a similar “clear cut” case two years ago, when i had to file in EU small claims - they settled.

And I need to add my welcome to you philyerboots, I hope that we will see more of you elsewhere in the BA forum and indeed Flyertalk.

I suspect this is going to be fairly similar to the Beast related posts just upthread. BA I suspect will have made a blanket decision not to pay up for delays which were weather related during this timeframe, even if the precise background is at a bit of a tangent. So the only way you're going to get anywhere with this is if you are prepared to take action externally, and probably MCOL rather than CEDR (small claims court rather than the dispute resolution service). CEDR is unlikely to charge you, but aren't known for being on the passenger's side. You have two factors that will count against you, and possibly one in your favour. Manchester is an out-station, so they can't magic up crews and aircraft there very easily. If you had started in LHR you may have a better case. Secondly MAN-LHR is a BA monopoly so you can't look at other airines' services that day to judge how well BA handled this.

On the other hand I do find it strange that BA could not route you via other airlines to minimise your delay. This isn't a formal requirement of EC261 but there is a more general requirement that BA needs to ensure that "all reasonable measures had been taken" and I struggle to believe that forced a 24 hour delay. I haven't researched this but I'm sure BA could have got you to MRS, NCE or LYS sooner than 24 hours late, using alternative airlines if necessary. Now after the event BA will have hold the best cards, but if you are able to construct a case which shows BA did not take all reasonable measures, then it becomes (in MCOL) BA's responsibility to prove that to a judge. Now I don't want to give you a lot of hope here, but that would be my analysis.

Thanks for the welcome.

The CAA has the following statement on its website:

"Heathrow required airlines to cancel a proportion of their flights based on forecast bad weather.

The reduction in capacity was to ensure flights could continue to operate safely and airlines could give advance notice to their passengers. The flights shown below were cancelled based on the expected weather conditions and in our view would be considered to be an extraordinary circumstance and not subject to compensation.

The list does not include flights cancelled on the day."

I assume, following this, BA then chose which flights they would cancel, presumably based upon there staffing levels and locations of aircraft.

The CAA site lists all the cancelled flights, which are clearly then covered by the extraordinary circumstances clause.

British Airways flight BA1395 was not one of the cancelled flights.
So at some point British Airways must have decided that this flight could operate and they had the aircraft and crew available to support the schedule.
Then some time later, something went wrong and meant they could no longer meet the schedule!!

It is my understanding that in this case I would be covered by the compensation scheme.
Additionally the problems on the Monday were a "knock on" effect from the 9/10th December weather and as such our flight was delayed due to an indirect cause and again if this is the case we should also be entitled to the compensation?

The weather in Manchester on the Monday was fine and when we arrived in Heathrow, eventually, the weather and airport conditions were also fine, with no evidence of any snow (I even have several photos out of the plane window on approach to Heathrow that clearly shows no snow anywhere). Our scheduled flight to MRS also left LHR on time (albeit without us on-board) which is again testament to the fact that the weather at LHR was fine!