FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   British Airways | Executive Club (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club-446/)
-   -   The 2018 BA compensation thread: Your guide to Regulation EC261/2004 (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club/1885572-2018-ba-compensation-thread-your-guide-regulation-ec261-2004-a.html)

Saltire74 Jan 8, 18 11:19 pm

An update for anyone interested in a scenario I posted about in the 2017 thread https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/29210596-post1823.html where I was IDBd albeit temporarily because of a biometrics issue.

I wrote to HAL to find out what happened and have had a couple of emails from them keeping me up to date with the progress of their investigation and final findings.

After investigating the issue, their findings are that there was an error with my BP (Mobile BP on my iPhone) and although the security barrier at fast track picked this up, it still let me gain access which obviously should not have happened and eventually the issue was finally picked up at the boarding gate. So in summary this was down to a technology failure. My problem that day has now highlighted a potential issue with their systems which they should now be able to resolve and hopefully prevent such things happening again.

S

Frequent flyer 101 Jan 11, 18 10:10 pm

I had a one-way flight from BUD-LHR-EDI in CE (avios redemption). The BUD-LHR flight was delayed and this was going to cause a misconnect. Upon arrival at BUD, BA had rebooked me on Lufthansa via FRA. All was good and I was scheduled to arrive at a similar time.

Got on the plane, only to be told it was cancelled due to weather in FRA.

I understand that I cannot make a claim against Lufthansa as it was due to weather in FRA. Does BA hold any responsibility as the ticketing airline?

rapidex Jan 12, 18 1:49 am


Originally Posted by Frequent flyer 101 (Post 29282416)
I had a one-way flight from BUD-LHR-EDI in CE (avios redemption). The BUD-LHR flight was delayed and this was going to cause a misconnect. Upon arrival at BUD, BA had rebooked me on Lufthansa via FRA. All was good and I was scheduled to arrive at a similar time.

Got on the plane, only to be told it was cancelled due to weather in FRA.

I understand that I cannot make a claim against Lufthansa as it was due to weather in FRA. Does BA hold any responsibility as the ticketing airline?

No.It is always the responsibility of the operating carrier. In your case the cancellation was due to weather, so no compensation but duty of care still applies.

whoffie24 Jan 13, 18 6:14 pm

Back in November, I was traveling to Stockholm on an EWR-LHR-ARN itinerary. Flights were booked on AA stock with AA flight numbers, but were operated by BA so I believe this falls under BA for EC261 purposes. I was scheduled to fly back through LHR on flight 0185 on 21 November. On 19 November I got a voicemail from AA saying that my LHR-EWR flight had been cancelled. Was never contacted by BA. AA had rebooked me on Finnair flights through Helsinki which got me back to JFK (not EWR) about 2 hours after I was originally supposed to arrive. Since my final destination was in New Jersey and this was the week of Thanksgiving, it took another 2 hours to get home.

Contacted BA about EC261 compensation because A) they never contacted me about the cancellation and B) I didn't get back to my original destination.
BA said the flight was cancelled due to "operational circumstances" outside their control. I asked what those were and they said it was due to the Rolls Royce Trent 1000 issue impacting the 787s. I was scheduled to fly on a 777 and the last information on flightaware still shows a 777. They claim that the equipment was switched to a 787 and then cancelled due to the engine issue. Is there any way to verify that?

Thanks for the help.

1Aturnleft Jan 13, 18 8:02 pm


Originally Posted by whoffie24 (Post 29289658)
Back in November, I was traveling to Stockholm on an EWR-LHR-ARN itinerary. Flights were booked on AA stock with AA flight numbers, but were operated by BA so I believe this falls under BA for EC261 purposes. I was scheduled to fly back through LHR on flight 0185 on 21 November. On 19 November I got a voicemail from AA saying that my LHR-EWR flight had been cancelled. Was never contacted by BA. AA had rebooked me on Finnair flights through Helsinki which got me back to JFK (not EWR) about 2 hours after I was originally supposed to arrive. Since my final destination was in New Jersey and this was the week of Thanksgiving, it took another 2 hours to get home.

Contacted BA about EC261 compensation because A) they never contacted me about the cancellation and B) I didn't get back to my original destination.
BA said the flight was cancelled due to "operational circumstances" outside their control. I asked what those were and they said it was due to the Rolls Royce Trent 1000 issue impacting the 787s. I was scheduled to fly on a 777 and the last information on flightaware still shows a 777. They claim that the equipment was switched to a 787 and then cancelled due to the engine issue. Is there any way to verify that?

Thanks for the help.

AA would have been responsible for contacting you regarding the cancellation/rebooking as they would have been responsible for your personal data because they were your original booking method.

If you check out the basource website you can retrieve historical flight data (which shows no BA185 operating on 21NOV incidentally).
In terms of factoring in additional transport time to EWR I don't think that would play out and be eligible because you had the opportunity to decline the AY rebook to JFK when contacted by AA on 19NOV and ask for a EWR arrival instead. In other words you accepted the change in arrival airport at that time which takes away any further responsibility of the airline (quite an important factor at multi airport cities such as London and New York when accepting reroutes).

Tobias-UK Jan 13, 18 8:08 pm


Originally Posted by stifle (Post 29265119)
I would argue that ATC delays are unavoidable, but not extraordinary.

Perhaps, but they are still outside of an airline’s control.

whoffie24 Jan 13, 18 11:39 pm


Originally Posted by 1Aturnleft (Post 29289907)


AA would have been responsible for contacting you regarding the cancellation/rebooking as they would have been responsible for your personal data because they were your original booking method.

If you check out the basource website you can retrieve historical flight data (which shows no BA185 operating on 21NOV incidentally).
In terms of factoring in additional transport time to EWR I don't think that would play out and be eligible because you had the opportunity to decline the AY rebook to JFK when contacted by AA on 19NOV and ask for a EWR arrival instead. In other words you accepted the change in arrival airport at that time which takes away any further responsibility of the airline (quite an important factor at multi airport cities such as London and New York when accepting reroutes).

Thanks for the information. I checked basource and sure enough, they list my flight as cancelled on the 21st.
21/11/17 British Airways Flight Cancellations. | The BA Source

As I've gone through this process, I've learned that I could have declined the AY flight. Didn't know that at the time. I also think it's important to note that EC261 states that the, "‘final destination’ means the destination on the ticket presented at the check-in counter." The flight they/AA provided me didn't get me back to my final destination, per that definition.

Also, BA never brought the final destination up. They only claim the reason I'm not entitled to compensation being that the 787 was pulled out of service due to turbine issues. As I mentioned, I'm pretty sure my flight was scheduled to be a 777. If you check the schedule for that flight, the 787 only operated that flight on Thursdays so this wouldn't have been a 787 day anyway.

1Aturnleft Jan 14, 18 8:03 am


Originally Posted by whoffie24 (Post 29290214)
Thanks for the information. I checked basource and sure enough, they list my flight as cancelled on the 21st.
21/11/17 British Airways Flight Cancellations. The BA Source

As I've gone through this process, I've learned that I could have declined the AY flight. Didn't know that at the time. I also think it's important to note that EC261 states that the, "‘final destination’ means the destination on the ticket presented at the check-in counter." The flight they/AA provided me didn't get me back to my final destination, per that definition.

Also, BA never brought the final destination up. They only claim the reason I'm not entitled to compensation being that the 787 was pulled out of service due to turbine issues. As I mentioned, I'm pretty sure my flight was scheduled to be a 777. If you check the schedule for that flight, the 787 only operated that flight on Thursdays so this wouldn't have been a 787 day anyway.

Where re-routing is to another airport serving the same destination, the airline must pay for onward transport to the original airport or to a close-by destination agreed with the passenger. These choices, and the entitlement to refreshments, etc., apply to all cancellations, regardless of whether the circumstances are extraordinary or not.This would be the only thing you can claim for. The time taken doesn't form part of the overall delay because you accepted the JFK option proposed to you.
According to the rule:the airline notifies the passengers less than one week prior to departure, and re-routes passengers so that they can:
depart no more than one hour earlier than scheduled, and
arrive no more than two hours later than scheduledWith this in mind double check your actual arrival time at JFK as you may already be eligible (remember the time is calculated at doors opening at JFK, not the time the aircraft landed which at such a busy airport could may well push you over the 2hrs boundary and be eligible for the compensation.
The rule also says in this situation:The cancellation was caused by extraordinary circumstances that could not have been avoided by any reasonable measure.
This is ultimately for the airline and not you to prove. Whether or not the 787 issue is considered extraordinary is yet to be proven in court however. I can see why BA may consider this extraordinary. It would be upto BA to prove their equipment change from 777 to 787 and subsequent cancellation was the reason and not as you (and I) suspect this is a convenient cover story to hide an operational decision to cancel your 777 operated service to a destination which is served multiple times daily to free up your intended aircraft for another 787 affected service without easy rebook options.
The onus is very much on the carrier to prove this should the case ever reach court and something BA are probably guessing you won't go as far to get them to prove.

J S Jan 14, 18 11:10 am

Regarding knock-on delays:

Is there any outside source that I can point to showing that knock-on delays are not extraordinary circumstances?

I am expecting pushback on a flight delayed 4:38 (on arrival). The aircraft was 4-6 hours late on every flight for 4 days. The original flight (4 days earlier) was delayed due to weather/ATC, but the subsequent flights on that aircraft were only delayed due to knock-on effects.
'
Thanks,
JS

corporate-wage-slave Jan 14, 18 11:37 am


Originally Posted by J S (Post 29291873)
Is there any outside source that I can point to showing that knock-on delays are not extraordinary circumstances?

There are quite a few, but the first that comes to mind is Frederique Jager v easyJet, back in 2013, which relates to a LGW-NCE flight, where a delay was due to poor weather on a previous sector rather than on the precise flight concerned. easyJet lost that case - it's non binding but persuasive. But it's a big subject which I (as a non lawyer) could wax lyrical for a long time without being relevant to your case. Essentially it is well known by the airlines that knock-on is not on its own extraordinary circumstances. I suspect this isn't BA since I can't think of a route where this could happen, apart from BA1.

armouredant Jan 15, 18 10:14 am


Originally Posted by J S (Post 29291873)
I am expecting pushback on a flight delayed 4:38 (on arrival). The aircraft was 4-6 hours late on every flight for 4 days. The original flight (4 days earlier) was delayed due to weather/ATC, but the subsequent flights on that aircraft were only delayed due to knock-on effects.

I imagine it would be difficult for an airline to prove in court that all reasonable measures had been taken to mitigate a delay if the knock-on effect was four days.

whoffie24 Jan 15, 18 10:22 am


Originally Posted by 1Aturnleft (Post 29291266)
Where re-routing is to another airport serving the same destination, the airline must pay for onward transport to the original airport or to a close-by destination agreed with the passenger. These choices, and the entitlement to refreshments, etc., apply to all cancellations, regardless of whether the circumstances are extraordinary or not.This would be the only thing you can claim for. The time taken doesn't form part of the overall delay because you accepted the JFK option proposed to you.
According to the rule:the airline notifies the passengers less than one week prior to departure, and re-routes passengers so that they can:
depart no more than one hour earlier than scheduled, and
arrive no more than two hours later than scheduledWith this in mind double check your actual arrival time at JFK as you may already be eligible (remember the time is calculated at doors opening at JFK, not the time the aircraft landed which at such a busy airport could may well push you over the 2hrs boundary and be eligible for the compensation.
The rule also says in this situation:The cancellation was caused by extraordinary circumstances that could not have been avoided by any reasonable measure.
This is ultimately for the airline and not you to prove. Whether or not the 787 issue is considered extraordinary is yet to be proven in court however. I can see why BA may consider this extraordinary. It would be upto BA to prove their equipment change from 777 to 787 and subsequent cancellation was the reason and not as you (and I) suspect this is a convenient cover story to hide an operational decision to cancel your 777 operated service to a destination which is served multiple times daily to free up your intended aircraft for another 787 affected service without easy rebook options.
The onus is very much on the carrier to prove this should the case ever reach court and something BA are probably guessing you won't go as far to get them to prove.

In my request to BA, I didn't ask for the transport costs to the original airport. I was just looking for compensation due to the late cancellation and subsequent delay. The door open time was definitely over 2 hours beyond the original arrival time.

You confirmed exactly what I was thinking. They're probably trying using the engine issue as an easy cover.

Janusian Jan 15, 18 3:18 pm

Can I just check my understanding of the regs please.

Flying Rotterdam to City today. Original flight delayed then cancelled due to technical fault (this was announced over the tannoy). I was rebooked onto the next flight but landed just over 2 hours late.

My reading of the regs are that I am entitled to compensation of €250 as I arrived over 2 hours late and my original flight was cancelled. It seems a bit odd that if the original flight had taken off and I had arrived at the same time I would not have been due any compensation (as delayed flights have to be 3 hours late) but it does seem to be the regs.

Am I missing anything here?

Pollyti Jan 15, 18 5:08 pm

777 changed to 787 (allegedly)
 

Originally Posted by whoffie24 (Post 29289658)
Back in November, I was traveling to Stockholm on an EWR-LHR-ARN itinerary. Flights were booked on AA stock with AA flight numbers, but were operated by BA so I believe this falls under BA for EC261 purposes. I was scheduled to fly back through LHR on flight 0185 on 21 November. On 19 November I got a voicemail from AA saying that my LHR-EWR flight had been cancelled. Was never contacted by BA. AA had rebooked me on Finnair flights through Helsinki which got me back to JFK (not EWR) about 2 hours after I was originally supposed to arrive. Since my final destination was in New Jersey and this was the week of Thanksgiving, it took another 2 hours to get home.

Contacted BA about EC261 compensation because A) they never contacted me about the cancellation and B) I didn't get back to my original destination.
BA said the flight was cancelled due to "operational circumstances" outside their control. I asked what those were and they said it was due to the Rolls Royce Trent 1000 issue impacting the 787s. I was scheduled to fly on a 777 and the last information on flightaware still shows a 777. They claim that the equipment was switched to a 787 and then cancelled due to the engine issue. Is there any way to verify that?

Thanks for the help.

my daughter and her partner were due to fly on the 10:50 from LHR to EWR on the 21st of November on a 777. They were rebooked on a flight that left at 15: 50. They've had the same reason for rejection of compensation, the 787 inspections. It only dawned on us yesterday about the difference in airplanes, but I can see if she goes back and mentions this, they're going to use the excuse you've had that the equipment was changed, then cancelled. But if it was just changed, why wouldn't it have been scheduled to fly at the same time as the original flight? How would you be able to disprove this change didn't happen?

serfty Jan 15, 18 5:32 pm


Originally Posted by Pollyti (Post 29297136)
... How would you be able to disprove this change didn't happen?

It is up to the carrier to prove this.

In any case, it should be worth your trouble pursuing.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 5:29 pm.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.