kingcole974

corporate-wage-slave

Where it would end is when the aircraft returns to its base airport, LGW in this case. So knock-on delays generally are not extraordinary circumstances, but if you are departing from an out station with limited facilities, a delay to the incoming service caused by weather is still extraordinary circumstances (though there could be important other details involved). So if LGW-LAS was held up by bad weather, and given BA can't magic up another aircraft in LAS, then the extraordinary circumstances defence continues on LAS-LGW. If, on the other hand, the actual delay was due to bad weather in (e.g.) Antigua, which held up a ANU-LGW service, which then delayed the LAS service then Article 7 compensation would be due. The one possible argument I can see is that BA also run LAS-LHR, though it departs several hours earlier, so if the delay was already known and there was space on the LAS-LHR service, then really BA should at least have invited passengers to transfer over, though I suspect in reality that didn't happen on any scale.

As it happens we know from other FT threads that 29 May was affected by bad weather, and Eurocontrol had this to say (this was evening 29 May, but it may show as 30 May thanks to FT's interface)
(we are 2 days too late to look at the detailed Eurocontrol report)

SK AAR

Yes, BA is correct. This is the knock-on effects at outstations like LAS of the incoming BA flight being late due to weather

fdKen

I am sorry but this post doesn't specifically relate to BA, but reading through this years post and previous and the Wiki it seems to be the best resource available.

I booked flights that were marketed by BA for flights by Qantas and Finnair. BNE-NRT-HEL outbound, HEL-NRT on AY, Stopover of 36 hours, then NRT-BNE on QF.

The flight HEL_NRT was cancelled on technical and staffing grounds by AY. I was offered hotel accommodation in Tampere 2 hrs away by Bus and a flight rebooking 24 hours later.

This meant our non-refundable hotel and sightseeing planned for the original day could not be used or undertaken due to the final flight leg.

As the hotel choice was unpalatable as we had been delayed 5 hours at the airport after the due take-off time, no access to luggage and 2 hrs each way by bus, I asked for rerouting to our final destination BNE as there was no benefit to us going to NRT,

I have made a request for compensation to AY (not BA) as they were the operating carrier and BA was the marketing carrier.

The rerouted flight to BNE went via HKG with just a connection and arrived well before our planned return to BNE but with the loss of amenity of the hotel and stopover in NRT.

As the original offered flight rebooking would have arrived at NRT 24 hours late, I believe it meets the criteria for compensation under EC261/2004.

As the flight delay was greater than 5 hrs and no longer met our needs, I believe we can also ask for a refund of sectors not flown.

Can someone offer a view on what compensation we could be eligible for:
A 600 euro for the cancelled flight
B Refund of HEL-NRT sector
C Refund of NRT-BNE sector

or some combination of all three of the above.

Again I apologise as being off topic.

Dave Noble

Given that you requested to change the destination to Brisbane rather than Tokyo and the airline got you to Brisbane on time, I don't see that you would be owed anything

If you had waited for the Tokyo flight , then you would have been entitled to compensation of EUR600

Given that the airline got you to your requested destination, I cannot see how there could be any refund due

fdKen

I certainly do agree with you on a moral basis.

I think there is a specified section where the delay is greater than 5 hours you can ask to be returned to originating airport and refund of sectors that weren't flown.

The flight was not a flight to Brisbane but a flight to Tokyo. The flight to Brisbane was a later leg not a connection. We had planned sightseeing in Tokyo and paid for a hotel, which we were not going to be able to do as the earliest we would have arrived was a day late. Therefore there was no point in continuing to Tokyo. If our flight was a flight to Brisbane with a connection in Tokyo then I would have agreed with you.

In Australia I do not think there is any compensation for technical issues delays, and I would rather be delayed than fly with unsafe airframes.

I am not really arguing I should be compensated but questioning whether EC261 gives an entitlement?

But I appreciate your prompt reply.

corporate-wage-slave

Can you provide the schedule departure and arrival times, the changed flights departure and arrival times as scheduled, and the actual departure and arrival times? Also for the flights you declined.

fdKen

SK AAR

Yes correct. If BA offers to accommodate you on the original flight booked (albeit in a lower service class) you will not be able to trigger EU comp. by refusing the downgrade and asking to rebooked. Technically, you are not (involuntarily) delayed.

SK AAR

Your originating airport (for the return flights) was HEL (and not BNE; BNE was your final destination in terms of the applicable EU Reg. 261/04)

Yes, you would have been able to cancel and have a refund of the HEL-NRT-BNE coupons, but then you wouldn't have been rebooked to BNE. Asking for a refund of HEL-NRT but at the same time getting from HEL to BNE would not (and should not) be entertained. I fail to see that it makes a difference whether your stay in NRT was a connection or not (more or less than 24 hours)

The key part is here that you asked to be rebooked to your final destination rather than to travel to NRT first. You departed HEL later than originally booked and arrived BNE earlier than originally booked which means that you are not entitled to comp for the cancellation of HEL-NRT, cfr. art. 5, c, (iii) - Refund of any sectors is out of the question as you travelled HEL-BNE.

fdKen

Thanks for your opinion, I didn't consider HEL as being the originating airport for the trip in total.

corporate-wage-slave

Thanks for this, I can't see any leeway here either, what I was hoping was that you had left HEL one hour sooner than planned OR arrived 2 hours later, but neither applies, and even if it did, any arrival before scheduled arrival time or (in this case) a 3 hour delay period would cut the potential payment by half. So even AY had put you on this HKG flight as their first or only option then they would have evaded needing to pay EC261, in fact they should have done this to mitigate their risk.

The only leeway I can see is if you argue that you actually had a flight to Japan and a separate trip from Japan to Brisbane. But for that to work, and what would have been the best outcome, you would have needed to accept the Narita flight and then told them to give you at least 24 hours in Japan as per your original schedule. That way you would have got the 600€. Now admittedly that doesn't help with pre-booked accommodation, but if it was booked with an international hotel group often they are amenable to switching even inflexible bookings if the airline is at fault. Plus there would be your travel insurance. The trip in vain protections only applies (effectively) on the outbound of a return, or a single trip. The one exception would be if NRT was in fact the whole point of the travel, notwithstanding a week in Europe, and I think that's a difficult one to argue.

That said AY are, along with QR, one of the most reluctant and slow to pay up under EC261 compared to other oneworld airlines, and they are a Community Carrier too.

Dave Noble

with it being a stopover in TYO rather than a connection, if AY had forced the passemger on the flight to HKG, it would still have had to get the passenger to Tokyo since that was the stopping point from what I can see

In this case the passenger asked to skip Tokyo

corporate-wage-slave

Indeed this is academic, but the difference between a stopover and a connection isn't in EC261 at all and a number of CJEU rulings have simply relied on either what the passenger wanted to do, or on the definition in Article 2, which just relates to the "destination of the last flight". See also preamble 13.

fdKen

I am not being argumentative, but my reasoning is as follows, and I have nothing to lose:
My rationale for requesting compensation is that AY73’s final destination was Tokyo NRT on 6 June 2018. The flight was cancelled due to technical issues and staff rostering reasons.

Notes:
With respect to Article 5 1. (c)(iii)There is a right to compensation by the operating carrier as defined by Article 7 as no re-routing was offered that allowed us to reach NRT within two hours of the scheduled time of arrival.

The offered rerouting to NRT was approx. 23 hours after that planned.

Article 7 1. (c) provides that the right to compensation is EUR 600 as the flight distance is greater than 3 500kilometres.

Further, Article 5 1. (a) requires the operating carrier to provide assistance in accordance with Article 8.

Article 8 1. (a) states reimbursement of the full cost of the ticket at the price at which it was bought, for the part or parts of the journey not made. Together with, when relevant, a return flight to the first point of departure, at the earliest opportunity. The flight to NRT was no longer serving any purpose as the rerouted flight would have arrived after the non-refundable hotel booking and not allowed the planned sightseeing as originally planned.

The rerouted flight to Brisbane was a return flight to the first point of departure, at the earliest opportunity.

Therefore, compensation may be payable under Article 5 1. (c)(iii) and Article 7 1. (c) for my wife and I for EUR 600 and reimbursement of the full cost of the ticket at the price it was bought for the parts of the journey not made. i.e. HEL-NRT and NRT-BNE under Article 8.1. (a)

REGULATION (EC) No 261/2004 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 11 February 2004
Article 5
Cancellation1. In case of cancellation of a flight, the passengers concerned shall:
(a) be offered assistance by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 8; and(c) have the right to compensation by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 7, unless:
(i) they are informed of the cancellation at least two weeks before the scheduled time of departure; or
(ii) they are informed of the cancellation between two weeks and seven days before the scheduled time of departure and are offered re-routing, allowing them to depart no more than two hours before the scheduled time of departure and to reach their final destination less than four hours after the scheduled time of arrival; or
(iii) they are informed of the cancellation less than seven days before the scheduled time of departure and are offered re-routing, allowing them to depart no more than one hour before the scheduled time of departure and to reach their final destination less than two hours after the scheduled time of arrival.

Article 7
Right to compensation
1. Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall receive compensation amounting to:
(a) EUR 250 for all flights of 1 500 kilometres or less
(b) EUR 400 for all intra-Community flights of more than 1 500 kilometres, and for all other flights between 1 500 and 3 500 kilometres;
(c) EUR 600 for all flights not falling under (a) or (b).In determining the distance, the basis shall be the last destination at which the denial of boarding or cancellation will delay the passenger's arrival after the scheduled time.
2. When passengers are offered re-routing to their final destination on an alternative flight pursuant to Article 8, the arrival time of which does not exceed the scheduled arrival time of the flight originally booked
(a) by two hours, in respect of all flights of 1 500 kilometres or less; or
(b) by three hours, in respect of all intra-Community flights of more than 1 500 kilometres and for all other flights between 1 500 and 3 500 kilometres; or
(c) by four hours, in respect of all flights not falling under (a) or (b),the operating air carrier may reduce the compensation provided for in paragraph 1 by 50 %.3. The compensation referred to in paragraph 1 shall be paid in cash, by electronic bank transfer, bank orders or bank cheques or, with the signed agreement of the passenger, in travel vouchers and/or other services.

Article 8
Right to reimbursement or re-routing1. Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall be offered the choice between:
(a) — reimbursement within seven days, by the means provided for in Article 7(3), of the full cost of the ticket at the price at which it was bought, for the part or parts of the journey not made, and for the part or parts already made if the flight is no longer serving any purpose in relation to the passenger's original travel plan, together with, when relevant, — a return flight to the first point of departure, at the earliest opportunity;

I will let you know how I get on, Fdken