youngfogey

Dave Noble

If it is a sumple r/t booking it should be easy to calculate what 75% of the cost paid is - I doubt that BA will volunteer to pay it; not sure if the compensation that you requested will impact on it - did you accept it in writing?

youngfogey

Dave Noble

if it is a simple r/t ticket , take off taxes, divide by 2 and then take 75%

corporate-wage-slave

That would give an approximate figure - the currency of the various taxes also have to be recalculated in terms of current charges and current exchange rates, with deltas applied where necessary. See the links above regarding the Mennens case and the worked example.

For the refund process this normally takes several weeks because it goes to a specialist team for manual calculation and they always seem to have a backlog of cases.

corporate-wage-slave

Yes, there is a broad entitlement is to be routed in First, but there isn't a clear requirement for this to be with another airline. So BA can say "yes, the next First cabin is in six months time" and you cannot require BA to fly you via QR. Moreover there is a reimbursement process for downgrades, so clearly airlines do have the ability to offer that, there isn't an absolute right to fly First. After all, there may simply be no First cabin on other airlines. DOH is a bit of an oddity, but for the Sanctions in place there would usually be options via DXB (etc) and that can't happen at the moment.

FlyerTalker6823123456

KARFA

I think the advice provided which you quoted in post 707 is probably the best you would get tbh. If there is a gulf it is because of the lack of case law on this. EU regulations generally (including EC261) are usually quite vague compared to UK originating statute which does mean lots of uncertainty on the specifics until we get some case law. Until then there is the gulf which no one can really give you any certainty.

corporate-wage-slave

When is the earliest opportunity? If that means on BA metal then it's six months. If it's QR then it's probably the same or next day. However the Regulation does not say "earliest opportunity on any available airline". Moreover the general wording context places this within the same airline context. I'm not aware of any successful case that has said there is an absolute right to move to another airline, with one important exception: when the airline stops flying the route altogether. If that happens then BA has to arrange an alternative airline(s) such as MEA, which may or may not have a First cabin on the route in question. Now that's open to legal challenge and maybe someone, somewhere, will be successful. But to the best of my knowledge it hasn't happened yet.

FlyerTalker6823123456

NWIFlyer

The point being made is that, thus far, no-one has been prepared to take that punt in a high enough court to create a precedent. If you are prepared to do so, and pay the costs if you don't win (and you may not), then you would become very popular on here overnight because whatever happens you've created certainly where currently there is just the opposite.

Up to now, everyone has settled for the downgrade compensation given the financial difference is probably relatively small against the risk of failure in going to court. If I found myself in that position, I would almost certainly do the same. The judge will balance an airline's reasonable commercial decision against your argument. It is not, I suspect, as clear cut as perhaps we'd all hope.

corporate-wage-slave

Goodness, there are loads of examples. The case that springs to mind is when bmibaby stopped operations in 2012 - initially bmibaby simply offered refunds, but did not offer alternative flights with other carriers. When the CAA said that IAG may then need to offer some sort of indemnity on this, effectively putting the entire BMI deal in peril, Lufthansa then allowed people to submit claims in or arrange rebooking on LH services. In a BA context, then with cases such as Baku, Luanda and Colombo BA set up alternative carriers, and they wouldn't have done this if the law simply allowed a refund.

For your general point about reasonableness, that's a judgement call, and you should certainly consider taking it further if you believe it will get you somewhere - almost all the CJEU casework that we have is because someone, somewhere, felt the airline's position was unreasonable, and more often than not, the courts have agreed. In the case of Calgary, we're awaiting more arrangements but First wasn't offered on that route, and Club World / WTP / WT has been offered via alternative routings and indeed alternative airlines.

rbAA

So, in researching the area regarding cancellations, I see that the passenger has three options:1. earlier flights; 2. later flights; and 3. refund and carrier must return the passenger to point of origin. Is this in addition to the tiered compensation, for example, a BA PE ticket costing US$688 round trip, OSL-LHR-LAX-LHR-OSL with a cancelled LAX-LHR and offered a later LAX-LHR apx 4.5 hours later which the passenger does not accept, but instead takes as the return to point of origin. Would the passenger have the option to demand a refund of the "unused" LAX-LHR-OSL portion (apx US$344,) and get passage back to OSL. Also, would the 600 Euro compensation be payable as well.

Dave Noble

It doesn't state what you are claiming it states

If already at the destination of Los Angeles, I cannot see how anyone could possibly argue to a court that the 4.5 hours delay has made the journey serve no purpose whilst at the same time expecting a flight back to be provided

rbAA

That's part of the question: how is this sentence construction to be interpreted: "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, " First, refund of all only if the travel plan is in vain and refund of unused part otherwise, i.e. passenger is inconvenienced and doesn't agree with the flight changes offered. The "and" is confusing, especially when the conditional, "if" clause comes after it, as that the trip in vain part and the first part details a refund less the segments flown to that point..

The second part of the question is whether this remedy is cumulative with the tiered compensation, i.e. the 600 Euro for a >3500km flight delayed more than 4 hours.