if there was a flight disruption that affected journey at connection point to destination that would make the trip no longer viable, then getting back to origin would make sense

When the passenger has arrived at the destination ( with nothing to indicate a delay etc ) and then turns up for start of return journey to find a delay to service home- I cannot see it being possible to convince any court of validity of a trip being in vain if the journey home was delayed by 4.5 hours

Delay compensation - yes of course
But refund of ticket plus flight home - come on

If the flight is cancelled at short notice, and the replacement service means arriving more than 2 hours late (and departing no more than 1 hour earlier), then Article 7 compensation is payable unless Extraordinary Circumstances applies. That is payable whether or not you actually fly and it is for the entire journey as planned.

Getting a refund on a trip that no longer served its purpose is for all sectors. So you would be returned to OSL and get a full refund on the original ticket. Airlines generally want proof of the "no longer serving any purpose" aspect, and in the case of LAX for a 4.5 hours delay that may be difficult. However if it was for (e.g.) a job interview, and then you have chosen to spend the weekend in LAX after the interview, perhaps because of the Saturday Night Rule, then you would have a strong argument - and presumably documentation - to support that argument. If you were going for a wedding, perhaps you would miss the ceremony but you would make the party afterwards, then the "any purpose" wording may get in the way.

This seems to me to be either highly hypothetical (in which case it's not a good use of collective brainpower, frankly); or there are perhaps more fact that you can bring to the table.

If someone has flown to LAX , had the interview , stayed the saturday night for the lower fare and is then travelling back after the interview, how would you reasonably argue that it was a strong argument that the trip was in vain?

On that basis the trip serves a purpose and therefore I agree with you. However what I meant was that the 4.5 hour delay = no interview. If BA said "ah but you still had a weekend in LAX so it had some purpose", the reply is "only to make the fare affordable".

The example that was being put forward was to get to the destination
Then on the return that there is a delay and then try and argue that trip no longer serves a purpose and expect EUR600 plus flight back home plus refund of ticket

I cannot think of any situation where this would work

I can see that there could be a delay at a connecting point en-route to destination where it could cause the trip to be in vain and no point continuing onwards - and then expecting fligth back home , refund and possibly compensation

One alternative routing (DFW) has been provided, the question remains whether it is comparable transport conditions. And whilst yes the regs guidance says it is to be determined on a case by case basis, the advice on here seems to be that anything the airline decides is reasonable - not even in the same cabin.

I appreciate there is no prior art and it may be collectively useful to push the envelope to get some definition in the EU regs, but some discussion here (and why I started a separate thread which was closed) would be instrumental. I wouldn't expect a comparison of food and bev or IFE to be accepted, but at least the same cabin (e.g. F redemption LHR-DOH) and journey time (more than doubled LHR-YYC via DFW) I would expect to be in scope.

This interpretative guidance only seems to muddle the water further:

At this stage, I think it is appropriate to remind members of the title of this thread: "Your guide to Regulation EC261/2004."

It is intended as a help resource in providing a steer where case law has already been provided, so a given outcome might be expected, or to advise on the potential risk of taking action if no precedent has been set. The advice is specific to BA, and therefore fair game for this forum, because the size of the airline and operating bases means options for what might be considered "reasonable" might well differ from - say - a regional airline.

It is not intended to be a vehicle for a prolonged discussion on interpretation of law, which can only be provided by a judge, and the thread would become too cluttered and lose its focus if we allowed it. That loss would be to the detriment of the vast majority of members.

If anyone wishes to put forward arguments for interpretation of law, which are general in nature and not specific to BA, they should be made in a general forum such as TravelBuzz: https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travelbuzz-176/

NWIFlyer
Moderator - BA forum

Asking for a friend - cancelled BA2586 15/6/18
 

Hi all, my friend has had his flight to Venice cancelled (I see there was a separate thread about this exact flight but thought I'd best seek advice here). He was offered rerouting that would have him arrive more than 2 hours late, and instead chose to defer his trip to next weekend so is rebooked for Friday 22nd. Am I correct in thinking the total he is due is 250 euros compensation (i.e. no 50% reduction)?

Advice on who claims please.

My son and two colleagues were on BA1427 BHD to LHR on 10th June.
Flight should have left at 7am and they had an onward BA connection to Helsinki due to arrive at 16 20pm
There was a crew problem and a replacement crew were flown to Dublin and taxied up to Belfast.
Finally departed at 12 31pm, were rebooked on a Finnair flight and arrived into Helsinki at 12 30am Monday.
Pretty sure they are entitled to claim EC261 compensation, but as these tickets were booked by the travel department at work, does the travel dept claim or the individual travellers claim?

Thanks

The individuals should claim

Thank you for the speedy answer

The reason being that the tickets are in the names of the individuals not the travel department.