|
I was on the same flight and yesterday had my claim rejected with this statement: Your claim for EU has been refused because BA0877 on 15 June was delayed because of operational circumstances outside of our control, which prevented the aircraft operating as scheduled. Under EU legislation, I’m afraid we’re not liable for a compensation payment in this situation.
I am currently awaiting their reply as to why they think that way. In the meantime, I've had these two tweets from their Twitter team, after I raised this matter with them: We're sorry you're disappointed by this. I'm afraid the technical delay only contributed 171 minutes of the overall flight delay on BA0877. This does mean it's not payable under EU regulations. To be eligible for EU compensation, the technical delay minutes would need to be 180 minutes or more. The total length of the delay wouldn't make this eligible and I'm sorry for the disappointment this has caused. I can only assume at this point that they are saying that they fixed the fault within 3 hours (though we only have their word on that for now) and that possibly the fact that we wouldn't be allowed to land in the early hours at Heathrow and that their crew needed to rest were out of their control. So far, others feel that both these are "known knowns" and not exceptional circumstances. My own research into the EU regulation and the official EU guide to its interpretation shows no mention of any element of proportionality for a technical failure as part of the overall delay. The interpretation guide is clear that the delay is the difference between the planned and actual arrival times, with no mention of the time taking to fix the issue being a consideration. As soon as I know more, I'll update this post and the other I started on this topic. |
Originally Posted by brittraveller68
(Post 29897583)
I was on the same flight and yesterday had my claim rejected with this statement: Your claim for EU has been refused because BA0877 on 15 June was delayed because of operational circumstances outside of our control, which prevented the aircraft operating as scheduled. Under EU legislation, I’m afraid we’re not liable for a compensation payment in this situation.
I am currently awaiting their reply as to why they think that way. In the meantime, I've had these two tweets from their Twitter team, after I raised this matter with them: We're sorry you're disappointed by this. I'm afraid the technical delay only contributed 171 minutes of the overall flight delay on BA0877. This does mean it's not payable under EU regulations. To be eligible for EU compensation, the technical delay minutes would need to be 180 minutes or more. The total length of the delay wouldn't make this eligible and I'm sorry for the disappointment this has caused. I can only assume at this point that they are saying that they fixed the fault within 3 hours (though we only have their word on that for now) and that possibly the fact that we wouldn't be allowed to land in the early hours at Heathrow and that their crew needed to rest were out of their control. So far, others feel that both these are "known knowns" and not exceptional circumstances. My own research into the EU regulation and the official EU guide to its interpretation shows no mention of any element of proportionality for a technical failure as part of the overall delay. The interpretation guide is clear that the delay is the difference between the planned and actual arrival times, with no mention of the time taking to fix the issue being a consideration. As soon as I know more, I'll update this post and the other I started on this topic. However, that is not the case here - there is nothing whatsoever exceptional about crewing arrangements, which are entirely within the control of the airline. It was those that caused a much longer delay. BA are on the hook here, no matter how much they wriggle. |
it's astonishing the level of dishonesty that appears to be going on by BA here. Do there lawyers know and approve?!
|
Originally Posted by Dicksbits
(Post 29897776)
it's astonishing the level of dishonesty that appears to be going on by BA here. Do there lawyers know and approve?!
And if they routinely reject claims they know that 75% of the remaining 25% (say) will go away. So only a small percentage of people will be persistent about getting what are entitled to. Of course when the persistent minority go to CEDR we then find that almost 80% of claims are then upheld..... If saving money is your game then it works pretty well. I suppose eventually regulation will ratchet up again and there will be a requirement for people to be paid automatically. |
Originally Posted by Dicksbits
(Post 29897776)
it's astonishing the level of dishonesty that appears to be going on by BA here. Do there lawyers know and approve?!
What about corporate responsibility, how can those on an airlines board knowingly allow the airlines to lie about a flight delay claim in contradiction to the law. What about the CAA who, as regulator, also have a responsibility to ensure complaints are dealt with fairly and honestly. What, also about the legal representatives and para legals who send out letters to claimants which contain lies. Where is the justice? (rhetorical question) |
Shame BA is acting as insurance adjustor denying claims knowing few will pursue versus carrying out customer service mandate.
|
MCOL settlement!
Originally Posted by mavml
(Post 29748875)
Hi all.
I'd appreciate some advice on my compensation claim with BA for flight BA208 MIA-LHR on 14th April. Some background first: - The flight arrived at LHR approx 4 hrs 30 mins late. - The delay was advised by text message on the day of departure from MIA as due to "operational reasons" and due to the captain on board as due to a technical fault which was found just before departure of the outbound flight from LHR which required an aircraft substitution. - I believe the original aircraft due to operate our flight was G-XLEA and it was actually operated by G-XLEF. I put in my claim on the day of arrival back to the UK (I know now since reading this thread that claiming so early was a mistake, but hopefully it won't change the eventual outcome). The first response from BA came about a week later and was a fairly standard response saying compensation was not payable due to aircraft damage which wasn't caused by BA. I responded, quoting some of the court cases mentioned on here, and received a response a couple of days later with more detail, again saying they weren't liable in this event. Due to the location and the nature of the damage, it was confirmed by the engineers that the damage was due to debris on a runway. The debris had been thrown up either during a landing or a take-off. On further inspection, the damage was found to be outside of the acceptable limits to operate, and it required further non-destructive testing to check for further hidden damage. It also was decided that these checks would take time and this was limited due to crew hours, so the decision was made to tow the aircraft and replace it with an alternative aircraft. To me, they are still liable in this case on the basis that: - Aircraft damage was incurred in normal course of operations. - Damage took place at least 2 sectors prior to mine (BA don't know when), providing ample time to replace with an alternate aircraft. The fact that the damage was only found just before departure was entirely within BA's control and therefore regardless of the cause of the damage, they are still liable. I wrote back, quoting para 14 / 15 of the EC261 text, and that I was not prepared to let the matter rest, and today (2 weeks later) received this response: Thanks for writing back to us. I apologise for the delay in my response. Article 5.3 of the EU Regulation 261/2004 states a carrier is not obliged to pay compensation if it can prove the delay or cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances, that couldn’t have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. In Recital 14 and 15 of EU Regulation 261/2004, extraordinary circumstances include weather, strikes, damage to aircraft not caused by the operating airline and the impact of an air traffic management decision which gives rise to a long delay. This means you’re not entitled to compensation under the EU Regulation for your delayed flight. Thanks again for getting in touch with us. Please feel free to contact me directly by using the blue link below if I can help you with anything else. It seems to me that BA have at their own liberty taken the text from paragraph 14 and replaced the reference to unexpected flight safety shortcomings with something which is not at all mentioned in the text. My initial reaction to this is that this is outright lying, thus I'm very much angered by this response, so whilst I calm down to provide a rational response, I thought I'd get some advice here: - I can't find any court cases or advice online which deal with this specific circumstance (the closest being the collision of ground handling vehicles with aircraft), but does anyone disagree with my conclusions, or think that maybe compensation isn't payable here? - What should my next steps be? Customer service invite me to make another response, but I just don't feel like I'm getting anywhere, and I really don't want to deal with this individual again (I know he's just doing his job of fobbing people off, what a demoralising role....). Should I just write to customer services instead threatening a legal approach, or can I ask for this to be referred elsewhere? I'm happy to take any reasonable path to reach a conclusion. Thanks for any help, just reading this thread has been a goldmine of information, I think without it I wouldn't have had a clue what to do! I have an update on the above which may be useful for anyone in a similar situation. Following the advice given here (thanks CWS), I sent a letter of intent to file MCOL, then started the MCOL process 16 days later (this was all after a total of 3 or 4 exchanges with customer services). My 600 EUR claim + £60 MCOL fee was settled a couple of weeks after filing MCOL. Somewhat bizarrely, the letter I received tells me that the claim was settled by cheque (including provision of cheque reference numbers), but actually the money appeared directly in my bank account and nothing appeared in the post, which is fine by me! Now just need to work out how to get the similar amounts for the other 3 pax on the booking, not sure if I go back to CS or go through legal department, have e-mailed the legal department to see what next steps are. So my experience from this: - Customer service were just there to block claims, there was literally no change of tone or comment throughout my exchanges with them, and some of the information provided was IMO deliberately misleading to try and push me away from pursuing. - When I sent the letter advising of my intent to file MCOL, I included all the detail to back up my claim, my rationale for why this fell in scope of the regulation, and as an appendix the complete history of my exchange with customer services. I argued both the case for why this wasn't exceptional circumstances, and why even if it was, there was adequate time for BA to recover and avoid the delay. This may have been over the top, but I think possibly showed that I'd done my research and would provide an organised argument in court if necessary. Not sure if this influenced the outcome or not. - Getting through to legal department is key to resolving in borderline or unusual / one-off cases. Customer services just weren't going to help me here, so MCOL was last resort. Thanks, Mark |
We had a cancelled LGW-JER at 1150 and and were rebooked on the earlier flight at 0900.
BA have accepted the EU261 claim but say that as we 'arrived within 2 hours of scheduled arrival time' we are only entitled to 50%. The 2 hour part of this is not correct as we caught the 1015 airport bus and our original scheduled arrival was 1255. I think we should be entitled to the full 100% 250 euros amount, but could some-one advsie on this before I go back to BA? Thanks very much! |
Originally Posted by LSunbury
(Post 29919443)
BA have accepted the EU261 claim but say that as we 'arrived within 2 hours of scheduled arrival time' we are only entitled to 50%. The 2 hour part of this is not correct as we caught the 1015 airport bus and our original scheduled arrival was 1255.
|
Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave
(Post 29919462)
The "airport bus" bit I don't understand, but broadly speaking if you arrive earlier than the scheduled arrival time then yes, the compensation is cut by 50%. See the initial posts in this thread, also clause 7.2 in EC261. To get 100% compensation you need to be at least 2 to 4 hours late on the original schedule.
|
Originally Posted by LSunbury
(Post 29919500)
We arrived more than 2 hours early. Is it only 2 hours+ late that attracts the full rate?
there is nothing in the regulation about arriving earlier that prevents the reduction of Article 7 compensation by 50%. The regulation is clear in article 5.1(c)(iii) that compensation described in Article 7 is due in relation to applicable re-bookings that depart more than one hour prior to the originally scheduled time of the cancelled flight. However, in Article 7.2(a) it is clear that compensation is reduced by 50% if arrival is not more than two hours after the scheduled arrival time of the flight originally booked. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.ht...C_1&format=PDF |
Question on IRROPs
Firstly, this is not an 'I demand to be compensated' question, rather a 'where I stand' one ;) It actually made a pretty dull Saturday afternoon into a more interesting one lol
I did a cheap CE return to JER yesterday to get me the few TPs needed for my GUF2 before my year end in August. I didn't do a real (same plane) back-to-back and was booked on the Eastern operated BA2775 JER-LGW (dep 1710 arr 1815). This was cancelled at 1813 and I received a text saying I had been rebooked onto today's BA2767 (dep 0705 arr 0810) and was sent from the lounge to checkin for hotel info. As I didn't even have any hand luggage (phone and wallet fit in my pockets and I wan't planning on staying) I guess I could have overnighted, billed BA for emergency supplies and claimed EC261? In the event, I got to checkin and was handed a voucher for BE246 JER-SOU and told a taxi would pick me up at SOU and take me to LGW. Then sent to Flybe checkin where they kindly re-opened the closed flight and gave me my (Y) boarding card. The voucher from BA clearly states Invol Reroute IATA 735D which doesn't suggest I 'volunteered' for any of this... So the BE246 was delayed and we landed (wheels down) at SOU 2007 and I got out of the terminal at about 2020, obviously no taxi driver with my name on a board... By road SOU-LGW is about 90mins (by Apple/Google Maps) so the earliest I'd have got to LGW would have been 2150 (so >3hrs late) So I checked for trains and there was a 2038 via Woking and Clapham Junction that would arrive LGW at 22:26 (so >3hrs late). The 2038 also goes direct to Waterloo and as I live in Vauxhall looping back to LGW via Clapham Junction would have made no sense whatsoever, so I stayed on it to Waterloo and arrived 'in London' at 21:49 (>3hrs late)
Thanks :) |
You best ring up Customer Relations about this, you should get most of the following fairly quickly, some aspects may take longer.
Originally Posted by LBP2
(Post 29925247)
Originally Posted by LBP2
(Post 29925247)
Originally Posted by LBP2
(Post 29925247)
Originally Posted by LBP2
(Post 29925247)
Originally Posted by LBP2
(Post 29925247)
|
Terrific, thank you :)
|
DOBA2775/30JUN* OPERATIONAL FLIGHT INFO * BA2775 -1 SA 30JUN18 And before I forget the above is the dispatch information, with Reason code TEC and Y for EC261.CITY INFO HOUR (LOCAL) JER ESTIMATED TIME OF DEPARTURE 1820 FLIGHT CANCELLED 1211 TECY ESTIMATED TIME OF ARRIVAL 1925 LGW *1A PLANNED FLIGHT INFO* BA2775 -1 SA 30JUN18 ASM APT ARR DY DEP DY CLASS/MEAL EQP GRND EFT TTL JER 1710 SA JCDRI/M YB/G E70 1:05 HKMLVNOQSGX/G LGW 1815 SA 1:05 COMMENTS- 1.JER LGW - AIRCRAFT OWNER EASTERN AIRWAYS 2.JER LGW - COCKPIT CREW EASTERN AIRWAYS 3.JER LGW - CABIN CREW EASTERN AIRWAYS 4.JER LGW - OPERATED BY EASTERN AIRWAYS FOR BRITISH AIRWAYS 5.JER LGW - MEMBER OF ONEWORLD 6.JER LGW - ARRIVES TERMINAL S 7.JER LGW - 9/ NON-SMOKING 8.JER LGW - ET/ ELECTRONIC TKT CANDIDATE 9.JER LGW - CO2/PAX* 54.30 KG ECO, 54.30 KG PRE (*):SOURCE:ICAO CARBON EMISSIONS CALCULATOR CONFIGURATION- E70 C 8 M 68 |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:20 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.