Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > British Airways | Executive Club
Reload this Page >

The 2018 BA compensation thread: Your guide to Regulation EC261/2004

The 2018 BA compensation thread: Your guide to Regulation EC261/2004

    Hide Wikipost
Old Dec 17, 18, 5:14 am   -   Wikipost
Please read: This is a community-maintained wiki post containing the most important information from this thread. You may edit the Wiki once you have been on FT for 90 days and have made 90 posts.
 
Last edit by: serfty
Wiki Link
Link to Text of the regulations in PDF format

How about a Wiki to post EU comp given/denied as well as results for any CEDR or other process. Especially concerning the 787 issue as there are going to be many claims given all the cancellations.

Mine was April 22 BA280 LAX-LHR cancellation 4 days before flight and rebooked on later flight and arrived 4.5 hrs later than origianlly scheduled. BA's response was to deny for "operational" requirements though the 787 "tentatively assigned" G-ZBJG was used instead for a LHR-YUL flight that same day. CEDR filed and awaiting their initial review. Sept 3rd UPDATE: CEDR decision in Article 7 comp awarded in the amount of 600 euro as even though extraordinary circumstances are present in an engine defect as this, BA didn't show that they took reasonable steps to avoid the cancellation as they have known since Oct 2017 of this issue.
Print Wikipost

Closed Thread

Old Aug 8, 18, 3:44 am
  #1096  
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 7
Hi everyone,

I just wanted to post an update on the situation myself and my partner were discussing last week.

I heard from BA this morning. They have agreed to 'contribute' towards our expenses for the train tickets (I will be chasing this up, as there is a phone recording stating they will pay the costs in full).

We were indeed refused compensation, but NOT for the reasons people stated. The email states:

Your claim’s been refused because BA1321 on 19 July 2018 was cancelled because of airfield restrictions being in place that were 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 was wondering about people's thoughts on this? To be honest, we're only really bothered about getting our money back, so compensation is not a big deal. The only reason why I'm asking is because I know other people, including people who have posted on this thread, have been given compensation. Surely, if the 'airfield restrictions were out of their control' as they claim, no one would be entitled? Just seems a bit strange to me that some have been approved, when, from the reason they've given me, they make it sound like none should have been.

What do people think? Is this worth chasing up? Or should we just settle with the reimbursement? As I say, in truth all we were really bothered about is getting our money back, so we'd only look at chasing this up if it really does seem like we're being unfairly cheated out of compensation.

Thanks to everyone for all your advice!
rachel333 is offline  
Old Aug 8, 18, 3:56 am
  #1097  
Moderator, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges, and Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Original Poster
2019 FlyerTalk Awards
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold; Flying Blue Life Platinum; LH Sen.; Hilton Diamond; Kemal Kebabs Prized Customer
Posts: 37,648
Originally Posted by rachel333 View Post
Surely, if the 'airfield restrictions were out of their control' as they claim, no one would be entitled? Just seems a bit strange to me that some have been approved, when, from the reason they've given me, they make it sound like none should have been.
Thank you for reporting back, I would hope BA would pay the train fare in full, if they were only going to contribute to some of it normally they would say so. It may be mixed in with other issues perhaps But the above reason doesn't surprise me, and is potentially valid. We know there was a backlog of services on Wednesday, some caused by the earlier ATC issue, and some caused by Amadeus Load Control. There were people sat on aircraft just waiting for Amadeus to cough up the data - and these passengers would be eligible for EC261. However if BA agreed to cancel flights in order to reduce the pressure on traffic then it's more complicated, since ATC may well have asked airlines to reduce their flights or risk long delays / diversions. BA is by far the largest operator at LHR.

So this is one of those cases where the underlying reason for EC261 not being paid is potentially valid, but you, as a passenger, may be able to argue that (e.g.) it was really a commercial decision to cancel the LHR-NCL night stop service. You're unlikely to get that via BA, you would have to escalate that via CEDR (and they may well back BA) or MCOL (depends how you argue it). Full details in the main EC261 thread in the Dashboard. What I would say is that in my experience BA are generally reluctant to cancel night stop services since they muck up crew rotas more than a back to back service.
corporate-wage-slave is online now  
Old Aug 8, 18, 5:57 am
  #1098  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 4
Originally Posted by DYKWIA View Post
It will depend on when exactly the doors open when you arrive. So, you can't claim compensation until after the flight. It may be that take off is 4 hours late, but it may get to the destination only 3:30 late.
I understand it’s based on the time doors open upon arrival. But my question is whether the scheduled arrival time that will be used for EU261 claim in this case would be the original arrival time of 21:05 (since the schedule change occurred 7-14 days before departure) or the updated arrival time of 00:05? Basically if the flight opens it’s doors at precisely the newly scheduled time of 00:05 will I be due compensation since it’s 4 hours later than the originally scheduled arrival time of 20:05? Keeping in mind schedule change occurred 8 days from departure.
dmandan5 is offline  
Old Aug 8, 18, 6:02 am
  #1099  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 4
Originally Posted by Tyzap View Post
I'm not sure if you know about the background to this flight.

Norwegian have leased an A380 (ex Singapore airlines) from HiFly to operate these flights. They have been operating for a few days only and the very first flight departed around 4 hours late. Since then they have been unable to recover any of that time, with every flight being around 4 hours or more late.

They are facing some further problems at JFK due to a lack of available gates for an additional A380 at the scheduled time of arrival. The chances are that things will get worse before they get better and I would suggest that 4 hours is likely to be the minimum delay.
I am very familiar with the situation and am booked in premium so that I can experience SQ hard product. They’ve now rescheduled all the flights to 4 hours later so the delays should be far less as they arrive to JFK at midnight now. My question is, if the flight arrives on time at exactly the newly scheduled arrival time of 00:05 (which is 4 hours later than original scheduled arrival time of 20:05), am I due compensation since the schedule change was made 8 days before departure and has landed me 4+ hours from originally scheduled departure time? If so, would that be the full €600? I appreciate the help and knowledge!
dmandan5 is offline  
Old Aug 8, 18, 6:02 am
  #1100  
Moderator, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges, and Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Original Poster
2019 FlyerTalk Awards
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold; Flying Blue Life Platinum; LH Sen.; Hilton Diamond; Kemal Kebabs Prized Customer
Posts: 37,648
Originally Posted by dmandan5 View Post
I understand it’s based on the time doors open upon arrival. But my question is whether the scheduled arrival time that will be used for EU261 claim in this case would be the original arrival time of 21:05 (since the schedule change occurred 7-14 days before departure) or the updated arrival time of 00:05? Basically if the flight opens it’s doors at precisely the newly scheduled time of 00:05 will I be due compensation since it’s 4 hours later than the originally scheduled arrival time of 20:05? Keeping in mind schedule change occurred 8 days from departure.
Since your flight is delayed, rather than cancelled, then it's doors open versus 20:05, and the relevant time is 3 hours, not 4 hours. The airline may disagree with this, and they did offer rebook / cancel options, which they don't need to do with delays below 5 hours, so there is another side to the argument.
corporate-wage-slave is online now  
Old Aug 8, 18, 9:02 am
  #1101  
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 7
Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave View Post
Thank you for reporting back, I would hope BA would pay the train fare in full, if they were only going to contribute to some of it normally they would say so. It may be mixed in with other issues perhaps But the above reason doesn't surprise me, and is potentially valid. We know there was a backlog of services on Wednesday, some caused by the earlier ATC issue, and some caused by Amadeus Load Control. There were people sat on aircraft just waiting for Amadeus to cough up the data - and these passengers would be eligible for EC261. However if BA agreed to cancel flights in order to reduce the pressure on traffic then it's more complicated, since ATC may well have asked airlines to reduce their flights or risk long delays / diversions. BA is by far the largest operator at LHR.

So this is one of those cases where the underlying reason for EC261 not being paid is potentially valid, but you, as a passenger, may be able to argue that (e.g.) it was really a commercial decision to cancel the LHR-NCL night stop service. You're unlikely to get that via BA, you would have to escalate that via CEDR (and they may well back BA) or MCOL (depends how you argue it). Full details in the main EC261 thread in the Dashboard. What I would say is that in my experience BA are generally reluctant to cancel night stop services since they muck up crew rotas more than a back to back service.
Yeah I figured it would involve escalating beyond BA. I’ll speak to my partner tonight, but as I say, all we’re really bothered about is getting the £360 we paid for the train tickets back. I’ll see what my partner thinks, and we’ll go from there.

I just wanted to report back, as it seems as though BA didn’t seem to have a problem with the ‘re-routing’ that people were mentioning last week. They haven’t mentioned anything to do with that in the email at all. They’ve given a completely different reason for the refusual.

I appreciate that other people who posted here who have been granted the compensation probably were in different circumstances, but I just wanted to check that we weren’t being treat completely unfairly.

I really appreciate the detailed and incredibly helpful advice, thanks so much!
rachel333 is offline  
Old Aug 8, 18, 9:04 am
  #1102  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: LHR/SEA/DME
Programs: BAEC G/*O E
Posts: 741
First of, thanks all and CWS in particular for this thread - insanely useful. As I was reading through, I realized I must be eligible for a compensation where my type 3 flight was delayed by between 3 and 4 hours. I never claimed anything assuming only delays of 4+ hours were eligible for any comp. One delay happened this May, another almost a year ago (August 25); both were tech issues (B777). I have already submitted my claims and, honestly, not very hopeful, as it's been months since delays happened. Question I have, if BA rejects (and if I were them, I totally would, for a customer is clearly opportunistic about comp), shall I push back and continue pursuing my claim or shall I not bother (since until yesterday I didn't even know I was eligible for anything any way)?
luitje is offline  
Old Aug 8, 18, 10:24 am
  #1103  
Moderator, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges, and Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Original Poster
2019 FlyerTalk Awards
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold; Flying Blue Life Platinum; LH Sen.; Hilton Diamond; Kemal Kebabs Prized Customer
Posts: 37,648
Originally Posted by luitje View Post
. Question I have, if BA rejects (and if I were them, I totally would, for a customer is clearly opportunistic about comp), shall I push back and continue pursuing my claim or shall I not bother (since until yesterday I didn't even know I was eligible for anything any way)?
They can't reject on the basis of opportunistic behaviour, so what I would suggest is to see what the reply comes back as - it may take a few weeks - and then we can advise further.
corporate-wage-slave is online now  
Old Aug 8, 18, 11:38 am
  #1104  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 4
Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave View Post
Since your flight is delayed, rather than cancelled, then it's doors open versus 20:05, and the relevant time is 3 hours, not 4 hours. The airline may disagree with this, and they did offer rebook / cancel options, which they don't need to do with delays below 5 hours, so there is another side to the argument.
3 hours for €300 and 4 hours for €600, correct?
dmandan5 is offline  
Old Aug 8, 18, 11:53 am
  #1105  
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 5
Update

Originally Posted by NWIFlyer View Post
Just to be clear, it is only the non-exceptional issues which count towards the time - you have to view the text of EC261 as guidance, where actual interpretation and clarification is down to the courts. Had the delay for the sensor problem been 171 minutes, and then the plane was delayed by weather which had subsequently arrived then BA would not be liable.

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.
Originally Posted by brittraveller68 View Post
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.
After being denied my compensation twice, I engaged Bott & Co to take up my case. They were successful in obtaining my compensation. Yes, they took some of the award as their fee, but I didn’t want to give up without a fight. Now they have had success here, I would recommend anyone else on that flight to do the same.
HarryKUK likes this.
brittraveller68 is offline  
Old Aug 8, 18, 12:10 pm
  #1106  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Bangkok / London
Programs: BA Gold, AmEx Platinum, AVIS Presidents Club
Posts: 932
Originally Posted by brittraveller68 View Post




After being denied my compensation twice, I engaged Bott & Co to take up my case. They were successful in obtaining my compensation. Yes, they took some of the award as their fee, but I didn’t want to give up without a fight. Now they have had success here, I would recommend anyone else on that flight to do the same.
I also had a rejected claim which was then paid when I went via Bott and Co. Very annoying as there was no material difference in the claim, except that Bott and Co went to them rather than me.
HarryKUK is offline  
Old Aug 8, 18, 1:53 pm
  #1107  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 38,744
Originally Posted by luitje View Post
First of, thanks all and CWS in particular for this thread - insanely useful. As I was reading through, I realized I must be eligible for a compensation where my type 3 flight was delayed by between 3 and 4 hours. I never claimed anything assuming only delays of 4+ hours were eligible for any comp. One delay happened this May, another almost a year ago (August 25); both were tech issues (B777). I have already submitted my claims and, honestly, not very hopeful, as it's been months since delays happened. Question I have, if BA rejects (and if I were them, I totally would, for a customer is clearly opportunistic about comp), shall I push back and continue pursuing my claim or shall I not bother (since until yesterday I didn't even know I was eligible for anything any way)?
So what that it was a year ago - you have 6 years to bring claims to court in the UK
Of course you push back if it tries to reject it

If you are entutled to compensation, you should receive it - so what that, until recently, you were not aware that you were entitled to it
Dave Noble is offline  
Old Aug 8, 18, 7:19 pm
  #1108  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ireland
Programs: VS Silver, EK Gold, BA GGL/CCR
Posts: 480
Originally Posted by brittraveller68 View Post




After being denied my compensation twice, I engaged Bott & Co to take up my case. They were successful in obtaining my compensation. Yes, they took some of the award as their fee, but I didn’t want to give up without a fight. Now they have had success here, I would recommend anyone else on that flight to do the same.
In a scenario where BA initially rejects a claim and then subsequently pays out on that claim when presented by (eg) Bott & Co, would there be any merit in lodging a small claim to recover the deducted fees from BA?

Would be an interesting approach as at present there is no disincentive for BA in rejecting every single claim at step 1. If they knew they might have to pay the claim plus a fee there might be some incentive to be more “honest”.
Aztec_Flyer is offline  
Old Aug 9, 18, 12:08 am
  #1109  
Moderator, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges, and Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Original Poster
2019 FlyerTalk Awards
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold; Flying Blue Life Platinum; LH Sen.; Hilton Diamond; Kemal Kebabs Prized Customer
Posts: 37,648
Originally Posted by Aztec_Flyer View Post
In a scenario where BA initially rejects a claim and then subsequently pays out on that claim when presented by (eg) Bott & Co, would there be any merit in lodging a small claim to recover the deducted fees from BA?
You couldn't then use MCOL to enforce that since the basic intent of MCOL is to operate with legal costs retained by each side. At least on paper those who have used Bott & Co could have done it themselves through MCOL and in theory would have got the same result. However it would be interesting if CEDR had previously sided with BA and then the courts disagreed, since in that scenario CEDR would have got it wrong.
corporate-wage-slave is online now  
Old Aug 9, 18, 12:24 am
  #1110  
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 5
Originally Posted by Aztec_Flyer View Post


In a scenario where BA initially rejects a claim and then subsequently pays out on that claim when presented by (eg) Bott & Co, would there be any merit in lodging a small claim to recover the deducted fees from BA?

Would be an interesting approach as at present there is no disincentive for BA in rejecting every single claim at step 1. If they knew they might have to pay the claim plus a fee there might be some incentive to be more “honest”.
That’s an interesting thought. I’ve not yet asked Bott & Co for the detail of BA’s response, though I do wonder if BA might have included an “in full and final settlement” statement in their agreement to pay, which might limit any further action.
brittraveller68 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread