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 Sep 18, 18, 3:50 am
  #1336  
Hilton Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Singapore
Programs: IHG Plat Ambassador, HHonors Diamond; A3 *Nothing ; BA Exec. Club Gold; Flying Blue Ivory
Posts: 1,376
Originally Posted by OldFruity View Post
BA 12 out of Singapore delayed substantially tonight. Acft arrived today from maintenance in Manilla and apparently had vital medical equipment missing so Its a No Go at present and BA are currently trying to source replacement items. Should find out shortly if we are going anywhere tonight. 3 hrs late so far and no idea if we are due anything other than an explanation and an apology.
OF
One of my friends was on that flight and claimed the EC 261 600 euro for the 4hr+ delay on a flight over 3,500km.

BA did not proactively point the passengers to their rights. My friend is not a frequent flyer and would not have been aware of this (until I told him).
BA did not provide any vouchers or other assistance before the flight.

To me this is clearly BA their fault.

Globalist
Globalist is offline  
Old Sep 18, 18, 5:22 am
  #1337  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,748
Originally Posted by Globalist View Post
One of my friends was on that flight and claimed the EC 261 600 euro for the 4hr+ delay on a flight over 3,500km.

BA did not proactively point the passengers to their rights. My friend is not a frequent flyer and would not have been aware of this (until I told him).
BA did not provide any vouchers or other assistance before the flight.

To me this is clearly BA their fault.

Globalist
I agree. Its time the EU gave teeth to the regulation with penalties for airlines that fail to honour their obligations.
rapidex is offline  
Old Sep 18, 18, 6:21 am
  #1338  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brighton, UK
Programs: BA Gold, IC Ambassador, HH Gold, SPG Gold, Fairmont Platinum
Posts: 3,153
I have just had a bizarre response to an EC261 claim. BA accept that the flight was delayed by over three hours, but as a certain single digit number of minutes was airborne delay "outside BA's control", this takes the delay below three hours and therefore no compensation.

In my view, if you take off late and that is the airline's fault and as a result have to wait for a landing slot at a heavily congested airport, that is a direct and predictable consequence of the delayed take off and any ATC delay cannot be used as an excuse to refuse compensation. I also thought that the three hour rule was not expressed in the regulations, but a product of case law and therefore not absolutely set in stone in a way that could be relied upon as BA would wish.

I have batted this straight back to BA saying I do not believe that compensation can be refused on these grounds and I will have no hesitation in filing a MCOL claim if they continue to refuse.

I would be interested to know if anyone thinks BA's argument has any merit and whether the view is I should stick to my guns.

BTW I am not claiming compensation for the sake of it - I did actually lose out through misconnections that I had to repurchase and the compensation is to cover this.
FrancisA is offline  
Old Sep 18, 18, 9:27 am
  #1339  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: London, UK
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 1,201
Originally Posted by FrancisA View Post
I have just had a bizarre response to an EC261 claim. BA accept that the flight was delayed by over three hours, but as a certain single digit number of minutes was airborne delay "outside BA's control", this takes the delay below three hours and therefore no compensation.
To my mind, this is the same as incurring an operation delay before takeoff, then being shoved to the back of the ATC queue as a result of missing a slot.
armouredant is offline  
Old Sep 18, 18, 11:43 am
  #1340  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 62
EU261 denied due to “hard landing”

Hello
Hoping for some advice after a 5 hour flight delay LHR to JFK and denial of compensation. The reason for the delay is below. I understand that circumstances beyond the airlines control aren’t valid however how is a “hard landing” outside their control? I searched elsewhere online and nothing really comes up. Many thanks in advance.

Your claim’s been refused because BA177 on 07 September to New York was delayed due to operational circumstances outside of our control as the aircraft had to be checked due to a hard landing on the aircraft's previous arrival. Under EU legislation, I’m afraid we’re not liable for a compensation payment in this situation.
Voda_boy is offline  
Old Sep 18, 18, 11:47 am
  #1341  
Hilton Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Cumbria
Programs: BAEC GGL/CCR, Hilton Diamond, Starbucks Gold
Posts: 4,205
Totally within BA’s control as it was their pilots who created the ‘hard landing’. And as this was coming from LHR then they could have swapped with another frame to allow an on time or closer to on time departure.

Although I agree the need to check the aircraft out following the landing.
madfish is offline  
Old Sep 18, 18, 11:47 am
  #1342  
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: GLA
Programs: BAEC: Silver. Nothing else as TopCashBack trumps all hotel programs
Posts: 641
Outrageous!
cupsandsaucers is offline  
Old Sep 18, 18, 11:48 am
  #1343  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 672
They are having a laugh.
PAL62V is offline  
Old Sep 18, 18, 11:51 am
  #1344  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,246
The lies told by BA are getting so silly it's actually funny.

OP should just get on with MCOL or CEDR. Also send it to Daily Mail, they love a good laugh at BA's expense.
T8191 and rapidex like this.
simons1 is offline  
Old Sep 18, 18, 11:52 am
  #1345  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,748
As usual
rapidex is offline  
Old Sep 18, 18, 11:52 am
  #1346  
Moderator, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges, and Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold; Flying Blue Life Platinum; LH Sen.; Hilton Diamond; Kemal Kebabs Prized Customer
Posts: 38,068
This sounds like a so-called "knock-on" claim, but given it was a LHR departure it doesn't wash with me either. For information, advice, experiences in this area, there is a very detailed thread in the Dashboard on EC261.
corporate-wage-slave is online now  
Old Sep 18, 18, 11:54 am
  #1347  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Programs: BAEC Bronze
Posts: 5,109
Didn't we have a recent thread about hard landings?

As I remember, sometimes a hard landing is desirable - there are times that the pilots will need to make strong contact with the runway for instance if the runway is very wet. Also, even if a hard landing isn't beneficial, there could be a sudden wind and/or wind sheer that make it unavoidable even for the most skilled pilots. So to me it doesn't sound that outrageous.
Flexible preferences is online now  
Old Sep 18, 18, 12:31 pm
  #1348  
Moderator, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges, and Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold; Flying Blue Life Platinum; LH Sen.; Hilton Diamond; Kemal Kebabs Prized Customer
Posts: 38,068
Originally Posted by FrancisA View Post
I have just had a bizarre response to an EC261 claim. BA accept that the flight was delayed by over three hours, but as a certain single digit number of minutes was airborne delay "outside BA's control", this takes the delay below three hours and therefore no compensation.
I can't point to anything that says they are definitely right or definitely wrong on this. I'm assuming you were something like 185 minutes late in arriving and BA are claiming (e.g.) 10 minute was due to ATC. Now my take on this is that it broadly takes about 25 to 30 minutes to get airborne out of LHR, if LGW it's more complicated (time of day related). Let me give you an example from the flight I've just taken, LHR-EDI on BA1452. This left gate 3 at LHR at 16:26 (a minute late) and got to EDI gate 10 at 17:55, which is 5 minutes late. As is common at this time of day we were held at the queue point for 27R (the one by Holiday Inn Ariel) for quite a while and only got airborne at 17:01, so it took 35 minutes from pushback to take off. This is a little on the long side, 25 to 30 minutes is what I normally expect, but here's the point: today with strong winds and a congested Eurocontrol boxes day, they accommodated the delay pretty much within the generous time allowed under the schedule, 5 minutes late into EDI, 1 minute late out of the gate, 10 minutes late at 27R, 5 minutes at least recovered from the time padding.

So in your case, if you were airborne say 40 minutes after the eventual pushback, then BA perhaps have a case (and this is where capturing the Expertflyer data or asking here for it within 2 days is so helpful). That's a long delay and if BA are saying 10 minutes is due to ATC then they have the evidence for this. If on the other hand you were airborne at LHR 30 minutes after your delayed pushback then I would say that's not valid. As you can see, the details rather matter here.

If you feel strongly about this, you better forget CEDR and focus on MCOL, but I think you'll have to do a lot of research. And it would need MCOL/CEDR to change their view, in that some paralegal would have to construct a case rather than a Customer Relations representative.
corporate-wage-slave is online now  
Old Sep 18, 18, 1:50 pm
  #1349  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Programs: BA Gold / Hilton Diamond /IHG Spire/ SPG Gold
Posts: 1,534
Originally Posted by simons1 View Post
The lies told by BA are getting so silly it's actually funny.

OP should just get on with MCOL or CEDR. Also send it to Daily Mail, they love a good laugh at BA's expense.
lying is their modus operandi.

Lie, procrastinate, delay, most complaints go away: those that don’t, apologise offer minimal compensation, the majority go away. The last lot are settled with gagging clause.

Unethical at best and my own recent experience is that they are both dishonest and incompetent. An ugly mixture as far as passengers are concerned.
Blueboys999 likes this.
binman is offline  
Old Sep 18, 18, 1:57 pm
  #1350  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 64
Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave View Post
Thanks for putting that online, it will be extremely useful to FTers and lurkers. Paragraphs 9 and 10 are particularly interesting and so anyone claiming needs to emphasise the multiple points raised there, including the fact that BA didn't try hard enough to keep their passengers on time. This "didn't try hard enough" goes right back to why EC261 came about, in the context of low cost carriers' modus vivendi in that period of time.
Sorry to drag this back up, but I can’t understand why BA are fighting so hard on issues with the Trent 1000 - surely these are just effectively billed back to RR en masse? Or have RR already reached their liability cap on this? Has BA already agreed liability from RR based on estimates of what the total cost of compensation etc will be, in which case every claim BA deny is pure profit? Or even worse, under BAs responsibility to mitigate its losses, does this include fighting every claim? Surely their total overhead for the back and forth is more than the payout?
rlnnpt is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread