KARFA

Have a look at this thread BA Cabin Crew

simons1

Then you have answered your own question.

If your regular daily job is on E170 or E190s, you are unlikely to be 100% up to speed on say A320 or A321. In an emergency that has implications as 80% familiarity would not work.

So no point BA having someone who is type familiar on one aircraft sat in Berlin only to find that the other aircraft has the problem.

If it was in London it would be realistic, as there are many planes of the same type flying in and out and it is reasonable to have crew on standby cover.

Globaliser

And they're different airlines.

OldFruity

Just reporting back on the 5hr delay experienced on BA 12 Sing to Lhr 9 days ago . BA have agreed Euro 600 no quibbles.

OF

corporate-wage-slave

It is quite difficult to get Swiss to pay EC261, much more so than BA since the Swiss small claims system isn't anything like as slick as the UK one. Furthermore they don't necessarily hold CJEU judgements to the same level as EU and EEA countries. But I don't buy this as extraordinary circumstances, moreover it was their home base so their remedy cannot rest on the inaction of one aircraft, moreover I suspect it was the inspection that was delayed, not the remediation. So if you bought the ticket in the UK then yes go for MCOL. Swiss have signed up for ADR, but not with CEDR, it's with another resolution provider known, rather unfortunately I would have thought, as söp. And I haven't a clue how good or bad they are. But if they were on CEDR I would be suggesting them since this is not that arguable to my mind.
https://soep-online.de/request-form-flight.html

baltatcha

Looking for advice guys.

Travrlled on BA195 on 20/9/18. The plane developed a problem with the AC which delayed our departures by 2.5 hours. We ended up in a holding pattern above IAH and I recall the pilot mentioning we were 14th in the queue. Something is telling me we were circling above due to weather but can’t be 100% sure. Ultimately we were 3.5 hours late.

Do I have a valid claim?

Often1

Your problem is that Swiss law, not EC 261/2004 applies to LX departing from outside the EU, e.g. Switzerland.

While Switzerland has adopted the language of the Regulation, it is not governed by the determinations of EU courts and, in fact, typically applies the Regulation with a somewhat less tortured meanining. In this case, what you are hearing is that LX maintains that it had done everything by way of required maintenance and that when a fault nonetheless occurred, it was an extraordinary circumstance.

While that argument would not apply to an EU carrier or to a departure from the EU, LX may well believe that it can win that case in the court with jurisidction, e.g. Switzerland, or even another nation's court, apply Swiss, not EU, law.

LX and Switzerland are fairly sticky about this, so it may well be that they fight you. Or not.

FEMW

corporate-wage-slave

I see this as Flybe as being on the hook for the whole amount (600€ rather than 250€) but I would be very surprised if they pay either sum, they are the most reluctant EC261 payers of all UK airlines. However that's on the basis of it being an Article 7 claim, and if your MiL looks out of the window, she may notice it is a little bit breezy at the moment. I would suggest she gives herself an extra 5 minutes landside at ABZ to find out from Flybe's ground handler the reason for the cancellation, but it wouldn't surprise me if it is weather related.

corporate-wage-slave

Welcome to Flyertalk and welcome to the BA forum baltatcha. There is a lot more to this forum than EC261 so I do hope we will see you elsewhere in this board in the future. This looks to me, from the information given, a delay of 3.5 hrs on arrival, 2.5 hours claimable, and 1 hour extraordinary circumstances. This normally won't be successful. By all means but a claim in, but I would not put much hope on it.

FEMW

Thanks CWS - her Aberdeen-based son-in-law is a meteorologist for the Met Office so will get data off him! Checking the live departures at ABZ is showing all the wee dinky flying buses to Kirkwall/Sumburgh/Wick as airborne so wind is not a factor here.

tal27

I am about to go round 3 with BA so would welcome some input. 2 of us booked using Avios on BA222 BNA-LHR on 1Sep. This is a 787-8 route. 30 Aug morning (Nashville time), 72 hours before the flight, I saw a cancellation on my app, with an offer to an AA routing through Chicago on Sunday 2Sep. Needless to say that didn't help, so instead called the gold helpline who got us booked a day earlier on the Ba222 31Aug. The helpline even told me to claim compensation, although they couldn't see a reason for the cancellation at that time. So we lost a day of holiday through the cancellation. I put in the claim through the website on return. Fairly quick response (due to status I guess), with the initial email saying:
"Your claim for compensation has been refused because BA0222 on 1 September 2018 was cancelled because of safety reasons which prevented the aircraft operating as scheduled. Under EU legislation, I’m afraid we’re not liable for a compensation payment in this situation. The safety of our customers and crew is always our top priority and we would never operate an aircraft if it was unsafe to do so. Like other airlines around the world, we are carrying out detailed precautionary inspections on Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines on some of our Boeing 787-9s to ensure we meet all the relevant regulatory requirements. To facilitate the additional engine inspections, any associated maintenance and new regulatory requirements, we have had to make some minor adjustments to our schedules. We take all reasonable measures to avoid cancelling a flight and we always consider if there are any operational options available before we make a decision."
From the helpful assistance on this thread, and my own knowledge working in aviation leasing, I went back and respectfully pointed out that the Trent issues were not new, and so they should have been able to predict from the engine hours etc that the engines would need checking, and were responsible to organise replacement aircraft before scheduling and accepting bookings on a route serviced by 787-8s.
Their response (again fairly quick) is: "Thanks for your latest email and your patience while I looked into this. I'm sorry it's taken so long to follow this up. I'd asked for further investigation to be done into your claim. While I appreciate the additional information you've provided, I'm afraid your claim is still denied. As an airworthiness directive was issued by Rolls Royce, these aircraft had to be taken out of service for the checks. While we would like to have enough spare aircraft to cover each of the ones taken out of service, this isn't possible because of the scale of the operation. As the root cause of this is out of our hands, we're not liable for compensation." I can see in the response they are trying to be closer in wording of their response to address the most recent tribunal case posted on this thread, but stating "we don't have enough spare aircraft" just simply is not good enough in my opinion.
Grateful for any hints/thoughts on my next response, as it seems I now need to suggest the CEDR route and refer specifically to case 544147 posted up on Sept 10th as support to ask them once more to reconsider as I do not see they have shown that they took any steps at all (let alone reasonable ones) to keep the route active that day?

corporate-wage-slave

I wouldn't spend any more time with BA, just go to CEDR. As has been shown repeatedly upthread, once Customer Relations reaches a view, it won't then change its mind. However a paralegal looking at the case may change the position, and if not CEDR and almost certainly MCOL would change the outcome. So don't waste any more time on CR. Posts 1260, 1295, 1315 give you a full template as to what to do, I would also carefully line up the lack of preparation and notice for this, that this would have been a commercial decision by BA (rather than hire in more aircraft or re-route with other airlines), just in case BA wise up to the situation and give a stronger argument why the did everything reasonable.

Welcome to Flyertalk tal27 and welcome to the BA forum, I do hope we will see more of you on the BA Board in the future, you are very much welcome here.

tal27

Will do, and I will keep the thread posted on my progress. Their view is tiresome really, but worth challenging in this case.

sgd

My LHR-SJC flight cancellation originally reported on post 1074 of this thread is going a very similar path to the one reported by tal27 above. Several back and forth communications with BA - BA denied the claim and I eventually managed to tease out of them that the cancellation was due to the 787 engine issue, claiming that it's a safety issue, beyond their control etc.

Fully agree with CWS that I doubt I'll get anywhere with BA and need to go the CEDR path. However, CEDR requires 8 weeks since my original report to BA or a final response from BA referring me to CEDR. I'm at just over 6 weeks. I'm thinking I will give it one more try with BA and ask that they either approve my claim (doubtful) or refer me to CEDR.

Really just posting as an update on my case for the group to see - but any thoughts/ comments I'd be interested to hear. I guess my only hesitation about asking BA to refer me to CEDR is I'm not sure it's a good idea to forewarn them - since I'm so close to 8 weeks maybe I should just wait it out?