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 Oct 2, 18, 3:19 pm
  #1441  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,618
Originally Posted by Trav1970 View Post
Update on this case. BA finally responded to my second message as follows:

Dear Trav1970,

Thanks for contacting us again about your claim for compensation.......

.....When a flight is delayed or cancelled we would normally only rebook you to the next available British Airways flight according to our General Conditions of Carriage. Any exceptions to this policy can only be done at the airport....
.
I just find this unreasonable with its ignorance of Article 8. Why don’t they ‘normally’ comply with art. 8?

Last edited by richardwft; Oct 2, 18 at 3:30 pm
richardwft is offline  
Old Oct 2, 18, 6:20 pm
  #1442  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brighton. UK
Programs: BA Gold / VS /IHG Platinum & Ambassador
Posts: 10,365
Originally Posted by richardwft View Post

I just find this unreasonable with its ignorance of Article 8. Why don’t they ‘normally’ comply with art. 8?
Because there is nothing in Article 8 that says they have to rebook a passenger onto an other airline - the wording is 'comparable transport conditions' not 'on any other carrier'

And there is no case law from a court of a high enough level to create a precedent to say it means using other carriers.

Plus you are in a whole other game of what does 'comparable' mean. And who decides what comparable condition actually means.
UKtravelbear is offline  
Old Oct 2, 18, 11:41 pm
  #1443  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,276
Originally Posted by UKtravelbear View Post
Because there is nothing in Article 8 that says they have to rebook a passenger onto an other airline - the wording is 'comparable transport conditions' not 'on any other carrier'

And there is no case law from a court of a high enough level to create a precedent to say it means using other carriers.

Plus you are in a whole other game of what does 'comparable' mean. And who decides what comparable condition actually means.
You conveniently avoid quoting the last piece of the text which says "at the earliest opportunity".

If the next BA flight is tomorrow, and an alternative carrier has a flight today with seats available in the customer's class of travel, then clearly using BA flights only is not the earliest opportunity, nor are you minimising the inconvenience to the traveller.
simons1 is offline  
Old Oct 3, 18, 4:09 am
  #1444  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brighton. UK
Programs: BA Gold / VS /IHG Platinum & Ambassador
Posts: 10,365
But there is still nothing in the wording of the regulation that states that rebooking to other airlines must happen.

Until that gets changed (unlikely) airlines will implement their own interpretations of 'earliest opportunity'.
UKtravelbear is offline  
Old Oct 3, 18, 4:32 am
  #1445  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,618
Originally Posted by UKtravelbear View Post
...implement their own interpretations of 'earliest opportunity'.
Can ‘opportunity’, ‘earlier’ and ‘later’ be misinterpreted?
richardwft is offline  
Old Oct 3, 18, 5:52 am
  #1446  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,276
Originally Posted by UKtravelbear View Post
But there is still nothing in the wording of the regulation that states that rebooking to other airlines must happen.

Until that gets changed (unlikely) airlines will implement their own interpretations of 'earliest opportunity'.
That's why it's good to see CEDR taking a more robust line these days in different scenarios.
simons1 is offline  
Old Oct 3, 18, 7:24 am
  #1447  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Programs: AY Platinum Lumo, BA, DL Silver, SK, AX Plat, Priority Pass, Marriott PP Ambassador & others
Posts: 544
Originally Posted by UKtravelbear View Post
But there is still nothing in the wording of the regulation that states that rebooking to other airlines must happen.

Until that gets changed (unlikely) airlines will implement their own interpretations of 'earliest opportunity'.
The delay penalty is actually one mechanism which would encourage airlines to rebook passengers on competing airlines. Do so -> avoid lengthy delay -> avoid EU261 penalty is a motivation. The problem is that once the delay penalty threshold has passed, there is no additional penalty irrespective whether the delay continues for one or twenty hours beyond that. In my case, BA's decision to reroute me on another airline shaved off seven hours of the delay which I appreciate. The easy way to fix this would be to define the penalty to be compounding at certain intervals.
Trav1970 is offline  
Old Oct 3, 18, 1:13 pm
  #1448  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 27
Am I entitled to a refund for difference in Taxes, Fees?

On August 8th, 2018, my girlfriend and I was scheduled to travel on BA178, the first sector of a JFK-LHR-JFK Chase Companion Voucher redemption in F.

Due to adverse weather conditions the night before, an incoming aircraft to JFK was diverted, resulting in the cancellation of BA178 which was scheduled to depart at 7;55 a.m.

At 10:26 p.m. on August 7th, I received an email from BA Customer Service informing me of the cancellation and that I had been re-booked on the best alternative flight, AA142, departing JFK at 10:25 a.m. in Business Class (no First Class on this AA flight). I had to click on an 'Accept' button in this email to confirm that I wanted to travel on this new flight, which I did and followed up with a phone call to BA Customer Service.

During that phone call, I was told that I would be refunded 40,000 Avios (difference between F and J redemption) and any applicable difference in Taxes, Fees and Surcharges for the ensuing downgrade from First Class on BA to Business Class on AA. The Avios refund was processed that same night and I was told that upon completion of travel, I should file a claim on the web-form for the difference in Taxes, Fees and Surcharges (I paid $1,305 for each).

I filed that claim, received a case reference number and a follow up email from BA Customer Relations on August 30th indicating that the Refunds Team would be looking into my claim. Having not heard anything further, I contacted BA Customer relations via telephone last Thursday 27th Sept. I was transferred to the Refunds Team who then told me that there would be no refund issued as there was no difference in 'Taxes, Fees and Surcharges' between the two classes of travel on that date.

Is this indeed the case? I am not clear on this but I believe that just for the JFK-LHR sector, there is approximately a $250 difference in Taxes, Fees and Surcharges between F and J for redemption bookings. Any feedback on this would be greatly appreciated.
speedbird 70 is offline  
Old Oct 3, 18, 1:17 pm
  #1449  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Leeds, UK
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, GfL, HH Diamond
Posts: 26,037
Originally Posted by speedbird 70 View Post
On August 8th, 2018, my girlfriend and I was scheduled to travel on BA178, the first sector of a JFK-LHR-JFK Chase Companion Voucher redemption in F.

Due to adverse weather conditions the night before, an incoming aircraft to JFK was diverted, resulting in the cancellation of BA178 which was scheduled to depart at 7;55 a.m.

At 10:26 p.m. on August 7th, I received an email from BA Customer Service informing me of the cancellation and that I had been re-booked on the best alternative flight, AA142, departing JFK at 10:25 a.m. in Business Class (no First Class on this AA flight). I had to click on an 'Accept' button in this email to confirm that I wanted to travel on this new flight, which I did and followed up with a phone call to BA Customer Service.

During that phone call, I was told that I would be refunded 40,000 Avios (difference between F and J redemption) and any applicable difference in Taxes, Fees and Surcharges for the ensuing downgrade from First Class on BA to Business Class on AA. The Avios refund was processed that same night and I was told that upon completion of travel, I should file a claim on the web-form for the difference in Taxes, Fees and Surcharges (I paid $1,305 for each).

I filed that claim, received a case reference number and a follow up email from BA Customer Relations on August 30th indicating that the Refunds Team would be looking into my claim. Having not heard anything further, I contacted BA Customer relations via telephone last Thursday 27th Sept. I was transferred to the Refunds Team who then told me that there would be no refund issued as there was no difference in 'Taxes, Fees and Surcharges' between the two classes of travel on that date.

Is this indeed the case? I am not clear on this but I believe that just for the JFK-LHR sector, there is approximately a $250 difference in Taxes, Fees and Surcharges between F and J for redemption bookings. Any feedback on this would be greatly appreciated.
it is correct there isn’t any difference in TFC between J and F. However compensation for the downgrade isn’t just a difference of fare, it is up to 75% of the cost of the flight.
KARFA is online now  
Old Oct 3, 18, 1:25 pm
  #1450  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 27
Originally Posted by KARFA View Post


it is correct there isn’t any difference in TFC between J and F. However compensation for the downgrade isn’t just a difference of fare, it is up to 75% of the cost of the flight.
Thanks for the quick response, but having accepted to travel on the new flight the night before, does that render me ineligible for any form of compensation, other than the Avios?
speedbird 70 is offline  
Old Oct 3, 18, 1:29 pm
  #1451  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 35,450
Originally Posted by KARFA View Post
it is correct there isn’t any difference in TFC between J and F.
That's not what I see when pricing cash tickets for JFK-LHR-JFK in F and in J, using ITA. F seems to charge $200 more YQ each way than J. The same figures appear to apply for AA and BA.

However, I don't know whether that applies in the same way to award bookings, nor whether the figures may have changed since the OP booked - particularly as the current total TFC for JFK-LHR-JFK in F appear to be USD 1,831.53. (Always assuming I have operated ITA correctly.)
KARFA likes this.
Globaliser is offline  
Old Oct 3, 18, 1:31 pm
  #1452  
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: 39,494
Originally Posted by speedbird 70 View Post
Thanks for the quick response, but having accepted to travel on the new flight the night before, does that render me ineligible for any form of compensation, other than the Avios?
Unless you were offered a First flight then no, it does not rule out EC261. It's best in this situation to ask specifically what First alternatives were available and to note down the reply. It looks like they were trying to prevent you from being 3 hours late into LHR, so there is a double jeopardy there. But if BA placed you in business and offered you no First then that's a downgrade under the Regulation. As noted upthread, if you are claiming EC261 then you best (a) claim it very specifically (b) do your own calculation of what it should be and (c) work out how far you are prepared to go on the Companion voucher issue, since BA aren't very helpful that particular aspect. See upthread for other examples.
corporate-wage-slave is online now  
Old Oct 3, 18, 1:46 pm
  #1453  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 577
I'd be grateful for your advice.

I had a flight booked on Iberia and on the day of travel it was cancelled. I wasn't at the airport. I didn't plan to fly, so no re-routing was offered and ultimately the ticket wasn't used.

I'm not sure what applies in this case. Compensation would be nice or a refund of the ticket.

As you might guess, this was booked during the Avios promotion. I'd normally just forget about it, but I have yet to receive the correct amount of Avios from Iberia.
MarkFlies is offline  
Old Oct 3, 18, 1:48 pm
  #1454  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Leeds, UK
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, GfL, HH Diamond
Posts: 26,037
Originally Posted by Globaliser View Post
That's not what I see when pricing cash tickets for JFK-LHR-JFK in F and in J, using ITA. F seems to charge $200 more YQ each way than J. The same figures appear to apply for AA and BA.

However, I don't know whether that applies in the same way to award bookings, nor whether the figures may have changed since the OP booked - particularly as the current total TFC for JFK-LHR-JFK in F appear to be USD 1,831.53. (Always assuming I have operated ITA correctly.)
thanks, interesting to see that. You would think the carrier surcharge was already high enough on exUS bookings. I would agree that requires some more investigation, and certainly reopens that question of whether there should be a refund for a TFC difference.
KARFA is online now  
Old Oct 3, 18, 3:20 pm
  #1455  
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 4
Mixed fleet cabin crew strikes

I just wanted to report that CEDR have ruled in my favour regarding compensation for a cancelled flight due to the mixed fleet cabin crew strikes last summer. I started the CEDR process not long after the Krüsemann and Others v TUIfly GmbH ruling regarding strike action. The CEDR adjudicator gave that case a lot of weight in his decision. Hopefully this information will help others who were similarly fobbed off by BA. Below are the reasons he provided for his decision.

"1. The airline submits that the Flight and the replacement flight were cancelled due to extraordinary circumstances, namely industrial action by its Mixed Fleet cabin crew.

2. I am mindful that the test for an extraordinary circumstance is that an event must be outside of the normal activity of the operation of an air carrier, and outside the airline’s actual control.

3. The airline has referred me to the case of Gabb v BA, heard in the County Court at Guildford, in support of its submission that the strike amounts to an extraordinary circumstance.

4. However, I am mindful that judgments in the County Court are of persuasive value only, whilst decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union are binding. I am also mindful that the case of Krüsemann and Others v TUIfly GmbH relates to a ‘wildcat strike’ by TUIfly staff. I find that the TUIfly case sets out the position of a strike by an airline’s own staff in respect of the test for extraordinary circumstances.

5. The case of TUIfly found that the wildcat strike was a response to business decisions taken by TUIfly. The decision states that “the risks arising from the social consequences that go with such measures must be regarded as inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the airline”. Further, the strike activity was not beyond the actual control of the air carrier as the strike ceased following an agreement concluded with the staff representatives.

6. I am mindful that, in this case, the strike was not a ‘wildcat’ strike, but was pre-planned and based on grievances for which the airline entered mediation with the Mixed Fleet’s union representatives. I am satisfied that the strike cannot be considered an extraordinary circumstance as the management of staff is inherent in the normal activity of the air carrier. Additionally, where the airline has it in its power to reach agreement with the union, the strike could not be said to be outside of the airline’s actual control. I have not been provided with any information as to how the issues were resolved, however I find that it is not necessary to investigate this as the strike relates to staff relations that are within the normal activity of the air carrier.

7. In view of this, I find that the airline has not established that it has a defence of extraordinary circumstances in respect of the cancellation of the Flight or the replacement flight. I therefore find that the passenger is entitled to the sum of €600.00 in respect of the Flight and I direct the airline to pay this to the passenger."
icbinb is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread