Last edit by: serfty
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.
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.
The 2018 BA compensation thread: Your guide to Regulation EC261/2004
#256
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Vancouver
Programs: AB BA Waterloo Mama Mia
Posts: 1,147
No need to be arrogant...we are discussing interesting topics politely
Not only might there be a wait for deicing, but depending on the specific meteorological conditions at the moment, there is a limited time which may elapse between deicing and departure. Once the aircraft "times out" it must return and be deiced again. Thus, it makes a great deal of sense to slow the deicing down to match the taxi and departure flow. That, in turn, is dependent on where the deicing takes place in relation to the gate and the runway.
In the case at hand, the poster does not even suggest that there was no deicing fluid, simply that deicing took longer than he in his apparently expert opinion believes it should take.
In the case at hand, the poster does not even suggest that there was no deicing fluid, simply that deicing took longer than he in his apparently expert opinion believes it should take.
#257
Ambassador, British Airways; FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Leeds, UK
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, GfL, HH Diamond
Posts: 42,967
I think the only way you are going to get any resolution to that issue testycal is to go to court. Are you planning to file a claim and pursue in in court when BA refuse?
#259
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: 63,809
Urteil > 29 C 286/15 (85) | AG Frankfurt am Main - Ausgleichsanspruch wegen Flugverspätung: Fehlende Enteisung des Flugzeugs begründet keinen außergewöhnlichen Umstand < kostenlose-urteile.de
#260
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: LH SEN; BA Gold
Posts: 8,405
The ECJ made a press release today on recent air passenger rights cases.
The joint cases boil down to
While these cases resolve around the issue of jurisdiction, they may nevertheless be of interest to some of you.
Case numbers C-274/16, C-447/16 and C-448/16
flightright GmbH v Air Nostrum
Becker v Hainan Airlines
Barkan v Air Nostrum
Full press release: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/...cp180028en.pdf
The joint cases boil down to
An airline which operated only the first leg of a connecting flight in one Member State can be sued before the courts of the final destination in another Member State for compensation for delays
That is the case where the different flights were part of a single booking for the entire journey and the long delay of the arrival at the final destination is due to an irregularity which took place on the first of those flights
That is the case where the different flights were part of a single booking for the entire journey and the long delay of the arrival at the final destination is due to an irregularity which took place on the first of those flights
Case numbers C-274/16, C-447/16 and C-448/16
flightright GmbH v Air Nostrum
Becker v Hainan Airlines
Barkan v Air Nostrum
Full press release: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/...cp180028en.pdf
#261
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club, easyJet and Ryanair
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 15,926
The ECJ made a press release today on recent air passenger rights cases.
The joint cases boil down to
While these cases resolve around the issue of jurisdiction, they may nevertheless be of interest to some of you.
Case numbers C-274/16, C-447/16 and C-448/16
flightright GmbH v Air Nostrum
Becker v Hainan Airlines
Barkan v Air Nostrum
Full press release: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/...cp180028en.pdf
The joint cases boil down to
While these cases resolve around the issue of jurisdiction, they may nevertheless be of interest to some of you.
Case numbers C-274/16, C-447/16 and C-448/16
flightright GmbH v Air Nostrum
Becker v Hainan Airlines
Barkan v Air Nostrum
Full press release: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/...cp180028en.pdf
Opinion of the Advocate General: CURIA - Documents
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber): CURIA - Documents
#262
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 20
Mixed Fleet strike cancellation
An update on my claim.
I received the defence details from the BA legal team. They don't give any details on why they consider the Mixed Fleet strike a) outside their control and b) not inherent in the normal operation of an airline.
Some excerpts from their defence are below under Spoiler section.
What shall I do at this stage of my claim? Request judgement?
Update: MCOL site now says "DQ sent to British Airways".
I received the defence details from the BA legal team. They don't give any details on why they consider the Mixed Fleet strike a) outside their control and b) not inherent in the normal operation of an airline.
Some excerpts from their defence are below under Spoiler section.
What shall I do at this stage of my claim? Request judgement?
Update: MCOL site now says "DQ sent to British Airways".
Spoiler
Last edited by Temych; Mar 8, 2018 at 1:16 pm
#263
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: GLA
Programs: BD (in memoriam), BA
Posts: 1,359
Can I check if I'm being reasonable? During the snow, I was booked LGW-GLA on Wednesday. That was cancelled, and I rebooked on Thursday. On Thursday, that was cancelled and I was rebooked on Friday. That was, in turn, cancelled. At that point, BA.com stopped letting me rebook online (in fact, I was never even told the flight was cancelled) and the best availability I could see online was Sunday. At this point, I booked a Flybe flight on Friday night from SEN for £95.
I'm asking BA to reimburse me for the two nights hotel (for the first two cancelled flights) and a reroute on BE for the third cancelled flight. This seemed reasonable to me at the time, as it was a full 48 hours earlier than BA could offer ("earliest opportunity"), and the £95 cost of a BE flight is less than two more nights in a London hotel + food, so actually saving BA some money.
BA's initial response is "As you've travelled with alternative airline, we cannot reimburse your additional expenses. I am sorry to disappoint you.". I believe that, at a minimum, they should be liable for 2 nights hotel and then a ~£65 refund, as there were three separate cancellations. Is this fair?
I'm asking BA to reimburse me for the two nights hotel (for the first two cancelled flights) and a reroute on BE for the third cancelled flight. This seemed reasonable to me at the time, as it was a full 48 hours earlier than BA could offer ("earliest opportunity"), and the £95 cost of a BE flight is less than two more nights in a London hotel + food, so actually saving BA some money.
BA's initial response is "As you've travelled with alternative airline, we cannot reimburse your additional expenses. I am sorry to disappoint you.". I believe that, at a minimum, they should be liable for 2 nights hotel and then a ~£65 refund, as there were three separate cancellations. Is this fair?
#264
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club, easyJet and Ryanair
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 15,926
An update on my claim.
I received the defence details from the BA legal team. They don't give any details on why they consider the Mixed Fleet strike a) outside their control and b) not inherent in the normal operation of an airline.
Some excerpts from their defence are below under Spoiler section.
What shall I do at this stage of my claim? Request judgement?
Update: MCOL site now says "DQ sent to British Airways".
I received the defence details from the BA legal team. They don't give any details on why they consider the Mixed Fleet strike a) outside their control and b) not inherent in the normal operation of an airline.
Some excerpts from their defence are below under Spoiler section.
What shall I do at this stage of my claim? Request judgement?
Update: MCOL site now says "DQ sent to British Airways".
The court has has now issued a DQ - a Directions Questionnaire which must be completed by both parties and filled in court within 14 days of issue. Once the court receives the DQs it will then decide how the case will proceed - by mediation, by a hearing or on papers only.
Are you happy to post their full defence (obviously removing any personal information)?
#265
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 67
An update on my claim.
I received the defence details from the BA legal team. They don't give any details on why they consider the Mixed Fleet strike a) outside their control and b) not inherent in the normal operation of an airline.
Some excerpts from their defence are below under Spoiler section.
What shall I do at this stage of my claim? Request judgement?
Update: MCOL site now says "DQ sent to British Airways".
I received the defence details from the BA legal team. They don't give any details on why they consider the Mixed Fleet strike a) outside their control and b) not inherent in the normal operation of an airline.
Some excerpts from their defence are below under Spoiler section.
What shall I do at this stage of my claim? Request judgement?
Update: MCOL site now says "DQ sent to British Airways".
Spoiler
- Having observed that Article 5(3) is a derogation from the principle of compensation and should be strictly applied, the Court then considered the significance of recital 14, set out above. It observed that the circumstances referred to in that recital are only indicators; they identify events which may, but not necessarily will, constitute or give rise to exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, “It follows that not all circumstances surrounding such events are necessarily grounds of exemption from the obligation to pay compensation provided for in Article 5(1)(c) of the Regulation” (para. 22).(my bold) The Court also later held that although recital 14 refers to the Montreal Convention, an international treaty imposing similar liabilities in certain circumstances, that Convention could not determine the proper construction of Article 5(3).
The full text of that judgement can be found here.. http://legalbeagles.info/wp-content/.../HuzarJet2.pdf
#266
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: 63,809
BA's initial response is "As you've travelled with alternative airline, we cannot reimburse your additional expenses. I am sorry to disappoint you.". I believe that, at a minimum, they should be liable for 2 nights hotel and then a ~£65 refund, as there were three separate cancellations. Is this fair?
#267
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: 63,809
There is quite a lot in the spoiler that could be challenged, so I would certainly urge a careful read up on the evidence. I've no idea how this will go down, but things like economic factors simply aren't in the Regulation. I think this is a situation where if you do the homework I doubt BA will go beyond the arbitration stage, assuming you agreed to that.
#268
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: GLA
Programs: BD (in memoriam), BA
Posts: 1,359
Well your line of argument will be that BA failed to rebook you to your destination, but another airline was able so to do. The fact that Flybe were operating, albeit from SEN, and BA was not would in itself be a persuasive line of argument. It would be better if you had also called the Contact Centre as well. So given the timelag I think that should be claimable, and in that case either CEDR or preferably (slightly so) MCOL to reclaim the flight, the hotel, any food, travel and communication expenses. If you claim the Flybe service you can't claim the BA refund, however, it's one or the other.
#269
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: 63,809
Thanks c-w-s. That was my initial claim - I said I wouldn't be seeking a refund, and instead was seeking effectively an endorsement of my ticket over to BE. To be honest, I'd be happy with 2 nights care and a refund (the difference is only £30), but the nuisance there is the refund will go back to my corp TA, and the Flybe flight will then need claimed separately on expenses.
#270
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
EC 261/2004 was intended to set bright lines. Just because a particular resolution might actually be to the mutual advantage of the passenger and the carrier does not mean that either or both need accept it.
In this case, the passenger is certainly due reimbursement under BA's "duty of care" for two nights lodging and food and those will likely be paid if reasonable and documented. Had the passenger accepted the reroute offered by BA, e.g., 2 additional days, he would be entitled to the same duty of care for 2 more days, a total of 4.
Indeed the BE ticket was certainly cheaper than 2 additional days in a hotel and, had the passenger asked, perhaps BA would have issued the ticket or agreed to reimburse for it. But, as it stands, the passenger chose "self-help" and BA may choose not to reimburse for the BE ticket and as there were no additional days of lodging, the 3rd and 4th days of a hotel are not claimable because they did not occur. This is consistent with the duty of care which is a reimbursement or voucher and not compensation.
Under the Regulation, the passenger is, of course, entitled to a full refund of his BA ticket to his chosen original form of payment. While it may be a bit of a nuisance because the forms of payment were different and it appears that he will need to claim the BE ticket back from his employer, it will all wash out and frankly, unless he has a truly slothful employer, he should see a reimbursement for his BE ticket from his employer before he would ever see anything from BA for the value of the BE ticket. The employer will see a refund of the BA segment and a payment for the BE segment and those will, when it is all done, counterbalance each other.
In this case, the passenger is certainly due reimbursement under BA's "duty of care" for two nights lodging and food and those will likely be paid if reasonable and documented. Had the passenger accepted the reroute offered by BA, e.g., 2 additional days, he would be entitled to the same duty of care for 2 more days, a total of 4.
Indeed the BE ticket was certainly cheaper than 2 additional days in a hotel and, had the passenger asked, perhaps BA would have issued the ticket or agreed to reimburse for it. But, as it stands, the passenger chose "self-help" and BA may choose not to reimburse for the BE ticket and as there were no additional days of lodging, the 3rd and 4th days of a hotel are not claimable because they did not occur. This is consistent with the duty of care which is a reimbursement or voucher and not compensation.
Under the Regulation, the passenger is, of course, entitled to a full refund of his BA ticket to his chosen original form of payment. While it may be a bit of a nuisance because the forms of payment were different and it appears that he will need to claim the BE ticket back from his employer, it will all wash out and frankly, unless he has a truly slothful employer, he should see a reimbursement for his BE ticket from his employer before he would ever see anything from BA for the value of the BE ticket. The employer will see a refund of the BA segment and a payment for the BE segment and those will, when it is all done, counterbalance each other.