May 22, 2018, 3:28 am
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
Mar 11, 2018, 1:41 am
#286
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: 63,794
Just as a side point of no great importance, but in every single case I've looked at where interest is claimed, BA deny they are liable for it, on the basis it is not a debt, and they also say the rate is too high. Interest rate is at the discretion of the court and in cases where it is a significant issue there are judgements around from 1% to 8% that can be found, but BA can't complain about 8% since that is the figure set in the Judgment Debts (Rate of Interest) Order 1993 article 2. But since EC261 sets a timeframe when recompense is due, and BA's communication structure makes it very difficult to get swift payments (in straightforward cases they are swift however) then I think BA are fair game here and perhaps MCOL claimants should put this in their particulars. But 3 months interest on 600€ is 12€ so in context it's not a big issue.
Mar 11, 2018, 5:41 am
#287
Join Date: Feb 2018
Programs: not sure
Posts: 10
This link is an interesting case related to technical issues cancelations (but lengthy) especially the statistics at the end under Significance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huzar_v_Jet2.com. one of many
Figures from the CAA show that on average 221.1 million terminal passengers per year use British airports.[11] According to statistics released by the European Commission an average of 1.5 percent of flights to/from British airports each year are delayed or cancelled by more than three hours and so could potentially be claimable.[12]
This is equivalent to approximately 3.27 million passengers per year for each of the previous six years, which is the period covered by the regulation in England and Wales (total 19.6 million passengers).
Figures from the CAA show that on average 221.1 million terminal passengers per year use British airports.[11] According to statistics released by the European Commission an average of 1.5 percent of flights to/from British airports each year are delayed or cancelled by more than three hours and so could potentially be claimable.[12]
This is equivalent to approximately 3.27 million passengers per year for each of the previous six years, which is the period covered by the regulation in England and Wales (total 19.6 million passengers).
Mar 11, 2018, 6:07 am
#288
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: 63,794
Mobility and Transport, the relevant Directorate-General in the Commission, has done research that suggests that 99.7% of travel is outside the scope of Article 7, the reason being that many delays are caused by weather and ATC related issues, plus a delay of 3 hours at a connecting airport, isn't a delay at the final airport. And that's just for EU airlines, non EU airlines coming into Europe are also out of scope for EC261.
Mar 11, 2018, 7:47 am
#289
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Vancouver
Programs: AB BA Waterloo Mama Mia
Posts: 1,147
Purpose of consumer legislation
Seems to me that lack of equipment not weather is the reason for the delay. LHR had already been exposed to cold weather for days prior to my departure and took no steps to increase its ability to de ice aircraft. De-icing in cold weather is a given not an unexpected task. All about capacity and an unwillingness to invest in equipment that would allow meeting demand. I lodged a claim and will update and of course am expecting a denial.
At the end of the day, consumer legislation is intended to protect rights ...is it reasonable to keep passengers including elderly, kids and others not feeling well (speaking of myself who wanted to either find a bed or arrive at my destination as opposed to counting the hours sitting on the plane wondering what was next) on a plane for 4 hours while waiting to be de-iced because there is not enough equipment. We were not offloaded because BA knew that eventually equipment would come free. The option was to offload us and deal with billeting and providing for 250 passengers at midnight which would have been even worse of course and perhaps cost BA even more assuming duty of care covers at least those expenses. If rights are not pursued they are never created. Perhaps a court ruling would be welcome as another step in the direction of protecting rights.
Mar 11, 2018, 8:35 am
#290
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
One must be careful to separate out a lack of de-icing fluid or equipment from the delay post de-icing to wheels up. It does no good to instantly de-ice an aircraft only to have a departure hold of a time which may be as little as 20 minutes as once that has passed, the aircraft must be deiced again.
It is faster, more efficient and, of course cheaper, to hold aircraft pre-deicing until ground control can clear a departure slot and then work backwards. "Cheaper" may not be an EC 261/2004 factor, but the first two certainly are.
There is also the thorny question of limited space. Vast as LHR is, it is not vast enough for those who blithely say that a carrier could have had backup aircraft ready, more deicing pads and so on. Perhaps the answer is to cut flow through LHR by 25% and have carriers send their less profitable routes through some much less inconvenient airport.
It is faster, more efficient and, of course cheaper, to hold aircraft pre-deicing until ground control can clear a departure slot and then work backwards. "Cheaper" may not be an EC 261/2004 factor, but the first two certainly are.
There is also the thorny question of limited space. Vast as LHR is, it is not vast enough for those who blithely say that a carrier could have had backup aircraft ready, more deicing pads and so on. Perhaps the answer is to cut flow through LHR by 25% and have carriers send their less profitable routes through some much less inconvenient airport.
Mar 11, 2018, 8:38 am
#291
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Vancouver
Programs: AB BA Waterloo Mama Mia
Posts: 1,147
Interesting comments re Thomas Cook 2016 de icing
Issues that don’t qualify as “extraordinary” include “poor operational planning by the air carrier....airlines and airports make operational decisions akin to insurance companies based on risk factors. Seems to me that there is no reason why LHR should not have adequate de icing equipment to handle the aircraft that use the airport. A lack of capacity of equipment to service departing aircraft is an operational decision and business decision taken based on risk aversion. No reason why LHR cannot have equipment in reserve or better equipment but a business decision is taken based on cost LHR is willing to absorb and cost airlines are willing to have passed onto them.
Seems to me that lack of equipment not weather is the reason for the delay. LHR had already been exposed to cold weather for days prior to my departure and took no steps to increase its ability to de ice aircraft. De-icing in cold weather is a given not an unexpected task. All about capacity and an unwillingness to invest in equipment that would allow meeting demand. I lodged a claim and will update and of course am expecting a denial.
At the end of the day, consumer legislation is intended to protect rights ...is it reasonable to keep passengers including elderly, kids and others not feeling well (speaking of myself who wanted to either find a bed or arrive at my destination as opposed to counting the hours sitting on the plane wondering what was next) on a plane for 4 hours while waiting to be de-iced because there is not enough equipment. We were not offloaded because BA knew that eventually equipment would come free. The option was to offload us and deal with billeting and providing for 250 passengers at midnight which would have been even worse of course and perhaps cost BA even more assuming duty of care covers at least those expenses. If rights are not pursued they are never created. Perhaps a court ruling would be welcome as another step in the direction of protecting rights.
Seems to me that lack of equipment not weather is the reason for the delay. LHR had already been exposed to cold weather for days prior to my departure and took no steps to increase its ability to de ice aircraft. De-icing in cold weather is a given not an unexpected task. All about capacity and an unwillingness to invest in equipment that would allow meeting demand. I lodged a claim and will update and of course am expecting a denial.
At the end of the day, consumer legislation is intended to protect rights ...is it reasonable to keep passengers including elderly, kids and others not feeling well (speaking of myself who wanted to either find a bed or arrive at my destination as opposed to counting the hours sitting on the plane wondering what was next) on a plane for 4 hours while waiting to be de-iced because there is not enough equipment. We were not offloaded because BA knew that eventually equipment would come free. The option was to offload us and deal with billeting and providing for 250 passengers at midnight which would have been even worse of course and perhaps cost BA even more assuming duty of care covers at least those expenses. If rights are not pursued they are never created. Perhaps a court ruling would be welcome as another step in the direction of protecting rights.
http://conversation.which.co.uk/trav...million-claim/
reference to Patterson va BA
Location:
- Home >
- Flight Delays Blog >
- Paterson v British Airways Goes In Our Favour
Paterson v British Airways Goes In Our Favour
There has been yet another victory for the passengers in court, this time in Paterson -v- British Airways. To summarise, the flight was delayed due to cold weather and four cases of de-icing along with staff rotation. We argued that Chicago has these conditions at this time every year making them inherent to the running of the airline and the District Judge agreed. We have included some extracts from the case report below:
"Mr Paterson flew back to Glasgow from Chicago in January 2014 using flight carrier British Airways, due to the weather, de-icing on four occasions and a staff rotation in Shannon Airport, Ireland; the flight was delayed by 16 hours and 8 minutes."
"I began my submissions on the law using my Skeleton Argument and the instructions received from Instructing Solicitors relying heavily on the case of Siewert (2014). I emphasised the fact the one expects wintry conditions in Chicago at the time of the delay, the details of the weather conditions in Chicago were not extraordinary circumstances, de-icing is part and parcel of everyday procedures one would expect in an airport in the winter at the latitude of Chicago. De-icing is an indispensable procedure for the operation of an aircraft; airlines are regularly faced with situations arising from use of de-icing and de-icing causing delay was not outside the normal categories of airport services. Submissions were made on the need for
Regulation No. 261/2004 to protect consumers for cancellations and delays due to airport
carriers and the need to compensate for delay over three hours. The cases of Wallentin-
Hermann (2008); Huzar (2014); Sturgeon (2009); Folkerts (2013) and Finnair (2012) were referred
to in support of this claim to compensate Mr Paterson for the delay to his flight. I also
submitted that the delay due to British Airways staff rotation was over three hours at Shannon
Airport."
"We returned at 2.00 pm and District Judge Bell gave his determination and judgement. It was a long judgement but in short; he rejected the submission that all weather could amount to extraordinary circumstances. He pointed out that the NEB guidance did not mention de-icing in this context, it is only referred to when stocks of de-icing run out. He referred and relied heavily upon the case of Wallentin which determined that weather could be extraordinary
circumstances when it results from ‘freak weather conditions’ such as a volcano erupting McDonagh v Ryan Air> (2014). District Judge Bell did not accept that the weather on the 4 January 2014 in Chicago amounted to ‘extraordinary circumstances ‘ rather it was weather to be expected at that time of the year. It may be that in other cases weather will give rise to ‘extraordinary circumstances’ but not in this case."
"Mr Paterson flew back to Glasgow from Chicago in January 2014 using flight carrier British Airways, due to the weather, de-icing on four occasions and a staff rotation in Shannon Airport, Ireland; the flight was delayed by 16 hours and 8 minutes."
"I began my submissions on the law using my Skeleton Argument and the instructions received from Instructing Solicitors relying heavily on the case of Siewert (2014). I emphasised the fact the one expects wintry conditions in Chicago at the time of the delay, the details of the weather conditions in Chicago were not extraordinary circumstances, de-icing is part and parcel of everyday procedures one would expect in an airport in the winter at the latitude of Chicago. De-icing is an indispensable procedure for the operation of an aircraft; airlines are regularly faced with situations arising from use of de-icing and de-icing causing delay was not outside the normal categories of airport services. Submissions were made on the need for
Regulation No. 261/2004 to protect consumers for cancellations and delays due to airport
carriers and the need to compensate for delay over three hours. The cases of Wallentin-
Hermann (2008); Huzar (2014); Sturgeon (2009); Folkerts (2013) and Finnair (2012) were referred
to in support of this claim to compensate Mr Paterson for the delay to his flight. I also
submitted that the delay due to British Airways staff rotation was over three hours at Shannon
Airport."
"We returned at 2.00 pm and District Judge Bell gave his determination and judgement. It was a long judgement but in short; he rejected the submission that all weather could amount to extraordinary circumstances. He pointed out that the NEB guidance did not mention de-icing in this context, it is only referred to when stocks of de-icing run out. He referred and relied heavily upon the case of Wallentin which determined that weather could be extraordinary
circumstances when it results from ‘freak weather conditions’ such as a volcano erupting McDonagh v Ryan Air> (2014). District Judge Bell did not accept that the weather on the 4 January 2014 in Chicago amounted to ‘extraordinary circumstances ‘ rather it was weather to be expected at that time of the year. It may be that in other cases weather will give rise to ‘extraordinary circumstances’ but not in this case."
Mar 11, 2018, 9:59 am
#292
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Vancouver
Programs: AB BA Waterloo Mama Mia
Posts: 1,147
Deicing continued
Reading headlines seems this is an ongoing issue at LHR in 2013, December 2017 and now February 2018. Same issue over and over again that LHR cannot handle any curve balls as it runs at almost full capacity all the time with no margin for error. In other words, it is all about the money ie profitability and nothing else.
Reading headlines seems this is an ongoing issue at LHR in 2013, December 2017 and now February 2018. Same issue over and over again that LHR cannot handle any curve balls as it runs at almost full capacity all the time with no margin for error. In other words, it is all about the money ie profitability and nothing else.
Mar 11, 2018, 10:03 am
#293
Ambassador, British Airways; FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Leeds, UK
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, GfL, HH Diamond
Posts: 42,945
Issues that don’t qualify as “extraordinary” include “poor operational planning by the air carrier....airlines and airports make operational decisions akin to insurance companies based on risk factors. Seems to me that there is no reason why LHR should not have adequate de icing equipment to handle the aircraft that use the airport. A lack of capacity of equipment to service departing aircraft is an operational decision and business decision taken based on risk aversion. No reason why LHR cannot have equipment in reserve or better equipment but a business decision is taken based on cost LHR is willing to absorb and cost airlines are willing to have passed onto them.
Seems to me that lack of equipment not weather is the reason for the delay. LHR had already been exposed to cold weather for days prior to my departure and took no steps to increase its ability to de ice aircraft. De-icing in cold weather is a given not an unexpected task. All about capacity and an unwillingness to invest in equipment that would allow meeting demand. I lodged a claim and will update and of course am expecting a denial.
At the end of the day, consumer legislation is intended to protect rights ...is it reasonable to keep passengers including elderly, kids and others not feeling well (speaking of myself who wanted to either find a bed or arrive at my destination as opposed to counting the hours sitting on the plane wondering what was next) on a plane for 4 hours while waiting to be de-iced because there is not enough equipment. We were not offloaded because BA knew that eventually equipment would come free. The option was to offload us and deal with billeting and providing for 250 passengers at midnight which would have been even worse of course and perhaps cost BA even more assuming duty of care covers at least those expenses. If rights are not pursued they are never created. Perhaps a court ruling would be welcome as another step in the direction of protecting rights.
Seems to me that lack of equipment not weather is the reason for the delay. LHR had already been exposed to cold weather for days prior to my departure and took no steps to increase its ability to de ice aircraft. De-icing in cold weather is a given not an unexpected task. All about capacity and an unwillingness to invest in equipment that would allow meeting demand. I lodged a claim and will update and of course am expecting a denial.
At the end of the day, consumer legislation is intended to protect rights ...is it reasonable to keep passengers including elderly, kids and others not feeling well (speaking of myself who wanted to either find a bed or arrive at my destination as opposed to counting the hours sitting on the plane wondering what was next) on a plane for 4 hours while waiting to be de-iced because there is not enough equipment. We were not offloaded because BA knew that eventually equipment would come free. The option was to offload us and deal with billeting and providing for 250 passengers at midnight which would have been even worse of course and perhaps cost BA even more assuming duty of care covers at least those expenses. If rights are not pursued they are never created. Perhaps a court ruling would be welcome as another step in the direction of protecting rights.
Mar 11, 2018, 10:29 am
#294
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Vancouver
Programs: AB BA Waterloo Mama Mia
Posts: 1,147
Not trying to persuade anyone...sharing information others may find useful
It's not me you need to persuade. As I said, if you are convinced of your argument go to court. If you don't want to do that there seems little point spending time presenting your case on an internet forum. There are already some really good comments up-thread which should help you identify and focus on the pertinent issues.
http://www.icax.co.uk/Heathrow_Winte...e_Enquiry.html
Mar 11, 2018, 10:32 am
#295
Ambassador, British Airways; FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Leeds, UK
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, GfL, HH Diamond
Posts: 42,945
EDIT: just to add that the Begg report relates mostly to the poor performance by BAA (now HAL) a few years ago. For the recent snow events in December and last month it wasn’t HAL resources which were lacking, they are responsible for taxiways and runways and they were mostly clear.
Last edited by KARFA; Mar 11, 2018 at 11:02 am
Mar 12, 2018, 3:06 am
#296
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: London, UK
Programs: Virtuoso, FSPP, Hyatt Prive, Hilton Impressario, Marriott Stars/Luminous, Roswood Elite, MO Fan Club
Posts: 560
Hi
This may or may not be the thread for this question - I'm trying to submit an expenses claim for a cancelled BA flight. On the final review page there is no link or button to submit the claim. Only option is to add another issue, which one clicked takes me back to the starting page.
Anyone come across this?
This may or may not be the thread for this question - I'm trying to submit an expenses claim for a cancelled BA flight. On the final review page there is no link or button to submit the claim. Only option is to add another issue, which one clicked takes me back to the starting page.
Anyone come across this?
Mar 12, 2018, 5:38 am
#298
Join Date: Feb 2018
Programs: not sure
Posts: 10
Hi
This may or may not be the thread for this question - I'm trying to submit an expenses claim for a cancelled BA flight. On the final review page there is no link or button to submit the claim. Only option is to add another issue, which one clicked takes me back to the starting page.
Anyone come across this?
This may or may not be the thread for this question - I'm trying to submit an expenses claim for a cancelled BA flight. On the final review page there is no link or button to submit the claim. Only option is to add another issue, which one clicked takes me back to the starting page.
Anyone come across this?
Mar 13, 2018, 4:14 am
#299
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 88
Hi we flew LGW to Dubrovnik yesterday BA2678 and should have arrived at 11.45. We were then told that because of low cloud and the fact that Dubrovnik airport were undergoing work the equipment that helps landing in those situations was not working. The pilot was then left in a holding pattern for over 40 minutes in case the cloud lifted he said he had enough fuel, good. Then he said we would be going to land at Split.. On arrival at Split we were then transported to Dubrovnik by coach and arrived at Dubrovnik after 6pm.
We were given a bottle of water and cheese/ham roll. We had booked Hotel transport from Dubrovnik airport to hotel so of course he heard at the airport that we had gone to Split, we will probably have to pay for this. On arrival at Dubrovnik from Split we than had to get a taxi to the hotel.
I know weather can be an issue when trying for EU261 but this was down to a piece of equipment. The pilot and CSD told us this. Would we have a claim. We had arrived at our destination although not the airport as the coach driver dropped us off at the bus station, it was 5 hours 15 minutes and would have been 6 hours if we had gone back to the airport. Thank you
We were given a bottle of water and cheese/ham roll. We had booked Hotel transport from Dubrovnik airport to hotel so of course he heard at the airport that we had gone to Split, we will probably have to pay for this. On arrival at Dubrovnik from Split we than had to get a taxi to the hotel.
I know weather can be an issue when trying for EU261 but this was down to a piece of equipment. The pilot and CSD told us this. Would we have a claim. We had arrived at our destination although not the airport as the coach driver dropped us off at the bus station, it was 5 hours 15 minutes and would have been 6 hours if we had gone back to the airport. Thank you
just one more thing there is no seat map on my booking for the return Flight from Dubrovnik to LGW on Friday 16th, so cannot check or book seats anyone know why. Thanks
Last edited by NWIFlyer; Mar 19, 2018 at 12:49 am Reason: Merge consecutive posts
Mar 13, 2018, 4:24 am
#300
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,492
when you mention the equipment that prevented landing in the weather, was this equipment operated by and the responsibility of the airline? sounds like make something related with Air Traffic or the Airport themselves (which would negate any compensation as not within the airline's control)