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
Jul 20, 2018, 10:06 am
#901
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Northern England
Posts: 1,531
Thanks all. I will try AA first. I’m not expecting much in terms of refund.
the flight was over 4hrs (just by 5mins) late in to MCO. Delay was a delay to the inbound flight to Dublin. It left Chicago late, no reason given but other flights left on time so not weather or atc (I was monitoring it). Should get 4*600 Euro
the flight was over 4hrs (just by 5mins) late in to MCO. Delay was a delay to the inbound flight to Dublin. It left Chicago late, no reason given but other flights left on time so not weather or atc (I was monitoring it). Should get 4*600 Euro
Jul 20, 2018, 10:24 am
#902
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Oslo, Norway
Programs: BA blue
Posts: 148
Seeing this thread on the top made me think of a hypothetical question:
Let's say you have a 10 hour layover before a connecting flight on the same ticket. If the first flight is 4 hours delayed, will that qualify for EC261 compensation other than the food coupon and such? I'm thinking it won't qualify for the 600EUR since you won't be delayed to the final destination.
Will it matter if you have, say, an important meeting or other plans during the layover that makes it a destination in itself?
Let's say you have a 10 hour layover before a connecting flight on the same ticket. If the first flight is 4 hours delayed, will that qualify for EC261 compensation other than the food coupon and such? I'm thinking it won't qualify for the 600EUR since you won't be delayed to the final destination.
Will it matter if you have, say, an important meeting or other plans during the layover that makes it a destination in itself?
Jul 20, 2018, 10:27 am
#903
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,597
Seeing this thread on the top made me think of a hypothetical question:
Let's say you have a 10 hour layover before a connecting flight on the same ticket. If the first flight is 4 hours delayed, will that qualify for EC261 compensation other than the food coupon and such? I'm thinking it won't qualify for the 600EUR since you won't be delayed to the final destination.
Will it matter if you have, say, an important meeting or other plans during the layover that makes it a destination in itself?
Let's say you have a 10 hour layover before a connecting flight on the same ticket. If the first flight is 4 hours delayed, will that qualify for EC261 compensation other than the food coupon and such? I'm thinking it won't qualify for the 600EUR since you won't be delayed to the final destination.
Will it matter if you have, say, an important meeting or other plans during the layover that makes it a destination in itself?
If you want it to be a destination, it needs to be booked as such. If it is a connection, then the airline can rebook travel in case of a delay to compleetly bypass the connection if it wants to - there is no compensation due
Jul 20, 2018, 1:35 pm
#904
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 136
Would appreciate if any of the experts here in this thread could advise on my claim with Air Canada posted here:
Help with EC Regulation 261/2004 - AC is denying my claim
Thanks!
Help with EC Regulation 261/2004 - AC is denying my claim
Thanks!
Jul 20, 2018, 10:22 pm
#905
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bangkok, Thailand. No longer Palm Coast, FL though still exiled, again, from the Bay Area.
Programs: Only the good ones
Posts: 5,153
The cases you refer to are easily accessible with a quick Google.
If as it appears the flight was scheduled on a 787 then I fear you may be struggling here - I believe it is indeed the case that a manufacturing defect affecting the whole fleet is considered an extraordinary item.
Another option here may be to give Bott & Co a call and ask them what they think.
If as it appears the flight was scheduled on a 787 then I fear you may be struggling here - I believe it is indeed the case that a manufacturing defect affecting the whole fleet is considered an extraordinary item.
Another option here may be to give Bott & Co a call and ask them what they think.
"42 Therefore, it must be held that, in the course of the activities of an air carrier, that unexpected event is
inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier’s activity, as air carriers are confronted as a matter of
course with unexpected technical problems.
43 Second, the prevention of such a breakdown or the repairs occasioned by it, including the replacement of
a prematurely defective component, is not beyond the actual control of that carrier, since the latter is
required to ensure the maintenance and proper functioning of the aircraft it operates for the purposes of its
business.
44 Therefore, a technical problem, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, cannot fall within the
definition of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004.
45 Lastly, it must be stated that, even assuming that, depending on the circumstances, an air carrier takes the
view that it may rely on the fault of the manufacturer of certain defective components, the main objective
of Regulation No 261/2004, which aims to ensure a high level of protection for passengers, and the strict
interpretation to be given to Article 5(3) of that regulation, preclude the air carrier from justifying any
refusal to compensate passengers who have experienced serious trouble and inconvenience from relying,
on that basis, on the existence of an ‘extraordinary circumstance’."
Further, the RR Trent engine issues have been known since 2016:
"Corrosion-related fatigue cracking of IPT blades was discovered at All Nippon Airways in early 2016. Engines showing excessive corrosion were pulled from service and repaired in a shop visit, more corrosion-resistant blades were developed and rolled-out. HPT blades fatigue was checked and IPC rotor seals inspected but several airlines had to ground 787s. Rolls had to spend $35 million on unexpected “technical provisions” for its in-service Trent 1000 fleet in 2017." (From Wikipedia.)
It appears that this is an inherent problem that carrier activities are confronted with in the normal operation of their business. The fact that the particular aircraft originally assigned for my flight actually operated that day, just on another route, shows that the issue here was not extraordinary circumstances, but rather a business decision. BA could have avoided causing the inconvenience by not waiting to get approval of their "wet-lease" of the A330 aircraft from Qatar Airlines, to make sure their operations were not interupted This was a known defect, and it wasn't until April 26, 2018, after the date of my flight, that:
"On 26 April 2018, the FAA limited ETOPS for package C engines.[19] This limited flights to 60 min from a diversion airport, affecting Air Europa, Air New Zealand, Avianca, British Airways, Ethiopian, LATAM, LOT Polish, Norwegian Air, Royal Brunei, Scoot, Thai Airways, Virgin Atlantic."
Carriers can always pursue the responsible manufacturers for the losses and damages sustained.
Jul 21, 2018, 12:57 am
#906
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
Thanks, however, the court clearly stated that a carrier can not rely upon manufacturer's defects as extraordinary circumstances:
"42 Therefore, it must be held that, in the course of the activities of an air carrier, that unexpected event is
inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier’s activity, as air carriers are confronted as a matter of
course with unexpected technical problems.
43 Second, the prevention of such a breakdown or the repairs occasioned by it, including the replacement of
a prematurely defective component, is not beyond the actual control of that carrier, since the latter is
required to ensure the maintenance and proper functioning of the aircraft it operates for the purposes of its
business.
44 Therefore, a technical problem, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, cannot fall within the
definition of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004.
45 Lastly, it must be stated that, even assuming that, depending on the circumstances, an air carrier takes the
view that it may rely on the fault of the manufacturer of certain defective components, the main objective
of Regulation No 261/2004, which aims to ensure a high level of protection for passengers, and the strict
interpretation to be given to Article 5(3) of that regulation, preclude the air carrier from justifying any
refusal to compensate passengers who have experienced serious trouble and inconvenience from relying,
on that basis, on the existence of an ‘extraordinary circumstance’."
Further, the RR Trent engine issues have been known since 2016:
"Corrosion-related fatigue cracking of IPT blades was discovered at All Nippon Airways in early 2016. Engines showing excessive corrosion were pulled from service and repaired in a shop visit, more corrosion-resistant blades were developed and rolled-out. HPT blades fatigue was checked and IPC rotor seals inspected but several airlines had to ground 787s. Rolls had to spend $35 million on unexpected “technical provisions” for its in-service Trent 1000 fleet in 2017." (From Wikipedia.)
It appears that this is an inherent problem that carrier activities are confronted with in the normal operation of their business. The fact that the particular aircraft originally assigned for my flight actually operated that day, just on another route, shows that the issue here was not extraordinary circumstances, but rather a business decision. BA could have avoided causing the inconvenience by not waiting to get approval of their "wet-lease" of the A330 aircraft from Qatar Airlines, to make sure their operations were not interupted This was a known defect, and it wasn't until April 26, 2018, after the date of my flight, that:
"On 26 April 2018, the FAA limited ETOPS for package C engines.[19] This limited flights to 60 min from a diversion airport, affecting Air Europa, Air New Zealand, Avianca, British Airways, Ethiopian, LATAM, LOT Polish, Norwegian Air, Royal Brunei, Scoot, Thai Airways, Virgin Atlantic."
Carriers can always pursue the responsible manufacturers for the losses and damages sustained.
"42 Therefore, it must be held that, in the course of the activities of an air carrier, that unexpected event is
inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier’s activity, as air carriers are confronted as a matter of
course with unexpected technical problems.
43 Second, the prevention of such a breakdown or the repairs occasioned by it, including the replacement of
a prematurely defective component, is not beyond the actual control of that carrier, since the latter is
required to ensure the maintenance and proper functioning of the aircraft it operates for the purposes of its
business.
44 Therefore, a technical problem, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, cannot fall within the
definition of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004.
45 Lastly, it must be stated that, even assuming that, depending on the circumstances, an air carrier takes the
view that it may rely on the fault of the manufacturer of certain defective components, the main objective
of Regulation No 261/2004, which aims to ensure a high level of protection for passengers, and the strict
interpretation to be given to Article 5(3) of that regulation, preclude the air carrier from justifying any
refusal to compensate passengers who have experienced serious trouble and inconvenience from relying,
on that basis, on the existence of an ‘extraordinary circumstance’."
Further, the RR Trent engine issues have been known since 2016:
"Corrosion-related fatigue cracking of IPT blades was discovered at All Nippon Airways in early 2016. Engines showing excessive corrosion were pulled from service and repaired in a shop visit, more corrosion-resistant blades were developed and rolled-out. HPT blades fatigue was checked and IPC rotor seals inspected but several airlines had to ground 787s. Rolls had to spend $35 million on unexpected “technical provisions” for its in-service Trent 1000 fleet in 2017." (From Wikipedia.)
It appears that this is an inherent problem that carrier activities are confronted with in the normal operation of their business. The fact that the particular aircraft originally assigned for my flight actually operated that day, just on another route, shows that the issue here was not extraordinary circumstances, but rather a business decision. BA could have avoided causing the inconvenience by not waiting to get approval of their "wet-lease" of the A330 aircraft from Qatar Airlines, to make sure their operations were not interupted This was a known defect, and it wasn't until April 26, 2018, after the date of my flight, that:
"On 26 April 2018, the FAA limited ETOPS for package C engines.[19] This limited flights to 60 min from a diversion airport, affecting Air Europa, Air New Zealand, Avianca, British Airways, Ethiopian, LATAM, LOT Polish, Norwegian Air, Royal Brunei, Scoot, Thai Airways, Virgin Atlantic."
Carriers can always pursue the responsible manufacturers for the losses and damages sustained.
38 Nevertheless, certain technical problems may constitute extraordinary circumstances. That would be the case in the situation where it was revealed by the manufacturer of the aircraft comprising the fleet of the air carrier concerned, or by a competent authority, that those aircraft, although already in service, are affected by a hidden manufacturing defect which impinges on flight safety
That is why I would speak to someone like Bott & Co for advice.
Jul 21, 2018, 1:55 am
#907
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: 63,804
There is definitely protection to BA if their entire 787 fleet was immediately grounded. This has happened in the past, after either a crash or near miss has exposed a mechanical issue which could repeat with equally appalling outcomes. There is a bit about this in the Huzar case. At the other extreme, if an airline has a varied fleet, only some of the aircraft type is affected and it's not a "do this immediately" issue then airlines have ways and means to protect the interests of passengers. Furthermore "extraordinary circumstances" isn't a comprehensive get-out-of-gaol card, the airline is still responsible for the timely resolution of the outcome.
It's certainly a case which is more complex and less straightforward than others. My hunch is that there is a fairly strong argument for the passenger here, and it will either require the use of specialists such as Bott, or a fairly forensic case being built up via personal investigation.
Jul 21, 2018, 4:21 am
#908
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 CAA have issued a statement regarding compensation when flight are cancelled or delayed as a result of strikes of the airline's own employees:
Source: https://www.caa.co.uk/News/CAA-state...yanair-strike/
CAVEAT: This will almost certainly end up in court, there is no way Ryanair will accept this as legally binding so will challenge it. Remember though if notice of cancellation is served more than 14 days from departure then there is no compensation. The good news for us mere mortals is that we should have a definitive answer to the strikes question in the not too distant future.
"In response to Ryanair's passengers' concerns about their rights during the current and planned industrial action, a spokesperson for the UK Civil Aviation Authority, said:
“Passengers have the right to seek compensation under EU legislation when flights are delayed by three hours or more, cancelled or when they are denied boarding.
“We note that the recent industrial action is not by Ryanair's UK employees, but it is the view of the UK Civil Aviation Authority, taking account of previous Court rulings, that when a flight cancellation is caused by strike action by the airline's employees, the airline is required to pay compensation to passengers in respect of the cancellation of the flight, if it has not warned passengers of the cancellation at least two weeks prior to the scheduled time of departure.
“In the case of the most recent industrial action involving Ryanair, passengers must first submit their claim to the airline and if they are not satisfied with the response, they can seek redress via the approved Alternative Dispute Resolution service."
“Passengers have the right to seek compensation under EU legislation when flights are delayed by three hours or more, cancelled or when they are denied boarding.
“We note that the recent industrial action is not by Ryanair's UK employees, but it is the view of the UK Civil Aviation Authority, taking account of previous Court rulings, that when a flight cancellation is caused by strike action by the airline's employees, the airline is required to pay compensation to passengers in respect of the cancellation of the flight, if it has not warned passengers of the cancellation at least two weeks prior to the scheduled time of departure.
“In the case of the most recent industrial action involving Ryanair, passengers must first submit their claim to the airline and if they are not satisfied with the response, they can seek redress via the approved Alternative Dispute Resolution service."
Source: https://www.caa.co.uk/News/CAA-state...yanair-strike/
CAVEAT: This will almost certainly end up in court, there is no way Ryanair will accept this as legally binding so will challenge it. Remember though if notice of cancellation is served more than 14 days from departure then there is no compensation. The good news for us mere mortals is that we should have a definitive answer to the strikes question in the not too distant future.
Jul 21, 2018, 6:17 am
#909
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Northern England
Posts: 1,531
Thanks, our Ryanair positioning flight to Dublin was cancelled due to the pilot strike. I was going to submit a claim anyway, this should help a bit.
still have an active claim against BA for last years strikes. The test case has not yet been heard apparently
still have an active claim against BA for last years strikes. The test case has not yet been heard apparently
Jul 21, 2018, 7:01 am
#910
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,950
This is a bit of an old one. The problem occurred December 2017, I filed the claim April 2018 and BA gave me the heave-ho rather quickly. I've only decided to invest the time to try and go at it again.
Context: I had a CX multi-carrier award ticket which had a BA sector: the relevant flights are:
After much anxious calls, eventually an agent from the BA UK centre helped me rebook onto QR9 First on the next day (i.e. 17 December, departing about 1am), with a corresponding rebook of the LHR-MAN sector. The agent also let me know that the website was the best place to file an EU claim and reasonable expenses could be claimable.
In April 2018 I filed the EU claim using BA's website, including a bill for one night's hotel in Doha. The email reply came back quickly - the relevant bits are below:
I'm surprised they mentioned that the flight was cancelled on the 14th when it showed cancelled much earlier for me. Still, they're not explaining what operational circumstances were the issue, so I suppose I have to find out what, but how? Does someone have a FlightStats Premium subscription that they can go further back than I can to find out what went wrong?
As for the hotel, I wasn't going to book this but due to the extended delay, I thought it was fairly reasonable to book a night (otherwise I would have been "up" for about 26 hours compared to the original 8 hours). Maybe BA rejected it because they also rejected my compensation claim, and/or they think that since I was supposed to leave at 8am on 16 Dec and instead I had to depart merely 17 hours later, that's not "overnight" so no hotel.
I'm thinking this is worth writing back to BA about, particularly if I can pinpoint exactly why BA cancelled the flight. In hindsight, I probably should have gone after BA at the airport (either BKK or DOH or even LHR) rather than try to claim it again later. Does anyone think I still have a case, or am I entitled to nothing?
Would pushing my case that I received no notification at all about the cancellation help at all? (I realise EU261 doesn't really cover that kind of aspect)
Context: I had a CX multi-carrier award ticket which had a BA sector: the relevant flights are:
- 15DEC QR 833 BKK-DOH dep 1930 arr 2305 First
- 16DEC BA 122 DOH-LHR dep 0840 arr 1315 First
- 16DEC BA1376 LHR-MAN dep 1950 arr 2050 Business
After much anxious calls, eventually an agent from the BA UK centre helped me rebook onto QR9 First on the next day (i.e. 17 December, departing about 1am), with a corresponding rebook of the LHR-MAN sector. The agent also let me know that the website was the best place to file an EU claim and reasonable expenses could be claimable.
In April 2018 I filed the EU claim using BA's website, including a bill for one night's hotel in Doha. The email reply came back quickly - the relevant bits are below:
Dear ...
I completely understand how disruptive it is when we cancel a flight. I'm disappointed to hear we didn't advise you of the cancellation of your flight. From the information in your booking, I can see your flight was cancelled on 14 December 2017. Although we do have your contact details, I can see we didn't send a message to you about the cancellation and for this I'm truly sorry.
I'm pleased to hear our agent was able to help you rebook onto a flight with Qatar Airways on 17 December, although I appreciate how frustrating this was for you especially as this caused you to arrive into London Heathrow a day later than you had planned.
From what you've told me in your email, I completely understand why you've asked us to pay you compensation on this occasion. However, your claim’s been refused because BA0122 on 16 December 2017 was cancelled because of operational circumstances outside of our control. Under EU legislation, I’m afraid we’re not liable for a compensation payment in this situation.
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. We’re very sorry the cancellation was necessary in this case.
Thanks for sending me the receipt for your hotel for one night's accommodation in Doha. During times of disruption, we have a limited liability to assist with expenses, such as hotels, meals, and refreshments and transport. I know you'll appreciate, we want to be fair to all our customers, so we can remain consistent. Therefore, as your hotel costs are classed as consequential loss, I'm unable to settle your claim. I'm very sorry to let you down.
I completely understand how disruptive it is when we cancel a flight. I'm disappointed to hear we didn't advise you of the cancellation of your flight. From the information in your booking, I can see your flight was cancelled on 14 December 2017. Although we do have your contact details, I can see we didn't send a message to you about the cancellation and for this I'm truly sorry.
I'm pleased to hear our agent was able to help you rebook onto a flight with Qatar Airways on 17 December, although I appreciate how frustrating this was for you especially as this caused you to arrive into London Heathrow a day later than you had planned.
From what you've told me in your email, I completely understand why you've asked us to pay you compensation on this occasion. However, your claim’s been refused because BA0122 on 16 December 2017 was cancelled because of operational circumstances outside of our control. Under EU legislation, I’m afraid we’re not liable for a compensation payment in this situation.
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. We’re very sorry the cancellation was necessary in this case.
Thanks for sending me the receipt for your hotel for one night's accommodation in Doha. During times of disruption, we have a limited liability to assist with expenses, such as hotels, meals, and refreshments and transport. I know you'll appreciate, we want to be fair to all our customers, so we can remain consistent. Therefore, as your hotel costs are classed as consequential loss, I'm unable to settle your claim. I'm very sorry to let you down.
As for the hotel, I wasn't going to book this but due to the extended delay, I thought it was fairly reasonable to book a night (otherwise I would have been "up" for about 26 hours compared to the original 8 hours). Maybe BA rejected it because they also rejected my compensation claim, and/or they think that since I was supposed to leave at 8am on 16 Dec and instead I had to depart merely 17 hours later, that's not "overnight" so no hotel.
I'm thinking this is worth writing back to BA about, particularly if I can pinpoint exactly why BA cancelled the flight. In hindsight, I probably should have gone after BA at the airport (either BKK or DOH or even LHR) rather than try to claim it again later. Does anyone think I still have a case, or am I entitled to nothing?
Would pushing my case that I received no notification at all about the cancellation help at all? (I realise EU261 doesn't really cover that kind of aspect)
Jul 21, 2018, 7:24 am
#911
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: 63,804
No, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, it's not your responsibility to prove this, it's BA's responsibility to prove it. It's much easier to find things out close to the event, but as it happens from memory BA just swiped out the Doha service for several weeks due to crew and equipment shortages. It was advertised at the time, and well known on this forum, but still it is the responsibility of the airline to make the communication, and again the onus is on the airline rather than you to prove this. It may be they sent a message to Cathay for example, which wasn't then passed on. So I would send this to CEDR for resolution, claim for the hotel and the delay, make it clear you weren't told about the cancellation, and that you don't believe to be extraordinary circumstances. MCOL would be your other option but I don't think it's needed.
Jul 21, 2018, 7:27 am
#912
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,188
Usually how long does it take for BA to respond to a compensation claim due to cancellation etc?
Jul 21, 2018, 7:32 am
#913
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: 63,804
Jul 21, 2018, 2:47 pm
#915
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 67
Some of us have never had any doubt about the rights and wrongs of your claim, which are only now becoming clearer, no thanks to the CAA.