FlyerTalker39574

UKtravelbear

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.

simons1

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.

UKtravelbear

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'.

FlyerTalker39574

simons1

That's why it's good to see CEDR taking a more robust line these days in different scenarios.

Trav1970

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.

speedbird 70

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.

KARFA

speedbird 70

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?

Globaliser

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.)

corporate-wage-slave

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.

MarkFlies

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.

KARFA

icbinb

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."