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
Oct 19, 2018, 12:49 am
#1501
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Brussels, London, Geneva, ....
Programs: Priority Club Gold, Eurostar Carte Blanche, formerly BA Gold, formerly KLM silver
Posts: 245
Thanks for that. Looking at the media coverage of the storm, I was expecting BA to have loads of cancellations from LGW this afternoon but it turns out BA2762 and return to AMS is in fact one of only *two* cancellations between 1200 and 2200 (the other being BA2960). Now I have to work out how to archive that evidence in case I need it.
Oct 19, 2018, 12:53 am
#1502
Join Date: Apr 2007
Programs: QF, VA, AC, Hyatt, Marriott
Posts: 3,779
The NEB list is also known as the airlines 'wish list' as it contains a long list of wishful EC's covering everything they would like to see included in the regulations.
It's a none binding, none official, none legal document that was written when a few airlines and the CAA got their heads together in 2013 to draw up a list that they hoped would become accepted as Extraordinary Circumstance, thus allowing them to avoid compensation payments.
It carries no weight or legal standing and has be dismissed in the high court case of Huzar v Jet2.com. It has been heavily amended over the years as legal cases have clarified the law forcing many entries to be removed.
You can ignore it as wishful bluster.
https://www.scribd.com/document/1879...List-Version-1
It's a none binding, none official, none legal document that was written when a few airlines and the CAA got their heads together in 2013 to draw up a list that they hoped would become accepted as Extraordinary Circumstance, thus allowing them to avoid compensation payments.
It carries no weight or legal standing and has be dismissed in the high court case of Huzar v Jet2.com. It has been heavily amended over the years as legal cases have clarified the law forcing many entries to be removed.
You can ignore it as wishful bluster.
https://www.scribd.com/document/1879...List-Version-1
Congratulations. What source did you use to get information on flight operations for LGW? I'm now trying to find out similar information for the airport I was delayed at. I don't think Flight Aware has that information.
Oct 19, 2018, 10:37 am
#1503
Join Date: Sep 2006
Programs: BA, LH, AF, TK
Posts: 213
I recently was booked to fly DME-LHR-JFK-LAX-SJC-LAX-JFK (over 2 days). A technical delay to the inbound flight to Moscow meant that the DME-LHR flight was delayed by over three hours and the subsequent connections missed. BA were unable to preserve the original routing because of lack of availability on later flights so I was rebooked the next day from LHR-SFO direct and had to make my own way to SJC to rejoin the itinerary. BA are denying any compensation is due because I arrived back in NY as planned. Given that I would be owed 400 Euro if I only was flying the first sector and 600 Euro, if the original routing was followed, I was thinking they would at least offer the 50% rate. Interested in views from the experts. I guess the EC regs aren't quite designed for standard FT itineraries like this...
Oct 19, 2018, 10:52 am
#1504
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brighton. UK
Programs: BA Gold / VS /IHG Diamond & Ambassador
Posts: 14,176
As you wern't apparently delayed in your arrival at your final destination no compensation is due.
Oct 19, 2018, 12:03 pm
#1505
Join Date: Sep 2006
Programs: BA, LH, AF, TK
Posts: 213
In determining the distance, the basis shall be the last destination at which the denial of boarding or cancellation will delay the passenger's arrival after the scheduled time.
When passengers are offered re-routing to their final destination on an alternative flight pursuant to Article 8, the arrival time of which does not exceed the scheduled arrival time of the flight originally booked...
...the operating air carrier may reduce the compensation provided for in paragraph 1 by 50 %.
No minimum delay to arrival at the final destination is mentioned here.
Oct 19, 2018, 4:33 pm
#1506
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Cincinnati, OH USA
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 178
Downgraded - premium economy to economy
BA ticket Denmark to USA via LHR. Enroute to LHR, I received notice that my flight LHR-LAX was cancelled. This was a BA flight operated as codeshare by AA. Flight cancelled due to crew being unavailable (BA & AA confirmed crew issue). BA put me on later flight but only economy available. BA told me to file EC261 claim with AA. AA denied claim saying it was not an involuntary downgrade since I flew in "same cabin" I have since filed EC261 claim with BA for involuntary downgrade. I think I should have filed with BA first. There was a delay but I arrived at destination with minor delay. Reading EC 261, it was an involuntary downgrade. Both AA and BA have seperate premium economy cabins, with different pre flight and inflight amenities as well as frequent flyer mile earnings. I believe I am entitled to 75% of the fare, but what fare? 75% of one way premium economy fare paid?
Advise requested as to if this qualifies as a "involuntary downgrade" and EC261 compensation due. Anyone else experienced this problem with AA or BA and your results. Please excuse the cross posting (AA & BA forum) since I may be bounce between the 2 airlines. Thanks
BA ticket Denmark to USA via LHR. Enroute to LHR, I received notice that my flight LHR-LAX was cancelled. This was a BA flight operated as codeshare by AA. Flight cancelled due to crew being unavailable (BA & AA confirmed crew issue). BA put me on later flight but only economy available. BA told me to file EC261 claim with AA. AA denied claim saying it was not an involuntary downgrade since I flew in "same cabin" I have since filed EC261 claim with BA for involuntary downgrade. I think I should have filed with BA first. There was a delay but I arrived at destination with minor delay. Reading EC 261, it was an involuntary downgrade. Both AA and BA have seperate premium economy cabins, with different pre flight and inflight amenities as well as frequent flyer mile earnings. I believe I am entitled to 75% of the fare, but what fare? 75% of one way premium economy fare paid?
Advise requested as to if this qualifies as a "involuntary downgrade" and EC261 compensation due. Anyone else experienced this problem with AA or BA and your results. Please excuse the cross posting (AA & BA forum) since I may be bounce between the 2 airlines. Thanks
Oct 19, 2018, 11:26 pm
#1507
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: 63,728
If the metal was BA (it's not entirely clear from the wording) then it's BA you file with. The calculation method is upthread, but the short version is that it's based on the ticket cost that you paid, then pro-rata for distance, then the 75% gets applied to "base fare" plus "airline surcharge" plus in this case you should get the APD partly refunded too (depending how long your time in LHR was). BA have their own involuntary fare refund, which may be better than EC261 but without the specific details it's difficult to predict this.
Oct 20, 2018, 2:07 am
#1508
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Brussels, London, Geneva, ....
Programs: Priority Club Gold, Eurostar Carte Blanche, formerly BA Gold, formerly KLM silver
Posts: 245
I used ba.com for LGW on the day I was due to fly - I don't know of anything that gives historical data. Sorry.
Oct 20, 2018, 4:10 am
#1509
Join Date: Aug 2005
Programs: BA Gold, HHonors, Virgin
Posts: 766
As previously promised, here's the CEDR decision from the case that started at #767 on this thread. Sorry but I can't get it to go on as an attachment but happy for the mods to deal with as they deem fit. I hope this is useful to others because when I first posed the question on here about the chances of a successful claim they were deemed to be pretty much nil.
Independent Redress Scheme for Air Passengers ADJUDICATOR’S DECISION British AirwaysDate of Decision: 30 September 2018 Passenger(s): and one additional passenger Flight: BA7030 from Malaga (AGP) to Birmingham (BHX) on 2018 (“the Flight”)Agreed facts
• The passenger and one other were booked on the Flight and presented themselves for boarding. • The Flight arrived more than three hours after its scheduled arrival time.Issues in dispute
• The passenger claims Ł714.00 for the delay to the Flight. • The airline submits that the Flight was delayed due to extraordinary circumstances such that it has no obligation to pay compensation.Decision making principles
• In order to succeed in a claim against the airline, the passenger must prove on a balance of probabilities that they are owed compensation under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 (“Regulation 261”). • The airline will not have to pay compensation where it can prove that a delay or cancellation was caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. • I have carefully considered all of the issues raised and the documents provided. Both the passenger and the airline should be reassured that if I have not referred to a particular issue or document, this does not mean that I have not considered it in reaching my decision.Reasons for decision
1. The airline contends that it has no obligation to pay compensation in accordance with Regulation 261 as the delay the Flight was caused as a result of a third-party aircraft making an emergency landing at BHX. This occurred prior to the operation of a flight that the aircraft scheduled to operate the Flight performed earlier on . The airline submits that the event which caused the delay to the Flight amounts to extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.
2. In order to be discharged from its obligation to pay compensation, it is for the airline to establish that the Flight was delayed due to extraordinary circumstances, which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.
3. To be classified as extraordinary, an event shall not be inherent to the operations of the airline, and beyond its control. In Pešková Peška v Travel Service A.S. (Case C-315/15), the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) clarified that extraordinary circumstances under Regulation 261 refer to situations that “are not intrinsically linked to the operating system of the aircraft, are not by their nature or origin inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are outside [the airline’s] actual control”. The “reasonable measures” burden, on the other hand, is satisfied when even if the airline had deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its disposal, it would clearly not have been able, unless it had made intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time, to prevent the extraordinary circumstances.
4. The airline states that just after the aircraft scheduled to operate the Flight (G-LCYS) landed at BHX, following the operation of BA7024 between Florence (FLR) and BHX, a Norwegian Air Boeing 737, which was flying from Reykjavik to Madrid, suffered a hydraulic failure and made an emergency landing at BHX. The tyre of the Norwegian Air aircraft burst upon landing and the aircraft stopped at the runway. As a result, all flight operations at BHX were suspended for the recovery of the Norwegian Air aircraft, as well as the cleaning an inspection of the runway. The airline states that the runway was reopened at 15:31 GMT.
5. As a result of the emergency landing of the Norwegian Air aircraft, all of the sectors, which G- LCYS was scheduled to operate before the Flight, as well as the Flight, were delayed. Those included a flight between BHX and Palma de Majorca (PMI) – BA7029, a flight between PMI and BHX - BA7028, a flight between BHX and AGP – BA7031 and the Flight.
6. The passenger claims that the delay to the Flight was caused by circumstances other than the issues with the Norwegian Air aircraft, as at the time this aircraft made its emergency landing at BHX, G-LCYS should have already departed from BHX towards Palma de Majorca (PMI).
7. Both parties agree that the BHX runway closed at 13:46 BST on 16 June 2018. 13:46 BST on 16 June 2018 was 12:46 GMT. I am mindful BA7024 was scheduled to land at BHX at 10:30 GMT. As it landed two minutes early, its arrival time is recorded at 10:28 GMT. The subsequent BA7029 was scheduled to depart BHX towards PMI at 11:20 GMT.
8. The airline suggests that “[just after BA7024 had landed at BHX [the] Norwegian Air Boeing 737 […] made an emergency landing at BHX.” Given that the BHX runway was closed at 12:46 GMT and that BA7024 landed at 10:28 GMT, I find it unconvincing that the emergency landing of the Norwegian Air aircraft was “just after” the landing of BA7024. I am mindful that the latter landed more than 2 hours and 15 minutes before the BHX runway was closed. BA7029 should have departed at 11:20, meaning approximately 1 hour and 25 minutes before the emergency landing of the Norwegian Air Aircraft.
9. Considering the above, I find that the airline has failed to clarify why BA7029 did not depart at 11:20. I find that this flight was delayed and therefore faced the BHX runway closure. Had BA7029 departed on time, the same would not have been affected by the works needed after the emergency landing of the Norwegian Air aircraft.
10. I thus remain unconvinced that the closure of the BHX runway was the root cause for the delay of BA7029, BA7028, BA7031 and the Flight. While I acknowledge that the emergency landing and the subsequent runway shut down contributed to the delay, I find that this would most likely not have been the case if BA7029 had departed on time. I am thus satisfied that the airline has failed to fully explain why BA7029 did not depart as scheduled but remained on ground in BHX at least until 12:46 and was so faced with the closure of the runway following the Norwegian Air aircraft’s emergency landing.
11. In view of the above, I find that the airline has failed to establish that the Flight was delayed by extraordinary circumstances. During the operations of BA7028 and BA7031, the airline incurred further delays, which are also not explained. Whilst the airline suggests that no aircraft could have been utilised to operate BA7028, BA7031 and the Flight, I find that this statement does not elaborate on the reasonable measures the airline had taken to avoid the delay to the Flight.
12. Therefore, I find that by failing to provide conclusive evidence of the reason for the delay to BA7029, which subsequently caused the reactionary delay to the Flight, the airline has failed to establish that the Flight was delayed due to extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. The passenger is therefore entitled to compensation in accordance with Art. 7 of Regulation 261.
13. In view of the distance of the Flight of 1767km, pursuant to the great-circle distance method, the compensation payable for each person on the passenger shall be €400.00 in line with Article 7 of Regulation 261. I thus direct the airline to pay the passenger the total sum of €800.00 in compensation.
Decision
• The passenger’s claim succeeds in full. • I direct the airline to pay the passenger the total sum of €800.00 in compensation. • The conversion rate from Euros to Pounds Sterling shall be in accordance with the exchange rate published on the European Central Bank website on the first working day of the month in which this decision is issued.
Independent Redress Scheme for Air Passengers ADJUDICATOR’S DECISION British AirwaysDate of Decision: 30 September 2018 Passenger(s): and one additional passenger Flight: BA7030 from Malaga (AGP) to Birmingham (BHX) on 2018 (“the Flight”)Agreed facts
• The passenger and one other were booked on the Flight and presented themselves for boarding. • The Flight arrived more than three hours after its scheduled arrival time.Issues in dispute
• The passenger claims Ł714.00 for the delay to the Flight. • The airline submits that the Flight was delayed due to extraordinary circumstances such that it has no obligation to pay compensation.Decision making principles
• In order to succeed in a claim against the airline, the passenger must prove on a balance of probabilities that they are owed compensation under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 (“Regulation 261”). • The airline will not have to pay compensation where it can prove that a delay or cancellation was caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. • I have carefully considered all of the issues raised and the documents provided. Both the passenger and the airline should be reassured that if I have not referred to a particular issue or document, this does not mean that I have not considered it in reaching my decision.Reasons for decision
1. The airline contends that it has no obligation to pay compensation in accordance with Regulation 261 as the delay the Flight was caused as a result of a third-party aircraft making an emergency landing at BHX. This occurred prior to the operation of a flight that the aircraft scheduled to operate the Flight performed earlier on . The airline submits that the event which caused the delay to the Flight amounts to extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.
2. In order to be discharged from its obligation to pay compensation, it is for the airline to establish that the Flight was delayed due to extraordinary circumstances, which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.
3. To be classified as extraordinary, an event shall not be inherent to the operations of the airline, and beyond its control. In Pešková Peška v Travel Service A.S. (Case C-315/15), the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) clarified that extraordinary circumstances under Regulation 261 refer to situations that “are not intrinsically linked to the operating system of the aircraft, are not by their nature or origin inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are outside [the airline’s] actual control”. The “reasonable measures” burden, on the other hand, is satisfied when even if the airline had deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its disposal, it would clearly not have been able, unless it had made intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time, to prevent the extraordinary circumstances.
4. The airline states that just after the aircraft scheduled to operate the Flight (G-LCYS) landed at BHX, following the operation of BA7024 between Florence (FLR) and BHX, a Norwegian Air Boeing 737, which was flying from Reykjavik to Madrid, suffered a hydraulic failure and made an emergency landing at BHX. The tyre of the Norwegian Air aircraft burst upon landing and the aircraft stopped at the runway. As a result, all flight operations at BHX were suspended for the recovery of the Norwegian Air aircraft, as well as the cleaning an inspection of the runway. The airline states that the runway was reopened at 15:31 GMT.
5. As a result of the emergency landing of the Norwegian Air aircraft, all of the sectors, which G- LCYS was scheduled to operate before the Flight, as well as the Flight, were delayed. Those included a flight between BHX and Palma de Majorca (PMI) – BA7029, a flight between PMI and BHX - BA7028, a flight between BHX and AGP – BA7031 and the Flight.
6. The passenger claims that the delay to the Flight was caused by circumstances other than the issues with the Norwegian Air aircraft, as at the time this aircraft made its emergency landing at BHX, G-LCYS should have already departed from BHX towards Palma de Majorca (PMI).
7. Both parties agree that the BHX runway closed at 13:46 BST on 16 June 2018. 13:46 BST on 16 June 2018 was 12:46 GMT. I am mindful BA7024 was scheduled to land at BHX at 10:30 GMT. As it landed two minutes early, its arrival time is recorded at 10:28 GMT. The subsequent BA7029 was scheduled to depart BHX towards PMI at 11:20 GMT.
8. The airline suggests that “[just after BA7024 had landed at BHX [the] Norwegian Air Boeing 737 […] made an emergency landing at BHX.” Given that the BHX runway was closed at 12:46 GMT and that BA7024 landed at 10:28 GMT, I find it unconvincing that the emergency landing of the Norwegian Air aircraft was “just after” the landing of BA7024. I am mindful that the latter landed more than 2 hours and 15 minutes before the BHX runway was closed. BA7029 should have departed at 11:20, meaning approximately 1 hour and 25 minutes before the emergency landing of the Norwegian Air Aircraft.
9. Considering the above, I find that the airline has failed to clarify why BA7029 did not depart at 11:20. I find that this flight was delayed and therefore faced the BHX runway closure. Had BA7029 departed on time, the same would not have been affected by the works needed after the emergency landing of the Norwegian Air aircraft.
10. I thus remain unconvinced that the closure of the BHX runway was the root cause for the delay of BA7029, BA7028, BA7031 and the Flight. While I acknowledge that the emergency landing and the subsequent runway shut down contributed to the delay, I find that this would most likely not have been the case if BA7029 had departed on time. I am thus satisfied that the airline has failed to fully explain why BA7029 did not depart as scheduled but remained on ground in BHX at least until 12:46 and was so faced with the closure of the runway following the Norwegian Air aircraft’s emergency landing.
11. In view of the above, I find that the airline has failed to establish that the Flight was delayed by extraordinary circumstances. During the operations of BA7028 and BA7031, the airline incurred further delays, which are also not explained. Whilst the airline suggests that no aircraft could have been utilised to operate BA7028, BA7031 and the Flight, I find that this statement does not elaborate on the reasonable measures the airline had taken to avoid the delay to the Flight.
12. Therefore, I find that by failing to provide conclusive evidence of the reason for the delay to BA7029, which subsequently caused the reactionary delay to the Flight, the airline has failed to establish that the Flight was delayed due to extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. The passenger is therefore entitled to compensation in accordance with Art. 7 of Regulation 261.
13. In view of the distance of the Flight of 1767km, pursuant to the great-circle distance method, the compensation payable for each person on the passenger shall be €400.00 in line with Article 7 of Regulation 261. I thus direct the airline to pay the passenger the total sum of €800.00 in compensation.
Decision
• The passenger’s claim succeeds in full. • I direct the airline to pay the passenger the total sum of €800.00 in compensation. • The conversion rate from Euros to Pounds Sterling shall be in accordance with the exchange rate published on the European Central Bank website on the first working day of the month in which this decision is issued.
Oct 20, 2018, 4:51 am
#1510
Join Date: Jan 2015
Programs: BA GGL
Posts: 251
Hi,
I was due to fly LHR-GLA on 5th Oct at 0945. Around 9pm the night before, I was notified the flight was cancelled. I called to rebook and was advised this was due to fog. The agent advised he wasn't sure if it was fog that was expected on the day of my flight (Friday), or whether it was Thursday's fog that had left aircraft out of position. As far as I could see, no other flights to Glasgow were cancelled on the day I was due to fly.
I was rebooked on a 7am flight LCY-GLA departing 2 hrs 45 mins earlier than planned and arriving about 3 hours earlier (apologies I don't have exact timings). This was the only option available that would get me to Glasgow on time.
I'm trying to understand:
- whether this type of cancellation and re-routing is eligible for compensation; and if so
- whether, based on what I was told about weather, there might be any liability, and whether there is additional detail I would need to find out about the exact cause of the cancellation
My understanding is, weather issues aside, it would be EUR250 since re-routing left more than 1 hour earlier.
Any advice appreciated!
Many thanks
I was due to fly LHR-GLA on 5th Oct at 0945. Around 9pm the night before, I was notified the flight was cancelled. I called to rebook and was advised this was due to fog. The agent advised he wasn't sure if it was fog that was expected on the day of my flight (Friday), or whether it was Thursday's fog that had left aircraft out of position. As far as I could see, no other flights to Glasgow were cancelled on the day I was due to fly.
I was rebooked on a 7am flight LCY-GLA departing 2 hrs 45 mins earlier than planned and arriving about 3 hours earlier (apologies I don't have exact timings). This was the only option available that would get me to Glasgow on time.
I'm trying to understand:
- whether this type of cancellation and re-routing is eligible for compensation; and if so
- whether, based on what I was told about weather, there might be any liability, and whether there is additional detail I would need to find out about the exact cause of the cancellation
My understanding is, weather issues aside, it would be EUR250 since re-routing left more than 1 hour earlier.
Any advice appreciated!
Many thanks
Oct 20, 2018, 5:08 am
#1511
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: 63,728
BA122 Doha – London Heathrow (this won't be fog related...)
BA123 London Heathrow – Doha
BA728/BA729 London Heathrow – Geneva
BA938/BA939 London Heathrow – Dusseldorf
BA1326/BA1327 London Heathrow – Newcastle
BA1476/BA1483 London Heathrow – Glasgow
BA2540/BA2541 London Gatwick – Rome Fiumicino
BA2760/BA2761 London Gatwick – Amsterdam
BA2584/BA2585 London Gatwick – Venice
BA3271 London City – Dusseldorf.
BA4450 Rotterdam – London City
BA4451 London City – Rotterdam
BA4461 Dublin – London City
BA4462 London City – Dublin
BA8475 London City – Nice
BA8476 Nice – London City
BA8490 Berlin Tegel – London City
BA8491 London City – Berlin Tegel
BA8731 Frankfurt – London City
BA8732 London City – Frankfurt
BA8751 London City – Paris Orly
BA8752 Paris Orly – London City.
And I recall this thread from 4 October, so I think there was fog around. I don't think this is going very far, to be honest.
Dream flight ruined
Oct 21, 2018, 8:26 am
#1512
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Dublin
Programs: BA Silver
Posts: 222
Just wondering roughly how long its taking for BA to respond to compensation claims? I submitted my claim via the online form two weeks ago and haven't heard anything back. Don't mind waiting longer, but at what point should I follow up? I'm not a UK resident anymore so cannot use MCOL unfortunately.
Oct 21, 2018, 12:33 pm
#1513
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 2,016
I recently was booked to fly DME-LHR-JFK-LAX-SJC-LAX-JFK (over 2 days). A technical delay to the inbound flight to Moscow meant that the DME-LHR flight was delayed by over three hours and the subsequent connections missed. BA were unable to preserve the original routing because of lack of availability on later flights so I was rebooked the next day from LHR-SFO direct and had to make my own way to SJC to rejoin the itinerary. BA are denying any compensation is due because I arrived back in NY as planned. Given that I would be owed 400 Euro if I only was flying the first sector and 600 Euro, if the original routing was followed, I was thinking they would at least offer the 50% rate. Interested in views from the experts. I guess the EC regs aren't quite designed for standard FT itineraries like this...
Oct 21, 2018, 2:35 pm
#1514
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3
Help validating reasons for delay to a flight 8 months ago
I am helping a friend who is claiming compensation for a flight to LAS in February that was delayed by more than 4 hours.
BA have so far paid EUR 300 compensation. They have said that the total delay was 280 minutes, but 50 minutes of this was due to operational reasons outside of their control. My friend does not recollect that any operational reasons were mentioned on the day. My friend's recollection is that the aircraft went tech and eventually BA decided that a replacement aircraft was required.
Given the flight was so long ago, I am struggling to find out how to validate that 50 minutes of the delay was down to reasons outside of BA's control. Is anyone able to help please? Many thanks,
BA275 on 5 February 2018.
Excerpt from BA's email below
BA have so far paid EUR 300 compensation. They have said that the total delay was 280 minutes, but 50 minutes of this was due to operational reasons outside of their control. My friend does not recollect that any operational reasons were mentioned on the day. My friend's recollection is that the aircraft went tech and eventually BA decided that a replacement aircraft was required.
Given the flight was so long ago, I am struggling to find out how to validate that 50 minutes of the delay was down to reasons outside of BA's control. Is anyone able to help please? Many thanks,
BA275 on 5 February 2018.
Excerpt from BA's email below
When assessing a claim for compensation we have to investigate the reasons for the delay to determine if it's eligible for compensation or not. I can confirm your flight BA0275 was delayed on 5 February 2018 was delayed for 280 minutes. I've included the details below for your reference, please note the times displayed are shown in Greenwich Mean Time (GMT).
Flight BA0275 from London Heathrow to Las Vegas.
Scheduled departure date and time: 05 February 2018 15.50 GMT
Actual departure date and time: 05 February 2018 20:31 GMT
Scheduled arrival date and time: 06 February 02.30 GMT
Actual arrival date and time: 06 February 07.10 GMT
Total delay: 280 minutes
50 minutes of this delay is attributed to operational reasons that were outside of our control and are not eligible for EU compensation. The rest of your delay, totalling 230 minutes is eligible for EU Compensation.
The distance of your disrupted journey was over 3,500km and this has been calculated in accordance with EU legislation. This means because you were delayed more than three hours you're entitled to compensation, however as less than four hours of your delay is eligible for compensation, you’re entitled to €300.00, which is 50% of the full amount.
Flight BA0275 from London Heathrow to Las Vegas.
Scheduled departure date and time: 05 February 2018 15.50 GMT
Actual departure date and time: 05 February 2018 20:31 GMT
Scheduled arrival date and time: 06 February 02.30 GMT
Actual arrival date and time: 06 February 07.10 GMT
Total delay: 280 minutes
50 minutes of this delay is attributed to operational reasons that were outside of our control and are not eligible for EU compensation. The rest of your delay, totalling 230 minutes is eligible for EU Compensation.
The distance of your disrupted journey was over 3,500km and this has been calculated in accordance with EU legislation. This means because you were delayed more than three hours you're entitled to compensation, however as less than four hours of your delay is eligible for compensation, you’re entitled to €300.00, which is 50% of the full amount.
Oct 21, 2018, 4:09 pm
#1515
Join Date: Sep 2006
Programs: BA, LH, AF, TK
Posts: 213
Good question. I had assumed SJC although I was only originally scheduled to have three and a half hours there before starting the return journey (I later continued back to Europe on the same ticket after a week stopover in NY). BA assume JFK (after the California side trip). The easiest way of getting the itinerary back on track whilst still travelling to SJC was to take the direct flight to SFO and make my own way (at my own expense) to SJC. In the end I only just made it in time for the SJC-LAX flight!