simons1

PUCCI GALORE

This. It really does seem that trying to get any kind of balance is automatically written off as being a BA Defender, or even more dismissively "Apologist". It irritates me as whilst I do not think that BA is a bastion of excellence, God Forbid. However I do not automatically assume - Oh it's BA therefore it must be no good whatsoever". Moreover, I have lived with a policeman for 32 years, and one thing that I have learnt is never to accept that because anyone makes a statement that it is necessarily accurate or correct. What we never hear, or all too rarely is the other side of the story.

Kgmm77

Andriyko

But that would assume that everyone who gets a payout has to go through arbitration, which is not the case. Airlines do pay compensation without involvement of the court system or arbitration in clear-cut cases. It is in cases like the December disruption that disputes arise. It makes sense that airlines and passengers sometimes don't agree as to whether a particular cancelation warrants compensation, which is why there are routes which people can take to get what they think they are entitled to. While I understand that some people think that BA was not prepared etc., I believe it is fair to give the airline a chance to defend itself and prove that it did take all reasonable measures to avoid a cancelation. I don't think that it is wrong that some cases have to go through arbitration in the absence of express guidance from the law or binding precedents.

Kgmm77

Andriyko

Can you be more specific? Unless I misunderstood you, you implied that the regulator should intervene and force airlines to pay out in not so clear-cut cases. I said that it was normal that some cases do end up in arbitration or in court. The figure that you quoted relates to the not so clear-cut cases, while many passengers do get compensation without resorting to any other remedies. So, what is it that you are disagreeing with if I may ask?

Kgmm77

Andriyko

I did not use the word 'difficult,' nor did I imply an excuse. I merely said that some cases needed to be adjudicated. But thank you for your answer.

corporate-wage-slave

The CAA is the National Enforcement Body charged with doing this, and in some areas it does act, so it supported some recent legal cases where it felt the airlines had not taken up the CAA advice on (e.g.) connecting flights outside Europe. I am one of those that feels that the CAA is unable to properly disconnect itself from its multiple other relationships with airlines and truly represent consumers, for which this area is pretty much its only - and essentially outsourced - channel.

I should point out that though the proportion of cases upheld in favour of passengers for CEDR (BA's ADR provider) is actually 89%. However we don't know the breakdown by airline and CEDR also handled easyJet, Thomas Cook and Thomson (and other smaller airlines). Moreover in some situations CEDR will rule in the passenger's favour but not award any additional compensation, due to the notional £25 fee that is supposedly at stake. There is a note in the full report which suggests this 89% figure is expected to fall, as airlines start to better understand what CEDR is likely to do with any particular case. I have to say I very much doubt CEDR would be the best port of call for the area under focus (de-icing) though I would be happy to proven wrong on that point.

PJSMITH0

Kgmm77

Often1

The percentage of matters determined in favor of a carrier vs. a passenger is not in and of itself relevant or indicative of anything. One would expect the carrier to pay out on claims which are obvious, the passenger not to file claims which are frivolous (or to drop a claim once it is explained as not having a factual or legal basis), and for the tribunals to be left with those matters where there is a disagreement on the facts, the law, or both.

In order to determine whether the percentage of CEDR matters held for the passenger is appropriate for further action, one would have to commission a neutral study to take a look at a statistically significant number of delays and then assess whether there was a worthy claim to be had, whether a claim was made, whether it was paid out by the carrier without resort to external action, pursued by the passenger if not paid out, and the ultimate result.

That would be a complicated and massively expensive proposition and perhaps of limited value other than to satisfy the disaffected.

Kgmm77

simons1

If CEDR is finding 89% of cases in the consumer's favour I would have thought that would be a message to the airlines that they need to recalibrate their decision making.

However I imagine that is unlikely because I would imagine there are many others who give up at the first fob off from the airline. Or indeed who are never advised of entitlements in the first place.

I suspect one of the outcomes here is that with the PPI deadline looming the lawyers will move on to something new and this is probably a suitable area for increased "awareness" with plenty of easy kills, particularly as more clarifications (like the one on connecting flights) are issued.

DYKWIA

You seem to be deliberately ignoring the fact that BA *have* invested. They purchased a number of de-icing rigs after the last major snowflake incident. However, only 2 of these were available on the day in question - for reasons unknown. This was pointed out many times on the original thread, and on this thread.