Compensation Due?
Jul 11, 2018, 2:58 pm
#16
Community Director
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Norwich, UK
Programs: A3*G, BA Gold, BD Gold (in memoriam), IHG Diamond Ambassador
Posts: 8,474
It is, I suspect, somewhat unlikely and highly theoretical. Domestic flights don't, I think, require a cross reference photo ID check - just that the image taken at security matches the one at the gate. Obviously it will do so.
In theory, therefore, someone on a no-fly list could get on the plane. The chance of such a person being on the assistance required list, then be given the wrong BP, then not be recognised and tracked by the authorities and stopped is getting pretty remote though. Even if all that happens, they will still have been security checked.
So, yes, maybe just about a flaw. Significant? Certainly not.
In theory, therefore, someone on a no-fly list could get on the plane. The chance of such a person being on the assistance required list, then be given the wrong BP, then not be recognised and tracked by the authorities and stopped is getting pretty remote though. Even if all that happens, they will still have been security checked.
So, yes, maybe just about a flaw. Significant? Certainly not.
Jul 11, 2018, 2:58 pm
#17
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
Had the time qualifications been met, it is BA's responsibility to provide assistance. That is especially included in EC 261/2004. BA did not provide that assistance. The fact that at LHR, the service is provided by a contractor to the airport operator does not change the application of BA's duty.
Jul 11, 2018, 11:05 pm
#18
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denmark
Programs: TK Elite
Posts: 11,780
Sorry, but if this is a claim against HAL and outside EC 261/04 (which all sounds right to me) the OP would only be able to recover financial losses incurred, right? Where is the loss by arriving MAN 90 min later?
Jul 15, 2018, 4:20 pm
#19
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 210
Jul 15, 2018, 5:11 pm
#20
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 192
If this was an EC261/2004 case no; all that matters, when determining the compensation, is how much later than planned you arrive at your final destination, if the delay is the fault of the airline.
Your apparent 90 minute delay would not qualify for any delay compensation under EC261/2004.
But as others have said above, this isn't an EC261/2004 case as BA were not directly responsible for the mishap that caused your delay.
Your apparent 90 minute delay would not qualify for any delay compensation under EC261/2004.
But as others have said above, this isn't an EC261/2004 case as BA were not directly responsible for the mishap that caused your delay.
Jul 15, 2018, 5:16 pm
#21
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: London Stratford, E7
Programs: BAEC Gold! Thanks to FT
Posts: 3,369
I’d be inclined to stated thst under the disability discrimination act HAL failed to provide the assistance or make reasonable adjustments as an able bodied person arriving st xxxx for a flight at yyyy which resulted in them travelling at zzzz
Jul 16, 2018, 12:30 am
#22
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Netherlands
Programs: KL Platinum; A3 Gold
Posts: 28,697
The airline will say that for this to be a case of involuntary denied boarding, the passenger would have had to actually have been at the gate, and subsequently actually have been denied boarding. They would lay the blame for the passenger failing to arrive at the gate on the third party service provider, meaning that it was not their fault and that they did not deny boarding.
Jul 16, 2018, 1:52 am
#23
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,644
Although it sounds like your specific complaint is not about any airline, and clearly something went wrong here that shouldn't have done - as a more general point it's worth remembering that no airline promises this so it's always a good idea not to rely too heavily on something being "on time". In any form of travel, about the only guarantee is that things will sometimes go wrong.