Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > British Airways | Executive Club
Reload this Page >

Flight From Hell [BA2036 MCO-LGW delayed then diverted to JFK]

Flight From Hell [BA2036 MCO-LGW delayed then diverted to JFK]

    Hide Wikipost
Old Nov 5, 18, 9:27 pm   -   Wikipost
Please read: This is a community-maintained wiki post containing the most important information from this thread. You may edit the Wiki once you have been on FT for 90 days and have made 90 posts.
 
Last edit by: lavajava
Wiki Link
Key Information (thanks @corporate-wage-slave):

Original schedule

Thursday 1 November BA2036 (Operated by G-VIIR)
MCO dep 2120
LGW arr 1025 - Friday 2 November

Delay Reason: Aircraft Defects/Technical

Actual schedule
Saturday 3 November BA2036
MCO dep 0032 (was at some point intended to depart at 19.25 on Friday)
Diverted: JFK arr 0345 Saturday 3 November
----------
JFK dep 2038 Saturday 3 November
LGW arr 0645 Sunday 4 November

Delay: 45 hours 40 minutes late for those who were not re-routed on to other services.
The rescue aircraft G-STBF left LHR at 12:52 and landed in JFK 15:27

Diversion Information (thanks @Globaliser):

The aircraft left MCO just before 0100 on 3 November as BA9601. It got to about Charleston, made a U-turn, and then another one when it was back near Savannah, before continuing northbound and diverting to JFK. ExpertFlyer.com says "aircraft forced to return" and also seems to say for this flight that the diversion to JFK was for "aircraft defects".

Compensation Information:

This delay should be in scope for 600 Euro delay compensation plus applicable/reasonable expenses. Please follow the link to the EU261 Compensation thread that contains a useful Wiki section.
Print Wikipost

Reply

Old Nov 5, 18, 4:24 am
  #76  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: London
Programs: BA Gold; FB Silver; SPG; IHG Gold
Posts: 1,883
More bad publicity for BA; some of it warranted, as per some of the above posts, but some of it (i.e. worst flight of my life, everyone screaming, turbulence for three hours, near death experience blah blah blah) is the sort of sensationalist low brow cr*p we have all come to expect from our media. In one sense this was the worst possible route to happen on, as I imagine that the proportion of families, young kids, inexperienced travellers will be a lot higher than on your average long haul service.
South London Bon Viveur is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 18, 4:46 am
  #77  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Programs: BAEC Silver
Posts: 389
Originally Posted by rapidex View Post
More likely the reason was spare B777 crews in JFK.
We (I include myself) can all speculate as much as we want. Only those folks that made the decision will know why they did what they did.

This is does not detract from the fact that BA have treated these customers appallingly and deserve to be held to account for that.
zanderblue is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 18, 4:47 am
  #78  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Midwest USA
Programs: BA Gold, UA SIL, WN A+/CP, Marriott Tit (LT), Hyatt EXP, Hilton Gold
Posts: 1,334
Originally Posted by steve170461 View Post
I'm a bit surprised that BA didn't try to purloin a substitute aircraft from AA. Maybe they did and there were no spares around but it would have mitigated the crew rest issue.
this is not permitted due to differences (sometimes very slight) between the same aircraft model at each airline.

They can beg/borrow/buy parts from each other, however.
nachosdelux is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 18, 5:52 am
  #79  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,247
Well I suppose everything that went wrong did.

First the flight encounters technical issue. Then the plane bringing the spare part gets diverted due to weather. Then the plane develops another technical problem. All of which could have happened to any airline at any time, but chances of them coming together are very slim. In any case better to be delayed than to be a statistic.

Of course the test of a good airline is how well they recover, it doesn't sound great, no real excuse for messing people around like that. And of course the failure to mention EC261 is very unfortunate, albeit par for the course for BA.
simons1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 18, 6:02 am
  #80  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: London
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 847
Failure to mention EC261. Either it's required they mention it by law, in which case the appropriate authority should take action, or it's not, in which case they made the sort of decision businesses make every day.
dougzz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 18, 6:41 am
  #81  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: From ORK, live LCY
Programs: Pretty much all gone these days
Posts: 13,022
I cannot remember a single time when I have been delayed for more than the requisite period and been given written notification of my rights.

It should of course happen, but it doesn’t.
stifle is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 18, 7:09 am
  #82  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: UK
Programs: Etihad Gold, Qatar Gold, flying Blue, Falcon, Lufthansa, Eva
Posts: 1,173
I loved the response in The Times today that BA said they had made sure all the customers were comfortable

on the floor in the terminal?
amnicoll is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 18, 7:10 am
  #83  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: London
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 806
Article 14 of EU261 clearly states that airlines are obliged to inform delayed passengers of their EU261 rights. Shame the CAA are too toothless to do anything about the airlines' (and it's not just BA) failure to do this:

Obligation to inform passengers of their rights

1. The operating air carrier shall ensure that at check-in a clearly legible notice containing the following text is displayed in a manner clearly visible to passengers: "If you are denied boarding or if your flight is cancelled or delayed for at least two hours, ask at the check-in counter or boarding gate for the text stating your rights, particularly with regard to compensation and assistance".

2. An operating air carrier denying boarding or cancelling a flight shall provide each passenger affected with a written notice setting out the rules for compensation and assistance in line with this Regulation. It shall also provide each passenger affected by a delay of at least two hours with an equivalent notice. The contact details of the national designated body referred to in Article 16 shall also be given to the passenger in written form.
cosmo74 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 18, 9:09 am
  #84  
Ambassador: Emirates Airlines
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 13,401
Originally Posted by cosmo74 View Post
2. An operating air carrier denying boarding or cancelling a flight shall provide each passenger affected with a written notice setting out the rules for compensation and assistance in line with this Regulation. It shall also provide each passenger affected by a delay of at least two hours with an equivalent notice. The contact details of the national designated body referred to in Article 16 shall also be given to the passenger in written form.
Surely every passenger would have seen the small sign on the check-in counters regarding EC261?

DYKWIA is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 18, 9:42 am
  #85  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 35,118
Originally Posted by DYKWIA View Post
Surely every passenger would have seen the small sign on the check-in counters regarding EC261?
Obviously, I don't know what happened on this particular occasion, and the letters handed out at JFK may not have said anything about 261/2004. But as a matter of general perspective, I personally wouldn't automatically take passengers' reports at face value.

Last edited by Globaliser; Feb 27, 19 at 8:22 am
Globaliser is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 18, 9:44 am
  #86  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Programs: AA
Posts: 9,602
Originally Posted by South London Bon Viveur View Post
In one sense this was the worst possible route to happen on, as I imagine that the proportion of families, young kids, inexperienced travellers will be a lot higher than on your average long haul service.
Which probably made rebooking harder in and of itself. It's easier to rebook people in ones or maybe twos, than to find multiple last minute seats on the same flight (times how many families there were onboard). Last flight cancellation/delay I had in the US, my travel partner and I had to split up between two separate flights. Somehow I think BA would've been getting even worse publicity (not to imply that what they are already getting isn't deserved) if they had rebooked someone on a separate flight from their 6 year old.
wrp96 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 18, 10:51 am
  #87  
Ambassador: Emirates
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Economy, mostly :(
Programs: Skywards Gold
Posts: 7,203
Originally Posted by Globaliser View Post
Obviously, I don't know what happened on this particular occasion, and the letters handed out at JFK may not have said anything about 261/2004. But as a matter of general perspective, I personally wouldn't automatically take passengers' reports at face value.

Not least, I remember when I personally suffered a 24-hour delay a couple of years ago. There was a thread about it here, and it contained this post:-However, this was the letter we were given. Small print, yes; but not total silence - and that URL still works in the sense that it redirects to the current compensation information page.
Aside from the fact that the letter doesn't reference EC261 or European legislation in any way, or that it is unreasonable to expect pax to type in a URL hidden in the fine print of a form letter, or that you totally missed the joke in the post you were replying to, given the actual photos of letters posted online I am much more inclined to believe pax than a thieving money-grabbing for-profit company

Last edited by LTN Phobia; Mar 1, 19 at 6:44 am Reason: Image removed at original author's request
skywardhunter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 18, 11:38 am
  #88  
Moderator: British Airways Executive Club, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London, UK
Posts: 18,859
Originally Posted by skywardhunter View Post
Aside from the fact that the letter doesn't reference EC261 or European legislation in any way, or that it is unreasonable to expect pax to type in a URL hidden in the fine print of a form letter, or that you totally missed the joke in the post you were replying to, given the actual photos of letters posted online I am much more inclined to believe pax than a thieving money-grabbing for-profit company
Applying reasonable objectivity, its not really a question of believing pax, rather the question is more straight forward. Were the affected pax informed of their rights under EC261? The editor and/or copywriters of the red top newspaper may have this information, they may not. All we can determine is the article doesn’t mention it.
Prospero is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 18, 11:41 am
  #89  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: LON
Programs: BAEC, Accor
Posts: 1,230
I am not a BA apologist, but does the fact that BA surfaces information about EC261 at booking (if you book direct) and at online check-in if you do that online mitigate their responsibilities to inform you of your EC261 rights? It's in that bit of the process that you never read.... But acknowledge that you have....
plunet is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 18, 11:46 am
  #90  
Ambassador: Emirates
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Economy, mostly :(
Programs: Skywards Gold
Posts: 7,203
Originally Posted by Prospero View Post
Applying reasonable objectivity, its not really a question of believing pax, rather the question is more straight forward. Were the affected pax informed of their rights under EC261? The editor and/or copywriters of the red top newspaper may have this information, they may not. All we can determine is the article doesn’t mention it.
​​​​​​
The letters published do not indicate any type of rights, whether EU or otherwise. Evidence indicates BA did not inform, though there is a chance they did of course.

Originally Posted by plunet View Post
I am not a BA apologist, but does the fact that BA surfaces information about EC261 at booking (if you book direct) and at online check-in if you do that online mitigate their responsibilities to inform you of your EC261 rights? It's in that bit of the process that you never read.... But acknowledge that you have....
​​​​​​
no, pretty sure they are obliged to specifically inform pax once a disruption occurs based on the wording of the regulations shared by another member upthread
skywardhunter is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread