T8191

My only major IRROPS in 2016 (LGW-KIN) there was NO direct EC261 information provided to pax, although some EC261 letters were left on the reception desk at the LGW Sofitel where we were put up overnight ... if you knew they were there in the first place. What I was given was the attached letter, with the small-print footnote which I guess covers BA's backside. Fortunately, thanks to FT, I knew what do do in respect of EC261 anyway, but I doubt the majority of pax did or knew how much it was going to be worth!

An “Interesting” Journey to Jamaica with BA (JER-LGW-KIN)

Globaliser

That's what the BA letters do - we now have several examples. First, it tells you what the immediate practical arrangements are. This is what passengers need to know most immediately. It is the asssistance/care aspect of 261/2004. Then (including for those to whom "cash compensation" is the first thing that enters their minds when something goes wrong on a flight, or for whom the making of a compensation claim is a pressing and urgent need) it tells you where to go to get more information; that information does not have to be sought via the Internet, if you are a person who is not IT-savvy.

Could I draft the letters better? I would like to think so - I am a lawyer after all. Do the letters do the job that they need to do? No doubt a sizeable contingent on FT would think that BA's letters don't, even though an identically-worded letter handed out by some other airline would be perfectly adequate. Does it stop passengers from complaining that they were told nothing? Of course not. Would those passengers be accurate in their complaints, and should we immediately take their complaints at face value whilst automatically rejecting everything that BA says? Again, a sizeable contingent on FT would probably still think so. After all, if you start with the mindset that BA is "a thieving money-grabbing for-profit company", you're probably unlikely ever to hear let alone listen.

lavajava

It seems I am the OP in this thread, mainly due to my posting in the EU Compensation Thread. Fantastic to have @Globaliser to respond to my query and even follow up the next day with other information I didn't ask for. Thanks also to the helpful replies from @corporate-wage-slave to have the posts merged, and for providing all the relevant information around timings and future advice.

Not sure I would have picked the thread title myself, as I was not on the flight.

If anyone is interested, this is a copy of the letter provided by BA. I personally think it's clear enough.

I agree with many that this seemed to be one issue on top of another (i.e. rare), with no ideal outcomes around rerouting etc. I looked at the time of family members being stuck in MCO at their options which were in the region of 20-30 hour trips. Could BA have done a better job around communication? Probably however I imagine this to be a tough situation surrounded by many pax who probably need to vent. It was nice to be able to provide the telephone details for BA holidays as they were far more helpful with the required information > something I will be adding to my own preparation list.

Thinking it might be useful to convert this into a Wiki Thread with all the details around the issue/compensation etc as it might be tricky for newbies to find.

Stay cool

Steve_ZA

I have been disrupted a number of times while flying with BA and I have never seen this letter, not sure why this isn't always given out. Passengers generally aren't worried about compensation in the thick of an IRROP so getting the duty of care rights clear is more important.

DYKWIA

Again, BA are making things up that are not in the EC261 laws... Ł200 per hotel with 2 people sharing.

Ł25 a day on meals doesn't get you very far in NYC.

Where's the mention of €600 compensation that the passengers may be entitled to?

Tafflyer

I also have been on the receiving end of BA's incompetence handling IRROPS and was never handed that letter. Perhaps it is new and they are also realising they need to do more, and indeed the last problem I had was handled much better than previously.

However, I do still find that letter misleading. I read it as implying that EU261 sets those monetary limits on compensation of hotels and expenses. This is plainly incorrect. If BA wish us to only spend a maximum of GBP 200 on a hotel then they should jolly well book it themselves to ensure adherence to their guidelines. I suspect it is when they run out of rooms that these letters are issued and those are occasions where most likely room prices have already risen to which, depending on your point of disruption, may well be above the "limit".

LHR, NYC, SFO, TOK and even FRA can be hard to find rooms under those limits, especially for airport hotels and when disruption is widespread.

It must also be said, that many passengers may not have the financial resources to pay these expenses and reclaim them and that alone may influence their decision to sleep on airport floors. BA deserve the criticism they are receiving for this, even though the British media is at it's usual game.

simons1

But why put in smaller print at the footnote of a letter unless in the hope it won't be noticed?

And as far as the person at JFK was concerned, well the flight was already a day late by the time it left Orlando so surely some thought would have been given to the circumstances? And in any case JFK people had over 2 hours notice of the diversion to get the messaging sorted, it really doesn't need Einstein to address that.

Honestly as defences go this one is pretty thin. And people wonder why airlines have the same levels of trust as the banks and utilities when it comes to doing the right thing.

Ancient Observer

I wish someone on here had real clout with BA.
That letter about "rights" is disgraceful.
BA has its own expenses guidelines that have nothing whatsoever to do with any EU law, and which are useless for NYC.
The letter is tantamount to a deliberate lie.
We are not all global air-warriors with a ton of experience. The letter is a clear attempt to delude people.

Globaliser

If I've got the timeline correct, it was something like 0130L when the aircraft diverted to JFK, and something like 0330L when it landed. Is that in the middle of the working day for BA's JFK station, according to FT?

And the duration of the earlier delay seems irrelevant for the JFK diversion messaging; until the aircraft developed that fault en route, everyone on the aircraft was expecting next to land at LGW.

FlyerTalker39574

simons1

Whether it's the middle of the day in FT minds is not the point. BA is a global business and JFK is a main station. I know why those seeking to defend the airline would like to present BA as a threepenny bit operation but I would expect the airline to have crisis management processes and access to decision makers within that timeline.

BA also has route and operations planning people, when it became clear (from the unique flight number) that the delayed flight was diverted I would have expected people to be saying "this is going to go down like a lead balloon so we need to pull out the stops here" not mounting the usual cost saving operation.

LTN Phobia

This is the norm in weather-related disruptions in countries without similar things to EU261 though. My last disruption cost me about Ł400 for the night (outside any coverage of EU261-like regulations). My insurance company and I wore it.

Really, people need to be able to either self-insure properly, or have a comprehensive insurance before travelling. What would they do if a serious disruption like the volcanic ash hits and they cannot afford the accommodation, they cannot fly out, they have to take unpaid leave, and they have no EU261 coverage?

We need to be responsible here a bit.

On a separate matter, FRA has corridor(s) with portable beds, I believe after they had issues with procuring accommodation during one of the snow chaos.

DYKWIA

Yet again, the blame shifts to the passengers for not self insuring. This is BA, and is covered by EC261. Not sure why so many people are trying to deflect any criticism of BA.

LTN Phobia

No such thing was done. It is merely interpreted (incorrectly) as defending BA. There was not even mention of BA.

Just because someone says people should be prepared to provide for themselves, it does not mean they're trying to defend BA.

I think it may be a little difficult to say that it is sensible not to either self-insure or have insurance. It may be that it's the railway failure that makes someone miss their flight. No EU261 would apply, of course. I am talking generally about being sensible about travelling and providing for oneself in response to someone's post about some people choosing to sleep on the floor due to lack of funds.

DYKWIA

This is the BA forum, and this thread is about a BA flight. I think it's time for me to step away from the thread, as I'm going slightly mad