LTN Phobia

They should still be able to claim it back. If they do need the receipts (I am not 100% certain it would be required but it becomes a much clearer case if they had them), hotels can usually issue a duplicate invoice/receipt on request, and for other expenses a credit card/bank statement showing a transaction on a particular date at a particular location that matches the disruption should work.

Where did I say any issues were caused by travelling? I was on a receiving end of a rather snide comment about travelling in F so I was simply explaining why I end up needing to travel in F, and also needed to comment that not everything might be how it appears to be, i.e. not that I sit here doing nothing and spend a vast fortune on travelling for my pleasure. There are things called moral obligations that I feel I must perform too. Not that it matters to anyone else one bit, but I do not particularly wish to tolerate a snide remark full of assumptions and keep quiet.

simons1

corporate-wage-slave

OK, allow me to put in "one of those posts".

I think we can gently disagree as to how prepared one should or should not be for life's mishaps, but it's not great to get too personal with some of the lines of argument shown above, some of which are borderline goading. We've only heard indirectly from one passenger group affected and a lot of non specific conjectures are being thrown around here, the value of which I would question. In a sense it's side argument, where this forum hopefully does a collectively good job is providing advice to travellers on what to do next, no matter where there are on the frequent flyer scale. Perhaps it's best to focus on the specifics of this event? Even though we actually haven't heard yet from someone who was on these flights.

Specifically the Article 7 compensation tends to be an "after event" customer remedy whereas food, drink and hotels are what is needed upfront. But most of all communication, and as far as I can see BA gave up to 4 separate letters (Orlando, Orlando hotel, New York, Gatwick) to the customers concerned as their unfortunate experience dragged on. Plus the probably unhappy experiences with staff in MCO and JFK.

Incidentally my reading on the situation is that BA were not under an EC261 obligation to provided hotel accommodation in New York - just telephone calls, food and drink. They were obliged to provide accomodation in Orlando, and to offer re-routing options.

simons1

simons1

LTN Phobia

I agree with your post in general, however, I'd beg to differ on this point. I'd say that BA were under an EC261 obligation to provide hotel accommodation in New York because that's where they ended up for the night because of the diversion (i.e. resulting in a situation "- where a stay of one or more nights becomes necessary" in Article 9.), although I guess technically not till the morning (saying that, I guess the question could be, what time do they stop counting it as "night" in this context?).

I agree that Orlando would definitely have been needed with the overnight stop. Did BA actually provide hotel rooms there to essentially everyone, but had difficulties in New York because of the marathon?

corporate-wage-slave

The passengers emerged were off the aircraft in JFK at 05:20, and a bit later for those with baggage. For those not rebooked to LHR, they needed to be back at the gate at 17:40. I know that in the past at least, courts haven't regarded that as being a night time stop (Smith-Packham v easyJet, Liverpool 2014). It also wouldn't be straightforward to get accommodation - in terms of walking into the room - at say 07:00 hrs in somewhere like NYC. Arguably a stronger level of protection would be needed for those with special needs and reduced mobility, though not those with accompanied children, at least in terms of the Regulation's wording. But as simons1 pointed out, the Regulation probably didn't imagine a 10 hour flight turning into 54 hours.

Accommodation was provided for all in Orlando, though that came with problems of its own.

botham

DYKWIA

BA should be arranging the transportation for you. But... of course, it's sometimes easier to bite the bullet and sort it yourself and claim back.

T8191

For those of us who are fortunate enough to have a spare/second credit card with Ł10k plus available, yes. But as others have said up-Thread, not everyone has that luxury, I could imagine many of the affected pax have spent close to their limits already.

DYKWIA

Yep - a family holiday to Orlando doesn't come cheap.

LTN Phobia

I see! Thank you for the info. That's a bit 'ouch' in this particular circumstance, especially if someone was rebooked on an afternoon flight in Y/PE. That's where a goodwill hotel booking would have been nice for people.

I do see that it's rather difficult to get a hotel room (particularly day rooms) at 7 am, and additional difficulties with hotel availability situation on the day in NY as well though.

lavajava

It seems a number of pax involved in this are trying to fight their case for double EU261, claiming that there were actually two separate delays (due to different flight numbers). I believe it was quoted above that the second time this plane left MCO it was BA9601. Apparently BA have changed the flight number back to BA2036...

What do you think their chances are? Any other examples out there of double EU261 being paid in a similar circumstance?

corporate-wage-slave

I did wonder if this would come up! I bet BA will regard it as a single trip which just had 2 delays on it - and it was apparently caused by the same problem. And people would typically have one reservation for that trip. If EC261 had intended to add extra penalties for extended delays it would have said so, given it does curtail penalties for short delays. Generally I would say that BA would probably have good grounds for holding to one EC261, and I bet CEDR would agree. However in MCOL, if someone was able to persuade the court that this really was two trips, two delays, then I can see in some circumstances it may be successful on a balance of probabilities basis.

SpeedbirdLHR

The change in flight number would have been more to do with ATC and not having 2 flights in the air at the same time with the same flight number.