Last edit by: lavajava
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.
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.
Flight From Hell [BA2036 MCO-LGW delayed then diverted to JFK]
#151
Moderator: British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jan 2009
Programs: Battleaxe Alliance
Posts: 22,127
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.
Last edited by LTN Phobia; Nov 7, 2018 at 1:38 am
#152
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
In fact 3 weeks ago my 16 year old son was stuck at Brighton station around midnight due to a suicide at Burgess Hill.
The train companies organised a fleet of taxis and he was delivered home. They certainly did not weasel out with some "tough luck, sort yourself out and claim it back" approach.
He didn't have a credit card anyway.
#153
Moderator, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges, and Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold; Flying Blue Life Platinum; LH Sen.; Hilton Diamond; Kemal Kebabs Prized Customer
Posts: 63,730
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.
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.
#154
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
What's so special about flying that removes personal responsibility towards preparedness though? There are so many aspects of travel and obviously travelling is not limited to flying, but even if you limited it to flying, not all carriers and not all situations are covered by EU261?
Not all travellers carry the full CWS "just in case BA cock up" toolkit of directories, Skype and hotel apps, 3 days clothing in the rucksack, photos of all your belongings type stuff.
EC261 provides for a duty of care and it was a reasonable expectation that BA would look after its customers.
I honestly think the line of defence is totally absurd.
#155
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
#156
Moderator: British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jan 2009
Programs: Battleaxe Alliance
Posts: 22,127
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?
Last edited by LTN Phobia; Nov 7, 2018 at 2:13 am
#157
Moderator, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges, and Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold; Flying Blue Life Platinum; LH Sen.; Hilton Diamond; Kemal Kebabs Prized Customer
Posts: 63,730
Accommodation was provided for all in Orlando, though that came with problems of its own.
#158
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Dorchester, Dorset UK
Programs: BA Gold, BMI, ANA, HH Blue, SPG Gold
Posts: 2,063
They wouldn’t pay for meals or taxi fares without receipts. Nor would they pay for transport / care rental fuel from Miami to Orlando. The cancelled flights were from LGW to MCO and replacements LHR to MIA.
#159
Ambassador: Emirates Airlines
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 18,600
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.
#160
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: JER
Programs: BA Gold/OWE, several MUCCI, and assorted Pensions!
Posts: 32,140
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.
#161
Ambassador: Emirates Airlines
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 18,600
Yep - a family holiday to Orlando doesn't come cheap.
#162
Moderator: British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jan 2009
Programs: Battleaxe Alliance
Posts: 22,127
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).
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.
#163
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 774
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?
What do you think their chances are? Any other examples out there of double EU261 being paid in a similar circumstance?
#164
Moderator, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges, and Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold; Flying Blue Life Platinum; LH Sen.; Hilton Diamond; Kemal Kebabs Prized Customer
Posts: 63,730
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.
#165
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London
Programs: BAEC Bronze
Posts: 1,089
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?
What do you think their chances are? Any other examples out there of double EU261 being paid in a similar circumstance?