silverfc

I flew on 8 Nov LHR - JNB on BA 55 which was delayed. It landed 102 minutes late, meaning that I missed my connection to Cape Town. I was not accommodated on the next flight, but re-booked onto the subsequent one, and arrived into Cape Town at 14:50 not 11:35. More than 3 hours late.

BA are denying that EU261 applies based on the following:
The minimum connection time allowed for your flights was 90 minutes. I can see from your booking you had left yourselves 130 minutes to connect. Flight BA0055 was delayed on arrival by 102 minutes. I've checked our records and can see 28 minutes of your flight was payable due to reasons within our control. I can also see 64 minutes of this flight isn't payable due to a passenger becoming unwell, which is out of our control. The remaining 10 minutes was time lost during flight operations. As your delayed flight only has 28 payable minutes which we're liable for and this doesn't take you under the minimum connecting time, I'm afraid you're not entitled to EU compensation on this occasion.

I would deem EU261 to be payable based on 2 factors:
1. At no point was a passenger being unwell raised as being the cause of the delay - the aircraft returned to a different gate as some of the washrooms were inoperable and the Engineering Team needed to rectify this problem before the flight commenced. This was the announcement from the flight deck.
2. The delay resulted in me being automatically re-booked onto a later flight which landed more than 3 hours after the original arrival time - outside of my control - but within BA's control when there was a flight which I could have taken which would have arrived at my final destination within the 3 hour cut off.

I would not expect BA to bump passengers to accommodate me, but would expect the applicable compensation to be paid. BA's online statement says that compensations is payable If you're delayed at your final destination by more than 3 hours and that delay arises from causes within our control (rather than extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided by all reasonable measures);

The collective wisdom of the Flyertalk community would be appreciated on this one, as would any more information which is available as to the cause of the initial.

DYKWIA

It's just BA doing their usual initial "deny due to some spurious reason". See the main EU261 thread for how to proceed, either via CEDR or MCOL.

The 2018 BA compensation thread: Your guide to Regulation EC261/2004

rapidex

Go back to BA and say pay up or else.

silverfc

both - thank you for your advice.....

Tafflyer

It looks as though that was a serious amount of time BA put into drafting that fob-off. Qudos.

craigthemif

Indeed. Working extra hard on the "out of our control" excuse that gets a certain percentage of people to give up. Quite a clever allocation of resource actually, in an evil corporate genius way...

Andriyko

I would be wary of snarky comments from posters who do not bother to offer an explanation as to why they question BA's version of the events (other than they don't believe anything the airline says). After all, it will be your time, efforts and money if you decide to actively seek compensation. If the delay was indeed caused by someone feeling unwell (which may not have been communicated to passengers), then no compensation will be due regardless of the length of the delay. It will be up to BA to prove why the delay occurred, but I would only take it further if I knew for sure that BA's explanation was not true. If you know that there was no sick passenger, reject BA's response and see what they come back with.

Tafflyer

KeaneJohn

Andriyko

Believe what exactly? Did any of the replies contradict BA's account of the delay with specific knowledge of what happened on that flight? I get the general distrust of airlines when it comes to payment of compensation. Past experiences do not really prove anything with respect to the OP's flight though.

simons1

Remember that the burden of proof is with the airline. If what they are telling you now does not stack up with what you were told over the PA by the commander of the flight then take it to CEDR and leave the airline to produce the evidence. If there was indeed a sick passenger there will be some evidence of that in the dispatch record of the flight, and perhaps some record of medical personnel being called etc.

'Time lost during flight operations' is a meaningless comment, and I presume the point in mentioning MCT is some way of attempting to prove that the 64 minutes of alleged illness time is what took you below the minimum connection time. As stated upthread BA has form in such cases and, whilst we don't have the evidence for this particular flight, I believe the latest stats show that 89% of cases going to CEDR are found in the traveller's favour. For the amount of compensation involved it is probably worth the effort.

subject2load

Often1

OP - This comes down to credibility. If the CEDR or MCOL process assess BA's version as true, you will lose. In order to pursue either, you will need to push back with BA to a standstill or for MCOL produce a letter before action (form available on MCOL website).

I take "flight operations" to mean ATC, wind shifts, and the like. Not a significant issue on a flight of this length.

navylad

Infinite Possibilities