PETER01

I would say that this is a 'significant' change and so therefore you should get all your money refunded within 7 days but inform them within 7 days. (see my bolding below) I wouldn't mention your plans have changed. Just tell them that as it is a day later then it is no longer suitable and instruct them to issue a full refund.

The BA Holidays Team are quite used to this and their customer service in general is usually very good to excellent in my experiences and they usually get complimented here as they do have a 'can do' attitude.

https://www.britishairways.com/en-gb...and-conditions

8.6. If we make a significant change to your booking then, whether compensation is payable or not, you have a choice. You may:
8.6.1. accept the significant change; or
8.6.2. accept substitute arrangements of equivalent or superior quality if we are able to offer this to you; or
8.6.3. accept substitute arrangements of lower quality if we are able to offer this to you together with a refund of the difference in price between the original and the substitute arrangements; or
8.6.4. cancel your booking altogether, in which case we will process a refund in full of all money you have paid us for the booking within 7 days of your request.

8.7. You must tell us which one of the above choices (under Clause 8.6) you make within 7 days of being informed of the significant change we are making, or as soon as reasonably practicable if your departure is less than 7 days from the date you receive notification. If we do not receive notification from you about your choice you are deemed to have accepted the option in Clause 8.6.4 above.

8.8. Unless Clause 11.2 applies, you agree that if a significant change is made to your booking, whichever choice you make under Clause 8.6 above, we will only pay you for losses which may fairly and reasonably be considered as arising naturally (that is, according to the usual course of things) from the significant change we make.

EDIwanderer

Alex261

This is an update from last year - I had a post about going to CEDR.

To cut a long story short. After going through CEDR, and BA making the case that I landed at LGW instead of LHR, and after being challenged in the CEDR portal twice, did not correct their error, I had expected (considering I had evidence from the CAA) the adjudicator to at least confirm where I landed (which had a bearing from one viewpoint of missing my connection...). In any case my argument had been that it wasn't the flight being delayed due to extraordinary circumstances (which it was), it was that as passengers, given an hour between door times, I should have still made the onward flight. I was denied boarding at the electronic gates at T5, FCC.

I took the case to court, and it was thrown out on the basis of 'Res Judicata', that the case had already been decided upon. This was irrespective of whether there was an inaccuracy in the evidence, or that the adjudicator's judgement was wrong.

So the moral of the story is (from my point of view) is to avoid CEDR like the plague. If it happens next time, I'll be heading straight to court.

WorldClub

KARFA

Thanks for the update.

Looking back at your original posts on this I think the LGW/LHR issue is a bit of a red herring. It looks like you had a booked connection for FCO-LHR-ABZ of 1 hour 5 mins. The flight was delayed coming in to LHR and the cause of that delay was the fire evacuation of the tower at LHR followed by Amadeus IT problems, due to the timing I think the former was the more relevant issue. The delay was sufficient to delay your arrival at connections so you did not meet conformance of 35 mins.

Whist you were delayed and eventually rebooked for the next day, the underlying reason for the delay to you were issues beyond BA's control - i.e. the fire evacuation of the tower at LHR followed by Amadeus IT problems. On that basis, and as noted by a few others at the time, I think you were always fighting a losing battle here.

From what I can understand your expenses were fully met so you haven't lost out at least.

Alex261

Hi KARFA,

With due respect you miss the point.

I was the only one ever to mention conformance in the saga and would have been willing to take that and let it rest.
The door to door time was 60 minutes so in normal circumstances there should have been time.
With the fire evacuation we must have been about the first to land, so there were no hold ups.

The argument in court was that BA had a policy of (scheduled departure time - arrival door time) must be >= minimum connection time. [So 1700 - 1630 gives 30 minutes which was less than 60 mins minimum connection time).
No one presented this policy to me, so I would question its existence, and if it does exist, how reasonable is that as a policy?


My point is that as this was all pointed out to CEDR, I would have thought a more considered response was in order, rather than just accepting the landing at LGW "red-herring" caused us to miss the flight, quoting landing at LGW at 1628 and missing the LHR departure of 1815.

On this thread, I've seen T-6 minutes quoted by c-w-s, so conformance probably was the issue - just never confirmed to me.

Alex261

Oh,

As for the Amadeus IT problems, surely that would be an operational issue, therefore not "extraordinary circumstances"...

KARFA

I think you are over complicating what is in essence a relatively simple case. the booked connection time was just over an hour. the actual time you had to connect was reduced due to a delay causing you to miss the onward connection, and the reasons for the delay were outside ba's control. unfortunately the result of your compensation claim was fairly inevitable. the issue (misunderstanding) about LGW/LHR doesn't really impact on this reasoning.

6 minutes for door closing is irrelevant I am afraid. The 35 minute conformance policy at T5 is well signed in the terminal and on the ba website and you need to present yourself at security no later than 35 minutes before the scheduled departure time of your onward flight https://www.britishairways.com/en-gb...rt/heathrow-t5 you didn't make that 35 minute cutoff - conformance usually works off scheduled departure time so even if your onward flight is showing as delayed by say 10 minutes conformance remains at 35 mins before the scheduled time. The reason was because you were delayed getting in (you were late arriving compared to the scheduled arrival time) - the two reasons for the delay were outside BA's control.

anyway, there isn't much point in re-litigating the whole thing now. at the end of the day you are not out of pocket for your expenses so probably best to move on.

cbagent

Great news....always worth persevering !

Alex261

Thank you KARFA.

This is important to me because it lets me know for the future.

It should also help others, who have tight connections to make.

It does not matter that your connecting flight is delayed. The conformance is based purely on the scheduled departure time, when it comes to connections. So irrespective of an incoming flight being delayed a few minutes, and the connecting flight being delayed an hour, these relative delays do not come into the equation. This sounds at though it could be unfair, but if that's what the policy is, then it is good to know. I understand that there needs to be some rules (or policy) in place, particularly where automated systems are in place, and that they can't help everyone all the time.

So in my case, as the scheduled time was 1700, the conformance would have been T-35, which would have been 1625.
Had I known this when I landed and the doors opened at 1630, I'd have known what to expect and not rush to make a connection I'd every chance of missing. It may also be useful for others to know this as well, for future reference.

Of course, this contradicts the policy that BA made reference to in court, that the gate would close at T-60 (where 60 mins is the minimum connection time). In fact, the inaccuracies from BA, were rife and continued throughout. I'd suggest there is room for improvement there.

However, you do add a bit of uncertainty because you state "usually works off scheduled departure time". This uncertainty causes confusion however, because others in this forum have suggested that BA can change the conformance (for example, by contacting the departing gate). BA also promotes a premier service that facilitates connecting to other flights when time is tight. If it depends on passenger status (e.g. BA Executive club level, or cost of booking) then that's OK, but I can see why others may also feel this is unfair. It would also be confusing for some passengers that have successfully, just cut it in time, when making a flight (e.g. a friend has said that the tightest flight he made was such that the staff had to open the plane doors for him). Others could probably go on.

As for the litigation thing, I've had my moment in court, so there is nothing further I can do. The point of my post was rather to inform, regards CEDR, and my personal experience.

It does not look like EC 261/2004 applies to the airline assisting passengers make a connection (i.e. being proactive), so passengers should not expect any recourse if they miss a connection, even though they may be in the knowledge that the airline could have helped but chose not to.

Agent69

I encountered a similar situation before Christmas on an ex EU flight that returned to AMS.

The BA flight LHR-AMS (which was the end of the ex EU portion of the trip) was late arriving at AMS due to fog at the airport. I presented myself at the BA check in desk at AMS for my positioning flight back to LHR about 50 minutes before scheduled take off. They wouldn't check me in even though all flights into AMS were being delayed, and the plane that was taking me back to LHR was still in LHR waiting for a take off slot.

It's anoying, but I guess the conformance rules are what they are. If you have a scenario where every flight into and out of an airport is delayed,then I guess it isn't realistic to keep rehashing the conformance times to reflect the estimated departure times.

bdb303

Advice needed on whether to pursue the following under EU 261.

Blind passenger books ticket AMS-LHR via BA's call centre, because unable to do payment online. She is travelling with an officially accredited assistance dog for the blind. The call centre ask for additional details regarding the dog and then assures her that all is fine. So passenger assumes that it is all sorted.

Fast forward to the day of travel and BA denies boarding to the passenger because she did not contact the Animal Reception Centre in Heathrow. BA then reluctantly contacts this centre (even at one point insists the passenger visit an airport doctor to prove she is blind), but she is no longer able to board the original flight. The next flight she is put on is subsequently delayed by 70 minutes due to a technical fault with the plane. When she does eventually arrive at LHR the total delay is over four hours.

I have contacted BA about an EU 261 claim but they have denied on the basis that she did not contact the Animal Reception Centre. Is this correct? In my opinion, the passenger did everything she could to ensure everything was in order prior to the flight.

UKtravelbear

bdb303

Thanks! So you don't think it is the fault of British Airways that they did not inform her, especially when she dealt directly with the call centre and specifically asked what information they needed. It's nice that they have that page on their website, but how likely is it that a blind person will find that?

UKtravelbear