BA refusing compensation - advice please
Feb 23, 2019, 4:00 pm
#32
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
Pretty much all of the NEB's, certainly UK, have determined that having a little placard at the counter is good enough as advice of EC 261/2004.
Someone did a study in 2016-17 which may or may not be academically sound. They came to the conclusion that only roughly 2% of facially valid claims are ever even made in the first place. Presumably the percentage who follow through from an initial denial and then with a formal proceeding of some kind is even less.
Someone did a study in 2016-17 which may or may not be academically sound. They came to the conclusion that only roughly 2% of facially valid claims are ever even made in the first place. Presumably the percentage who follow through from an initial denial and then with a formal proceeding of some kind is even less.
Feb 23, 2019, 4:21 pm
#34
Suspended
Join Date: Feb 2019
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 2
Often1 posted 'Pretty much all of the NEB's, certainly UK, have determined that having a little placard at the counter is good enough as advice of EC 261/2004.'
The placards cover general awarness, if disruption or denied boarding actually happens, the airline is required by the CAA to provide more detailed information.
CAP1227 and subsequent relevant documents refer, but I cannot post a URL as a new user.
The placards cover general awarness, if disruption or denied boarding actually happens, the airline is required by the CAA to provide more detailed information.
CAP1227 and subsequent relevant documents refer, but I cannot post a URL as a new user.
Feb 23, 2019, 4:26 pm
#35
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 2,016
Feb 23, 2019, 7:07 pm
#38
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brighton. UK
Programs: BA Gold / VS /IHG Diamond & Ambassador
Posts: 14,196
and CEDR is certainly ruling against the airlines that fund them. Same with the financial ombudsman too.
Feb 24, 2019, 1:44 am
#39
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,246
....lots of regulators are funded by fees of those that they regulate. And the one I worked with definitely enforced the regulations including closing firms down (and winning on appeals)
and CEDR is certainly ruling against the airlines that fund them. Same with the financial ombudsman too.
and CEDR is certainly ruling against the airlines that fund them. Same with the financial ombudsman too.
Feb 24, 2019, 9:51 am
#40
Join Date: May 2006
Programs: AMEX PP;BAEC Bronze;Tesco CC Preferred;
Posts: 219
And I am afraid I do indeed bad mouth the company, but not the staff who are their saving grace, and whom Alex Cruz simply doesn’t deserve.
Feb 24, 2019, 10:44 am
#41
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Bregenz, Austria
Programs: AA, BAEC, Alaska, Flying Blue, United, IHG, Hilton
Posts: 2,950
Whilst the payment-dodging behaviour is unconscionable, it is by no means limited to BA, and it will continue until the relevant authorities start making it more expensive to break the law than it is to abide by it.
Feb 24, 2019, 12:05 pm
#42
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
If indeed only 2% of passengers with a likely valid file a claim and that were to increase 45-fold so that 90% of such claims are filed, the cost of the Regulation, especially under the judicial monkeying of the CJEU, would be reflected in lowered profits or higher fares. You guess which one.
As originally conceived, the purpose of the Regulation was to create an incentive for carriers to operate relatively on schedule. But, within the CJEU's tortured reasoning on a number of issues, there is little a carrier can do to avoid many delays and claim an "extraordinary circumstance." Thus, EC 261/2004 has become largely a form of a lottery with the winnings going to people who likely need it the least.
Feb 24, 2019, 2:09 pm
#43
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ORD
Programs: US Air, UA BA LH AI DELTA MARRIOTT CHOICE SGP
Posts: 9,883
Which will not happen any time soon. The devil's bargain is that the EU can say that it is tough, but the carriers will not complain so long as the cost is not run up on them.
If indeed only 2% of passengers with a likely valid file a claim and that were to increase 45-fold so that 90% of such claims are filed, the cost of the Regulation, especially under the judicial monkeying of the CJEU, would be reflected in lowered profits or higher fares. You guess which one.
As originally conceived, the purpose of the Regulation was to create an incentive for carriers to operate relatively on schedule. But, within the CJEU's tortured reasoning on a number of issues, there is little a carrier can do to avoid many delays and claim an "extraordinary circumstance." Thus, EC 261/2004 has become largely a form of a lottery with the winnings going to people who likely need it the least.
If indeed only 2% of passengers with a likely valid file a claim and that were to increase 45-fold so that 90% of such claims are filed, the cost of the Regulation, especially under the judicial monkeying of the CJEU, would be reflected in lowered profits or higher fares. You guess which one.
As originally conceived, the purpose of the Regulation was to create an incentive for carriers to operate relatively on schedule. But, within the CJEU's tortured reasoning on a number of issues, there is little a carrier can do to avoid many delays and claim an "extraordinary circumstance." Thus, EC 261/2004 has become largely a form of a lottery with the winnings going to people who likely need it the least.
Feb 24, 2019, 8:16 pm
#44
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brighton. UK
Programs: BA Gold / VS /IHG Diamond & Ambassador
Posts: 14,196
EU 261 left the enforcement aspect to national Governments / Parliaments to determine. I believe in some countries that EU261 comes under consumer protection bodies not aviation ones. If regulators across Europe had got their acts together then maybe th courts might not have made some of the decisions they have made.
Feb 24, 2019, 8:30 pm
#45
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brighton. UK
Programs: BA Gold / VS /IHG Diamond & Ambassador
Posts: 14,196
If indeed only 2% of passengers with a likely valid file a claim and that were to increase 45-fold so that 90% of such claims are filed, the cost of the Regulation, especially under the judicial monkeying of the CJEU, would be reflected in lowered profits or higher fares. You guess which one.
so even if every single passenger on those flights claimed (or was automatically paid) it would still be a very small number in the airlines accounts.
And i guess that if an airline found that specific flights or routes caused more than their share of delays then some tweaks to the schedule might be in order to bring their liability down.