gallagher

I thought this the best place as it is a BA ticket but flying Qatar airways
Booked EDI-DOH-PEN. PEN-DOH-LHR_LGW-EDI

This doesn't seem to fit into any of the usual cancellation compensation categories. It's quite a long, complicated and unusal situation so please bear with me.....

11 days before departure there was a flight number change (EDI-DOH) which led to an email informing I was re-booked on the same flight timings - ok although I neded to call to re-asign seats as there was a problem with my ticket.
Over the next 9 days, I got a further 2 emails/texts telling me my flight was cancelled so I again called BA to be told (after long conversations about re-routings etc) it wasn't in fact cancelled and I was stilled booked EDI-DOH.

2 days prior to departure I looked in the BA APP and it again showed the EDI-DOH leg as cancelled and I need to call BA. I explained the previous situations I was told on this occaision it was definately 'cancelled 100%'. I was then offered the rerouting NCL-LHR (overnight at hotel) LHR-DOH. This meant leaving NCL 18 hours earlier then the intended original EDI-DOH booking. No connections were offered from NCL-LHR on the same day as LHR-DOH so we needed to overnight at LHR. The EDI-DOH flight was still showing as bookable on BA.com but the telephone representative ensured me it was cancelled.

Approx 3 hours before my NCL-LHR I got a text saying this leg was cancelled (slot restrictions at LHR I assume due to weather). I was offered an earlier NCL-LHR flight but I was unable to get to NCL in time for that. Best BA could offer me was for me to get to LHR myself and they start my ticket at LHR. Only other alternative offered would for me to get to PEN 24 hours later than booked but as I had a connection in PEN this was not acceptable.
Eventually got to LHR hotel at 01:00 and had to be up again to be at the airport at 06:00 for 09:00 flight. BA advised this in case there was any problems with my ticket. I asked BA to hold my LGW-EDI open as I now didn't want to travle back to EDI but they insisted on cancelling this leg.

• the EDI-DOH flight was never cancelled and did operate on the day.
• I reached my destination PEN at the expected time
• the NCL-LHR was cancelled due to weather
• I left NCL (train) 19 hours earlier than my EDI-DOH booking

1. so is EU261 compensation due here?
2. can I claim expenses incurred for NCL-EDI train (not used), NCL-LHR train and taxi. LHR hotel?
3. what tier points / avios should I get?
4. anyhting else I need to know?
   
   Hopefully an expert can help here?

FlyerTalker39574

corporate-wage-slave

So in essence you were misinformed by the BA App (and relying on the BA App for QR flights is probably not the right approach) compounded by wrong advice from BA Contact Centre staff. Since QR own the ticket 24 hours before departure the better idea is to liaise with the operating airline at that point. The irony is that if you had been less contactable and simply turned up in EDI as booked, nothing much would have happened, from the look of it. And this also means you're not in scope for EC261, this is a simple mistake on the BA side. I think you have two possible approaches. One is to start talking to BA Customer Relations by telephone to try and resolve a suitable outcome by dialogue; the second is to articulate exactly what you want in a formalised way and then proceed via MCOL to extract it if necessary. CEDR can be used for non EC261 matters, but I don't have enough background information as to how this will work. This may owe more to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (see Dashboard) than EC261.

gallagher

yes it was

Often1

• There is no delay / change / duty of care compensation or refund due here as EC 261/2004 applies to the operating carrier, e.g. QR. QR, in fact performed its flight as scheduled and never provided any incorrect information to OP.

BA, on the other hand, provided multiple levels of erroneous information, all premised on its faulty information that the QR flight was cancelled. I would think that although BA does not owe compensation or a duty of care that it would, at a minimum cover OP's out-of-pocket expenses incurred as the result of BA's faulty information. It should also provide some form of customer service gesture for OP's poor experience. That will likely be in the form of avios.

I suggest a much abbreviated note to BA. Leave out all of the irrelevant detail and focus in on short declarative statements which explain what happened. The more clear & concise, the more likely this is to be dealt with.

For the benefit of others, not to chastise or blame OP, I would always check with the operating carrier of any flight. Even if there are no notices, the best source of information about how QR is operating is QR. In that case, OP would have quickly learned that his flight was operating, that he could ignore BA, and that all was well.

gallagher

I wrote to BA last week and just got the usual standard reply:

'As a Silver member of our Executive Club I realise the service you received when you contacted us about your booking didn't meet your expectations. You don't expect to encounter multiple issues with your booking and I'm sorry.
I've tried to find out exactly what happened with your booking, however as all of the flights involved were operated by Qatar Airways, I'm unable to provide an explanation. I know this isn't the response you both were expecting.
To show you how much we appreciate your support, I’ve added 6,000 Avios to each of your Silver Executive Club accounts. Please accept them as an apology. Subject to availability, you can put your Avios towards future bookings or use them to upgrade your class of travel next time you fly with us. They can also be used for hotels and car hire. Please visit www.ba.com/executiveclub to find out more.'

Wish I hadn't bothered wasting more time writing to BA

IAMORGAN

Jimbojumbo

Often1

You may be surprised, but that is exactly what the Regulation explicitly states. The duties all fall on the operating carrier and the compensation and coverage all falls on the operating carrier. But, the operating carrier performed the flight and accordingly did not notify the passenger of a cancellation, nor did it rebook or otherwise inconvenience him.. There is also absolutely no suggestion that QR advised BA of a cancellation. Not surprising because there was not a cancellation.

EC 261/2004 is generally binary and favorable to the passenger. But, because it is simple and draws bright lines, it does not cover every situation.

None of this is to suggest that OP is without remedy. It is one of FT's urban myths that if the Regulation does not apply, there is nothing left.

Indeed BA ought to cover what amount to OP's "damages" in the form of his overnight, local transportation and meals. If it does not, OP is not foreclosed from asking CEDR to adjudicate (it does not than EC 261/2004) or to file an MCOL proceeding for what amounts to a commercial error which is actionable.

IAMORGAN

Globaliser

One question occurs to me: Although the QR EDI-DOH flight operated that day, did a BA EDI-DOH "flight" operate? In other words, did the flight in the end carry a BA code or not?

At any rate, this tale rather reinforces three things for me:-

1. [*]
2. [*]

Im a new user

There was an ECJ case (C-302/16) where a travel agency didn't forward information about a flight cancellation until several weeks after the airline tried to contact the passenger, and the court ruled that compensation was due as the airline hadn't informed the customer in time, so it may very well be that an incorrect announcement that a flight is cancelled counts as a cancellation as far as the regulation is concerned as long as the passenger is rebooked on another flight or cancels the trip altogether as a result of the incorrect announcement.

Globaliser

As I understand the OP, though, this isn't the situation. I thought that the OP was booked on a BA "flight". This was not booked by BA as an agent for QR, and BA is not in the same position as an agent for QR would be. If you book BA1234 operated by QR567, that is a BA flight, even though booking QR567 would be a booking for a QR flight. I think that this could make a real difference, hence my question about whether there was in the end any BA "flight" operated by this QR aircraft.

IAMORGAN

Often1

It really pays to read the text of the Regulation itself. It's apparently out of fashion.

As to each form of compensation, refund, or duty, it speaks of "the operating carrier". QR was the operating carrier. BA was not the operating carrier. QR did not cancel its flight. BA erroneously reported that QR had cancelled it.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.h...C_1&format=PDF

If this had happened prior to the effective date of the Regulation, BA would have been liable for its error. But, not under the Regulation.

Not every square peg must be hammered into a round hole. Sometimes the round peg fits nicely into the round hole