Kgmm77

simons1

I would contact the CAA, and also the media. It really is reprehensible that BA continue to peddle this nonsense.

I can't believe this is something made up by a CS agent.

golfmad

In fact, watch this space.

2035

I had exactly the same response from BA on a 3.5 hour mechanical delay on flight LHR-TLV last May. Posted in the 2018 EC261 thread.
I pushed back and insisted that I'd prefer the EU compensation as this was flight departing from EU airport on EU airline.
Hey Presto, compensation was offered (EUR 300 per person as between 3 and 4 hours).

Im a new user

Norway and Iceland are part of the European Economic Area, which means that they have to implement a lot of EU law. EU law is enforced by the EFTA Court whereas the European Court of Justice enforces EU law in EU countries. In practice, it seems that the European Court of Justice and the EFTA Court follow each others' rulings, so there is probably no difference in interpretation of the regulation. If an EU directive or regulation applies to Norway and Iceland, the title contains the words "Text with EEA relevance" but the date of implementation could be a bit later than in the EU.

Switzerland has a bunch of bilateral treaties with the EU and so is required to implement a lot of EU law. However, I think that courts in Switzerland don't necessarily follow the ECJ and that the ECJ doesn't necessarily follow Swiss courts, so there could be differences in interpretation.

Many other countries have passenger rights legislation which may or may not be inspired by the EU regulation.

If the UK leaves the EU, then I think that the UK would have to actively repeal Regulation 261/2004 for it to stop applying.

Shahar

By any chance was this the BA 163 on Feb 10th, 2019?

Takiteasy

Oxon Flyer

Indeed : repeating this as a blatant plug for FT's 'Brexit' information resource in the UK & Ireland forum, to which all Brexit-related travel questions should be directed :

Brexit and Travel

ChuckBuck

No, this was the BA165 on Dec 18 2018, BA takes a while to reply.

mario

Yes. Claim for time spent dealing with the issue.

rlnnpt

ChuckBuck

I kept my original post short and simple, therefore I quoted only BA's first reply. If anyone is interested, here are their next replies (not that it changed the outcome).
First reply is shown at the beginning of this thread, basically claiming that the Israeli law applies and not EC261.
I replied that EC261 applies to flights departing from EU member states, which UK still is.
Their reply to that:

"Thanks for coming back to us about your recent travel experience. I'm sorry for not responding to your reply emails sooner. You’re clearly unhappy with our response and I understand why you feel this way.
As previously mentioned, the ASL prescribes monetary compensation only in cases of flight delays exceeding eight hours. The law in Israel applies to foreign operators and it applies extraterritorially and is binding in accordance with international Israeli rules.
In accordance with the applicable law, a foreign operator, such as British Airways, is obligated to abide by the provisions of the Aviation Services Licensing Law 5723-1963. Under these circumstances, for all purposes, British Airways acts in accordance with the provisions of the law and therefore your request is denied."

My next reply was a little longer and had to do with the Israeli law: (btw I'm neither a lawyer nor have any law background - just using google and common sense)
"Thank you for your reply.
According to Aviation Services Licensing Law 2012, section 16, "The provisions of this law shall
not derogate from provisions of any law, including the entitlement of the passenger to
compensation under any law." - from this section I understand that this law does not cancel the
EU 261/2004 law.

Section 17 - "The provisions of this law are not to be stipulated against, unless such is for the
benefit of the passenger". - from this section I understand that if it is for the benefit of the
passenger (me), then this law can be stipulated against.

Section 20 - "A passenger who has received a benefit under foreign law due to circumstances giving
rise to a cause of action, will not be entitled to benefits under this law of the same sort which
he has received as stated".
This section clearly states that there is a possibility of a passenger receiving compensation
under foreign law (such as EU 261/2004) which is what I request.

Therefore I disagree with your claim that only the Israeli law can be applied to our case.
I would like you to reconsider your denial of our request.
If I don't hear from you until (8 weeks since I opened the case), then I will open a case
with CEDR to mediate between us." --end of my reply.

BA's final reply:
"We reviewed your reply concerning to the applicability of EC 261/2004 with respect to claims submitted in Israel.
I note that while article 16 of the Aviation Service Law does allow passengers to exhaust their rights under the general law, it is our understanding that the general law includes the applicability of Montréal Convention 1999 which excludes passengers from raising claims against air carriers which are out of the convention scope.
Additionally, EC regulation 261/2004 do not apply in Israel as they are not a part of the Israeli law.
You can refer your complaint to the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR) for an independent decision to be made. CEDR is an independent dispute resolution provider, certified by the Civil Aviation Authority, to adjudicate disputes between airlines and their passengers which haven’t been resolved through the airline’s own complaints procedure.
You can find out how to refer your complaint to CEDR by visiting their website".

To sum it all up, Israeli laws and Canadian Conventions apply, but EU laws don't. They must be brexit supporters.
I will indeed refer my complaint to CEDR.

ABax

This is utterly outrageous. BA should terminate immediately whomever is giving them this legal advice.

Tobias-UK

The reference to the Montréal Convention is a red-herring in the context of your situation, and any reference to it can be safely ignored. BA's assertion that EC261/2004 does not apply in Israel (because the provisions are not found within Israeli law) is an interesting argument but one that I doubt will receive countenance from an EU court.

The facts appear simple, you departed the EU as a fare paying passenger on an EU carrier. That qualifies to fall under the provisions of EC261/2004. The fact that a claim is submitted in Israel is irrelevant, there is nothing in EU law that would allow an airline to refuse a claim under EC261/2004 on the grounds that the claim is made from a country outside the EU.

V10

I suppose at least we know which department the intern is working in at the moment.