Originally Posted by DYKWIA
(Post 31899423)
...In this case, BA will argue that they can't be expected to have replacement crew members at every outstation. I seem to recall a recent post that said a CEDR ruling backed BA in this situation.
|
Originally Posted by richardwft
(Post 31899635)
A back up crew plan that covers AUS, IAH and DFW would be sensible to avoid 24 hour delay situations and conform with ‘reasonable measures’.
|
Originally Posted by DYKWIA
(Post 31899862)
Wouldn't that require B747, B777 and B787 crew to all be on standby for the once or twice a year that this occurs? Not "reasonable" in my opinion.
Let’s not ignore Recital (2) of EC261/2004. |
Originally Posted by richardwft
(Post 31900038)
It’s not the passenger’s problem that an airline chooses to operate different aircraft types and minimises the costs of crew stopovers to the bone. The B787 fleet is getting large with the addition of B781s this year to ATL and DFW. We’re talking Texas here, not Chile, it’s not more than 12 hours from the UK, with a OW partner that has high frequency flights between cities that can re-position crew when necessary. 24 hours delay is simply far too long and should never happen. BA need to wake up, do full risk assessments and put adequate crew back up plans in place.
And who do you think would pay for those extra staff? Us the passenger |
Originally Posted by UKtravelbear
(Post 31900083)
...And who do you think would pay for those extra staff? Us the passenger
|
Originally Posted by richardwft
(Post 31900038)
It’s not the passenger’s problem that an airline chooses to operate different aircraft types and minimises the costs of crew stopovers to the bone. The B787 fleet is getting large with the addition of B781s this year to ATL and DFW. We’re talking Texas here, not Chile, it’s not more than 12 hours from the UK, with a OW partner that has high frequency flights between cities that can re-position crew when necessary. 24 hours delay is simply far too long and should never happen. BA need to wake up, do full risk assessments and put adequate crew back up plans in place.
Let’s not ignore Recital (2) of EC261/2004. |
Originally Posted by DYKWIA
(Post 31900242)
But then the crew wouldn't arrive "rested" (as they'd need to connect in the US)... So, your 12 hours suddenly becomes 20 hours (plus whatever time is needed at both ends).
|
Claim during BCN strike end of Aug denied
I put a claim in for our flight that was cancelled into BCN and rerouted to MAD
got a response back from BA : “Your claim for EU Compensation has been assessed and your claim has been refused because BA0486on 25 August was cancelled due to Industrial action. I’m afraid this was out of our control and caused unforeseen disruption to our schedule.” It was interesting because most other flight operated that day but ours and the choice was to spend the night in London or fly to MAD. Since we were on a tight schedule flew to MAD (nothing like having to drive 5 hours out of your way) Is BA right or due to the 2018 ruling in the courts should I press more ? this was the cause appears to be Iberia staff ? https://loyaltylobby.com/2019/08/22/...25-30-31-2019/ |
Just for reference on 25 August the following BA flights were cancelled
BA406/BA407 London Heathrow – Barcelona BA476/BA477 London Heathrow – Barcelona BA478/BA479 London Heathrow – Barcelona BA486/BA487 London Heathrow – Barcelona An IB strike is not something within the control of BA - there is no case law that would support an argument that somehow they are as a result of being ultimately owned by the same parent company. I am not sure what arguments you would propose to pursue this on? What 2018 court ruling are you referring to? |
It looks like a reference to the decision where strikes by an airlines own employees are not extraordinary circumstances so qualify for EU261
|
Originally Posted by UKtravelbear
(Post 31903481)
It looks like a reference to the decision where strikes by an airlines own employees are not extraordinary circumstances so qualify for EU261
|
Cancellation of Flight on 7th Sep 19
BA189 to EWR cancelled 3 days before flight with rebooking onto JFK flight departing just over two hours earlier than original flight. Asked BA for EU261 compensation and cost of transport JFK to EWR (which was $159 for two of us) which was refused. Cancellation due to RR Trent 1000 engine problems which out of their control and hence extraordinary circumstances.
Eventually went to CEDR, when BA provided their defence they also agreed to pay transport costs. CEDR just ruled in my favour, they agreed that the engine issues were extraordinary circumstances but BA had failed to show they had taken all reasonable measures to avoid the cancellation. Part of the CEDR decision below :- "In the second part of its defence the airline is required to prove, on the balance of possibilities, that it took all reasonable measures to avoid the extraordinary circumstance. The airline had been aware of the issue within its fleet of aircraft since the 19th April 2018 and claimed that it had put the required inspection programme in place as necessary. It also asserted that the engine defect had impacted upon the availability of spare aircraft and that there were no alternative aircraft within its fleet that could have been used to prevent the cancellation of the Flight. The airline further contended that there was insufficient time to arrange the „wet-lease‟ of an aircraft from another operator in order to prevent the cancellation of the Flight. After specific consideration of the longevity of the issue of the engine defects I am not convinced by the airline‟s assertion that the requirements for checks and inspections had been managed in such a way to avoid the cancellation, nor that sufficient efforts were made to ensure replacement aircraft were available, particularly with three days between the date of the cancellation and the date of the Flight. I therefore find that the airline has not proved, on the balance of probabilities that it has made all reasonable efforts to overcome the impact of the extraordinary event and as such the airline‟s defence fails. In accordance with Regulation 261, the passenger is entitled to compensation for the cancellation of the Flight and for reimbursement of the taxi fare." Thanks to CWS, FlyingGames and others who have provided useful advice. |
Originally Posted by richardwft
(Post 31900308)
I’m thinking of available rested crew that are already in the US that can be re-positioned to operate the affected flight. This is very different to say Argentina/ Chile where you have much fewer flights and it’s more difficult to benefit from scale.
In the simplest terms, one may claim what one wants, but this does not mean it will happen. |
Originally Posted by Often1
(Post 31904484)
...Adding four replacement crews....
B788s, 9s and 10s are cash cows for BA between LHR and the US, simple back up crew planning is possible and affordable to negate 24 hour delays. |
Originally Posted by richardwft
(Post 31904856)
We’re talking a singular crew member who may have fallen ill, not a full set of cabin and flight crew members.
B788s, 9s and 10s are cash cows for BA between LHR and the US, simple back up crew planning is possible and affordable to negate 24 hour delays. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 1:22 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.