FlyerTalker39574

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’.

DYKWIA

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.

FlyerTalker39574

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.

UKtravelbear

Perhaps it has done risk assessements and decided that the costs of paying out EU261 compensation and duty of care in situations like this is less than the cost of paying salary and benefit costs to the staff and accommodation costs as well for the staff it would have to roster there.

And who do you think would pay for those extra staff? Us the passenger

FlyerTalker39574

No, it’s a fluid revenue business.

DYKWIA

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).

FlyerTalker39574

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.

cbrown5294

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/

KARFA

Just for reference on 25 August the following BA flights were cancelled

I can't see the record of other operators, but it would be surprising if they didn't suffer too.

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?

UKtravelbear

It looks like a reference to the decision where strikes by an airlines own employees are not extraordinary circumstances so qualify for EU261

KARFA

Thanks. So transposing to the OP's situation I would agree it would be relevant if it were BA staff striking. But as it is IB staff striking and they are operationally two separate airlines I don't see that case helping the OP.

Ted51

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.

Often1

What you seek is not doable in any reasonable manner so as to provide a commercially viable business operation. This is not just about the "cluster" of AUS, DFW, and IAH, but one in the northeast, one for MIA, FLL, and ATL, one for LAS , PHX& DEN, and one for LAX & SFO. Adding four replacement crews to perform flights which can only be operated by one type of aircraft for each "cluster" reduces flexibility, decreases efficiency and leads to decreased profitability without significant fare increases, not to mention landing and departure time limits for many airports, meaning that even if a replacement crew could be packed off to a seemingly nearby location, an overnight hold would still be in place.

In the simplest terms, one may claim what one wants, but this does not mean it will happen.

FlyerTalker39574

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.

navylad

That equates to £millions though right, number of outstation (Ignoring the issue of different plane types) x 24 away form base time + basic wages + additional hotel room costs x 365 days. Rough calculation somewhere between £50k-£70k per outstation, would be very expensive for airlines and ultimately that would push prices up.