|
Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave
(Post 31915123)
Yes, please report back on how this worked out. The delay in Chambéry was real enough, I saw press reports of sports centres in Aix-les-Bains being opened up as a makeshift dormitory for the large number of people stranded. But that doesn't have a bearing on your claim in my view.
|
Happy New Year!
I am copy pasting my original post from the 2019 thread Hello everyone, I am a newbie here on Flyertalk and signed up as I had an issue on BA. We (a party of 3) flew on AA-issued tickets on last week (14th Dec). 1) The EU flight to LHR was delayed and therefore, we missed the connecting (AA) flight to JFK 2) We were rerouted on another flight to JFK and it arrived 4 hours, 11 mins after the originally scheduled flight we missed.(or 4 hours, 5 mins as per the schedule, but the AA flight arrived 6 minutes ahead of time) 3) Our baggage did not make it to us until 5 days later. Questions: 1) As this is above 3500 kms, I believe the claim for compensation is legit. But how can I check for the real reason that the BA901 got delayed? 2) Do I need to put forward both the claims (flight delay and purchases owing to baggage delay) together? I received a feedback today from BA. - They will reimburse my expenditure for essentials during the 5 day delay of my baggage. - They refused EC261 compensation on the ground that my inbound flight into Heathrow was delayed because of Air Traffic Control restrictions. With the feedback about ATC-caused delay, am I at a dead-end here? I have responded requesting specific detail of the ATC restriction that resulted in missing my connection to NY. Thanks for your time! |
Originally Posted by SXP302
(Post 31920586)
With the feedback about ATC-caused delay, am I at a dead-end here?
|
Originally Posted by taranty
(Post 31919958)
In fairness, in the context you have quoted it the suggestion was simply putting this in an email to BA to make very clear to them that the matter would not be allowed to drop, with the aim of convincing them to just pay out in the first place. That seemed reasonably sensible.
Assuming you were actually however getting at the suggestion to use a firm rather than progressing things personally with CEDR, I'm coming at this specifically in the context of this case and how I would approach it, given the understanding and experience I have as a lawyer of various dispute resolution procedures. Adjudication, which CEDR involves, often leads to a "common sense" result, rather than what is necessarily correct legally (remarkably the two do not always coincide!). In this case I think that potentially benefits BA, because it's relatively easy to argue that it isn't "reasonable" to have spare crew waiting away from base. Legally this argument appears to fail, but that's no guarantee of a win in front of an adjudicator which is why I don't think this is a great case to run at CEDR. I'd personally happily hand this one over to experts to (a) maximise my chances of winning and (b) not have to spend a bunch of time hunting for relevant decisions to refer to when I didn't really know where to look in the first place. At a cost of around 25% of the compensation I think that would be the best overall approach. In effect this ends up in the same place as an MCOL, only it's not you having to do the legal research to present the argument.That's the final point to make, it's not about the simple provision of information which I agree would be needed regardless of whether you do something yourself or use a firm. It's the research and preparation of the argument, i.e. the bit which actually does the persuasion, which gets taken care of by someone else and better than someone inexperienced would do it. Again, in this specific case that part of it would be very important, so let someone do it who has already run and won that argument in a legal context. Obviously what you can do is have a punt with CEDR first, and if that fails follow up with something through the Courts via a firm. All you've got to lose in that context is £25 and some time/effort. For me that time/effort wouldn't be worth it even though I'm pretty well placed to run my own argument, but others would likely be happy to give it a bash. For what it's worth I think adjudication, mediation, ombudsmen etc absolutely have massive benefits, and professionally I can't stand the whole claims management industry. I just think that in this particular case the legal route is the likeliest path to success. If CEDR doesn’t find in your favour, I don’t think you are barred with going to the small claims court, a reporter on headforpoints has detailed this. I’ve experience of a no win no fee solicitor making simple mistakes, I really wouldn’t bother with them, BA and NRF are aware of this. |
Originally Posted by richardwft
(Post 31921095)
If CEDR doesn’t find in your favour, I don’t think you are barred with going to the small claims court, a reporter on headforpoints has detailed this.
Originally Posted by richardwft
(Post 31921095)
I’ve experience of a no win no fee solicitor making simple mistakes, I really wouldn’t bother with them.
Claims management types undoubtably will make more mistakes than most given that they are more administrators than actual professionals (most of the work is done by low paid staff churning out standard letters provided for them by a system, there's barely a lawyer to be seen). Here though there do appear to be actual specialists in this area of law who are qualified and experienced and work on a no win no fee basis. That's not a bad thing. Last thing I'll say to avoid further derailing the thread, clearly it's up to people to make their own minds up, I'd just caution against sweeping statements that it's never worth getting professional assistance in this sort of situation. There's plenty of times when it's no issue for people to persue it themselves, but certain more complicated scenarios merit making use of someone who has significantly more experience and expertise. That's all I'm really getting at. |
Originally Posted by SXP302
(Post 31920586)
Happy New Year!
I am copy pasting my original post from the 2019 thread I received a feedback today from BA. - They will reimburse my expenditure for essentials during the 5 day delay of my baggage. - They refused EC261 compensation on the ground that my inbound flight into Heathrow was delayed because of Air Traffic Control restrictions. With the feedback about ATC-caused delay, am I at a dead-end here? I have responded requesting specific detail of the ATC restriction that resulted in missing my connection to NY. Thanks for your time! I think French ATC were playing games around the time of your flight (difficult to argue that is exceptional!), so that may have had an impact. Equally some other flow control or weather related issue could have reduced inbound rates which may have meant you were held on the ground at Frankfurt. You only held for 5-10 mins on the way in so that can't be the ATC delay they are claiming. I've had a look at a number of other flights that day which would have been on a similar route to yours at around the same time and there's a lot of similar length delays so that does support the idea that it may have been flow issues affecting traffic generally. If you report back when you get an update from BA that should make things a bit clearer, but I wouldn't declare it a dead-end just yet. |
Originally Posted by taranty
(Post 31922799)
....certain more complicated scenarios merit making use of someone who has significantly more experience and expertise. That's all I'm really getting at.
This is a complex case requiring work, no solicitor is going to succeed without a good fee. |
Originally Posted by taranty
(Post 31922799)
...I don't doubt solicitors make mistakes....
|
Originally Posted by taranty
(Post 31922855)
Did the crew at the time give you any reason why your flight to Heathrow was delayed, was it delayed from early on or a case of boarding on time but then sitting there for a while before you could depart?
I think French ATC were playing games around the time of your flight (difficult to argue that is exceptional!), so that may have had an impact. Equally some other flow control or weather related issue could have reduced inbound rates which may have meant you were held on the ground at Frankfurt. You only held for 5-10 mins on the way in so that can't be the ATC delay they are claiming. I've had a look at a number of other flights that day which would have been on a similar route to yours at around the same time and there's a lot of similar length delays so that does support the idea that it may have been flow issues affecting traffic generally. If you report back when you get an update from BA that should make things a bit clearer, but I wouldn't declare it a dead-end just yet. I got a response from BA and it says as follows: According to our records your flight BA901 had a departure delay of 31 minutes due to Air Traffic Control restrictions. Your flight then incurred an additional delay en route of 21 minutes, arriving at London Heathrow with a total delay of 52 minutes. The reason for this delay isn’t recorded, but this will always be due to weather conditions, adverse winds or instructions given by Air Traffic Control while the aircraft is airborne or on the ground. Similar to an aircraft gaining time en route due to favourable conditions, factors such as these can also have a negative and major impact on a flight. This can have a knock-on effect to the rest of our schedule but as these are fully outside of our control, we’re not liable to pay compensation in such circumstances. Given the new details, do I stand a better chance? Based on the rules, >3 hours delay translates to compensation of 300 Euros. Thanks |
Originally Posted by SXP302
(Post 31924844)
Thanks a lot for your feedback, taranty
I got a response from BA and it says as follows: The total delay in arriving at JFK was more than 4 hours and even if the 31/52 minutes are taken away, the total delay caused still exceeds 3 hours. Given the new details, do I stand a better chance? Based on the rules, >3 hours delay translates to compensation of 300 Euros. Thanks |
Originally Posted by SXP302
(Post 31924844)
Given the new details, do I stand a better chance? Based on the rules, >3 hours delay translates to compensation of 300 Euros.
|
Can someone please just check my understanding:
I had an itinerary on 29/12 of INV-LHR-IAD-CLT-EWR, booked through/ticketed with BA; the last 2 sectors being operated by AA. The IAD-CLT was delayed around 2 hours, meaning we missed the last connection. After eventually finding someone on an AA desk at CLT, they put us in a hotel and on the first flight out the next day. So we arrived at EWR around 9 hours late. As the 3rd, and delayed sector, was on AA metal (and not within the EU) it wouldnt be eligible for any form of compensation? As a side note, once we had found someone to assist in CLT, who was miserable as hell (though this is not relavent), the process of getting us to the hotel and with a room was fairly smooth. However, there was no shuttle early enough for our 4am departure the next day, so we have to get an Uber, which I'll probably not bother using time to claim, if nothing else is due, as it was only $15 Thanks |
Originally Posted by JamieG
(Post 31928047)
As the 3rd, and delayed sector, was on AA metal (and not within the EU) it wouldnt be eligible for any form of compensation?
|
Originally Posted by SXP302
(Post 31924844)
Thanks a lot for your feedback, taranty
I got a response from BA and it says as follows: According to our records your flight BA901 had a departure delay of 31 minutes due to Air Traffic Control restrictions. Your flight then incurred an additional delay en route of 21 minutes, arriving at London Heathrow with a total delay of 52 minutes. The reason for this delay isn’t recorded, but this will always be due to weather conditions, adverse winds or instructions given by Air Traffic Control while the aircraft is airborne or on the ground. Similar to an aircraft gaining time en route due to favourable conditions, factors such as these can also have a negative and major impact on a flight. This can have a knock-on effect to the rest of our schedule but as these are fully outside of our control, we’re not liable to pay compensation in such circumstances. Thanks The flight held for 10 minutes on the way into Heathrow, I've just checked that, so it would seem we can attribute 11 minutes delay to headwinds en route. The 11 mins due to headwinds is not an extraordinary circumstance. The inbound hold for 10 mins, plus the 30 minute departure delay, means ATC cost you 40 mins. Here things become a lot less helpful from your perspective. ATC delays are automatically "exceptional" if "the impact of an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day gives rise to a long delay, an overnight delay, or the cancellation of one or more flights by that aircraft". It seems legitimate that there was an ATC delay on the ground. The reason was likely the very same winds which delayed you enroute. You can tell from the ground speeds when in the hold as well as on approach that there was a very strong westerly wind. That reduces landing rates so ATC hold inbounds on the ground rather than everything departing as normal and ending up with the hundreds of aircraft merrily flying round in circles in various parts of the south east. Whilst here the weather itself isn't an extraordinary event, unfortunately once ATC start issuing instructions because of the weather it moves into the second limb of the test and becomes extraordinary by default. I therefore suspect your only chance is if you missed the connection by less than ten minutes, so you can argue that even with the ATC delay you would have made the connection, and thus it was the additional en route delay of ten minutes due to headwinds (not an extraordinary event, because that was physics not ATC ordering you to slow down) which was ultimately the cause of the missed connection. Even if that's the case it feels like a long shot, and I'd not expect them to cave in without you needing to take it further. |
Originally Posted by taranty
(Post 31928290)
.....Whilst here the weather itself isn't an exceptional event, unfortunately once ATC start issuing instructions because of the weather it moves into the second limb of the test and becomes exceptional by default....
Why is it the passengers problem that Heathrow capacity is reduced when weather conditions fall below good? |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:24 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.