Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > British Airways | Executive Club
Reload this Page >

The 2020 BA compensation thread: Your guide to Regulation EC261/2004

The 2020 BA compensation thread: Your guide to Regulation EC261/2004

    Hide Wikipost
Old Nov 7, 20, 4:07 am   -   Wikipost
Please read: This is a community-maintained wiki post containing the most important information from this thread. You may edit the Wiki once you have been on FT for 90 days and have made 90 posts.
 
Last edit by: Prospero
Wiki Link
Print Wikipost

Old Jan 17, 20, 11:37 am
  #76  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: YVR, HNL
Programs: AS 75k, UA peon, BA Bronze, AC E50k, HH Diamond, Fairmont Plat (RIP)
Posts: 7,518
Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave View Post
CEDR applies. As mentioned some months ago, it's best not to over-extend the dialogue, just submit the CEDR claim, which you can do as a Canadian resident, on the basis of non payment of Right to Care, and if you wish any other costs, reimbursement or compensation that you feel are owed to you under EC261. The onus is on BA to ensure you get the EC261 payment and for Right to Care there is no point making this more complicated.

CEDR has a backlog at the moment (due to the pilots' strikes) so they seem to be operating about 2 weeks longer than normal, But most of the strike cases are now solved so hopefully this won't be too long a delay.

Keep it simple! It's only hassle because you have allowed it to become so.
Thank you as always, CWS. I've come this far so I’ll see it through now. It has been a hassle only because it has been 2 months of emails and phone calls. Hopefully this will be the end of it.
Finkface is offline  
Old Jan 17, 20, 12:28 pm
  #77  
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 5
Originally Posted by taranty View Post
Before getting into the detail of the delay, worth noting that when they say "fully outside our control, so we don't have to pay" they are playing fast and loose with what the test actually is. What they actually have to satisfy is "extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken." A bit of a headwind for example is absolutely not an extraordinary circumstance, despite what they seem to be claiming here that adverse winds en route are enough to enable them to avoid having to pay.

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.

Thanks for everyone's feedback and help.

Update:
BA responded back and denied the EC261 claim on grounds that " Your flight had a delay of 52 minutes which was caused due to Air Traffic Control restrictions being beyond our control. The required minimum connecting time at LHR for your connecting flight however is 90 minutes, which was clearly undercut due to the delay."
  • I looked up BA website and they have stated the required minimum connecting time of 90 mins for flights involving terminal changes
The 31 minutes due to ATC delay ended up cuting down the time between the two flights to 1 hour 19 mins.BA has added the other 21 minutes (weather-related) also under ATC restrictions.

BA's door appears well & truly shut.

Is CEDR or other means worth it?

Thanks for your time!
SXP302 is offline  
Old Jan 17, 20, 12:56 pm
  #78  
Moderator, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges, and Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold; Flying Blue Life Platinum; LH Sen.; Hilton Diamond; Kemal Kebabs Prized Customer
Posts: 56,739
Originally Posted by SXP302 View Post
BA's door appears well & truly shut.

Is CEDR or other means worth it?
It's impossible to say. We don't have dates, times, routes, flight actual timings, the transfer details, what was said by the flight crew on the BA flight and so on, and in this area precise details matter. But if you think BA are incorrect, then yes CEDR is another option to explore. ATC is mentioned in the Regulation as a reason for not paying EC261 but then the details I mention factor into the "all reasonable measures" component. If your details put you into a grey area - which can often be the case when there are several moving parts - then the adjudicator may well side with the customer over the airline.
corporate-wage-slave is online now  
Old Jan 18, 20, 5:54 am
  #79  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 247
I helped a friend make their claim, which BA have now refused to pay out for, and anything beyond what I typed for them originally is a bit beyond my understanding and expertise so thought I would ask here.

they were booked MAN-LHR-MIA , the MAN-LHR was delayed and they missed their connection, BA couldn't get them on another LHR-MIA flight so redirected them LHR-JFK-MIA with an overnight stopover in JFK. As you can imagine (especially in December with only Miami clothes packed) this wasn't very welcome, and they arrived in Miami a day later than scheduled.

BA's response was:
"We take all reasonable measures to avoid disruption to a flight and we always consider if there are any other alternative solutions before, we make a decision. The delay was out of our control and caused unforeseen disruption to our schedule.

Your claim has been refused because BA1387 on 20 December 2019 was delayed due to Slot delay due to airfield weather at destination. Im afraid this was out of our control and caused unforeseen disruption to our schedule."

Is there any way of checking this, can we push back at BA in any way, or do we have to accept that the 600pp will not be paid?
RedDevil83 is offline  
Old Jan 18, 20, 6:12 am
  #80  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,246
Originally Posted by RedDevil83 View Post
I helped a friend make their claim, which BA have now refused to pay out for, and anything beyond what I typed for them originally is a bit beyond my understanding and expertise so thought I would ask here.

they were booked MAN-LHR-MIA , the MAN-LHR was delayed and they missed their connection, BA couldn't get them on another LHR-MIA flight so redirected them LHR-JFK-MIA with an overnight stopover in JFK. As you can imagine (especially in December with only Miami clothes packed) this wasn't very welcome, and they arrived in Miami a day later than scheduled.

BA's response was:
"We take all reasonable measures to avoid disruption to a flight and we always consider if there are any other alternative solutions before, we make a decision. The delay was out of our control and caused unforeseen disruption to our schedule.

Your claim has been refused because BA1387 on 20 December 2019 was delayed due to Slot delay due to airfield weather at destination. Im afraid this was out of our control and caused unforeseen disruption to our schedule."

Is there any way of checking this, can we push back at BA in any way, or do we have to accept that the 600pp will not be paid?
Get a final position e mail from BA and consider going to CEDR.

Last edited by FlyerTalker39574; Jan 18, 20 at 6:48 am
FlyerTalker39574 is offline  
Old Jan 18, 20, 7:23 am
  #81  
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 511
Continuation from 2019 thread

. Trying to keep it short.
I booked following in April
07/12/19
BA890 LHR-SOF 08.10-13.15
BA893 SOF-LHR 19.40-21.10

In July BA cancelled 890 LHR-SOF and rebooked me
07/12/19
BA892 LHR-SOF 13.45-18.50
BA893 SOF-LHR19.40-21.10

Hence my day trip was turned into b2b. Waited for more than a week for system to pick this up, but nothing. So I changed inbound flight myself in MMB. New itinerary
07/12/19
BA892 LHR-SOF 13.45-18.50
08/12/19
BA891 SOF-LHR 14.25-16.00

Since now I had to stay overnight in Sofia I booked a hotel (well below recommended 200 limit). After flights had been flown I submitted a claim to BA and asked for hotel to be reimbursed. As expected they answered that they won't reimburse consequential losses since I had long advance notice.
I answered that I consider consequential loss non refundable train tickets I had booked for 7th of Dec, but hotel was booked directly due to their failure of providing reasonable alternative to my canceled flight.
BA's new reply said because flight was cancelled for "operational reasons" they are not responsible for any expenses. Is it worth taking it to MCOL? It's not about money, as I said hotel was quite cheap, but as a matter of principle? Or am I completely off course and BA are right to deny reimbursement?
As per cws advice I tried once more with BA, mentioning Right to Care. Got a blunt answer that they will offer no further discussion on the subject and advising me my right to go to CEDR with subtle hint that I would most likely lose.
I filed MCOL on 30/12, got an email from BA on 13/01. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to copy it here but IMHO it consisted of large amount of bovine excrement. Mainly that I was wrong to claim as alternative offered by BA was perfectly reasonable, still allowing me to spend time in destination (50 min). And if I really wanted to fly back next day I should have cancelled the booking and made a new one.
Letter ended with request for my account details so they could settle the claim in full, which they did today. So once more, very huge thank you to ever knowledgeable cws!!!
Interesting sidenote. On my first flight after submitting MCOL I got a beep at the gate. It was expected, as I was in exit row, but instead GA said my travel document doesn't match APIS data. APIS autopopulates to every new booking and I haven't changed my document. GA tapped away on keyboard for couple of minutes and I was allowed to board.
Another beep on return flight, this time GA stared at the screen and said I have a medical condition ( I assured that for my best knowledge I don't have one, but will see a GP when I get a moment lol.
Probably glitchy BA IT combined with coincidental timing but still makes one wonder about "you mess with us, we'll mess with you" case. Tin hat off now
flyslow is offline  
Old Jan 20, 20, 12:25 pm
  #82  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: London
Programs: BA Silver Card
Posts: 30
Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave View Post
It's up to you, but BA normally pays up quickly for essential items and I guess this is a fairly modest claim anyway. The only slight hitch with this is that formally Qatar has the responsibility to pay this even though it clearly has nothing to do with them! What I would do is claim from BA anyway, and separately from the EC261 piece (but put a 1 sentence reference that you are claiming EC261), just keep the claim as concise as possible, and make it clear you have photos of the receipts available. If BA says "speak to Qatar", I would in fact speak to Amex at that point.

For the EC261, then the claim seems robust to me, you arrived more than 4 hours late to the final destination, BA is the operating carrier, so just put another claim in for that, keep the details short, all you need to say is you were on BA123, late into Qatar, very late into Jakarta. I doubt there would be much problem on that one.
Just wanted to report back that BA replied the following day and confirmed that the claim had been processed (can see that its due into my account tomorrow) and also covered the cost of the clothes I had to buy. Nice and easy. Thanks CWS for your assistance.
MachTwoPointO is offline  
Old Jan 20, 20, 3:00 pm
  #83  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: LCY is always preferred
Programs: BAEC Gold, IHG Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 952
Not wanting to be mercenary here, but would like to know if this is considered extraordinary circumstances or worth a claim. The delay was a bit of a pain...

Was on BA4473 last Friday which was diverted to MAN due to electrical burning smells and possible smoke in the galley. (Crew were apparently either taken to hospital or treated by paramedics) We were offered coaches to LCY (many took that option), which would have got us in 5 hours or so late, whereas I was overnighted at BA's expense and came home the next morning. Is the aircraft fault extraordinary, or not?. BA have promised to pay expenses (max 50) which seems a bit stingy (though my expenses amount to a tube journey and the HeX as we had to come into LHR, so nowhere near that)

Thanks!
SpurMan is offline  
Old Jan 20, 20, 3:19 pm
  #84  
Moderator, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges, and Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold; Flying Blue Life Platinum; LH Sen.; Hilton Diamond; Kemal Kebabs Prized Customer
Posts: 56,739
That's tricky. I would normally say a diversion is extraordinary circumstances, no airline would voluntarily go through that, let alone crew needing medical assistance. On the other hand technical shortcoming are essentially in scope for EC261. And then there is the all reasonable measures aspect.

So I would claim - keep it brief - and see what happens. If BA says it's extraordinary then it's possible CEDR would agree with that.

The 50 limit is specifically for taxis, they will normally pay any reasonable public transport sums over that amount. It's also unenforceable.
SpurMan likes this.
corporate-wage-slave is online now  
Old Jan 24, 20, 6:57 am
  #85  
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 5
Hi All,

I am following up with claim I started in the 2019 thread. I had a flight from LHR to PIT (transatlantic) cancelled 2 days in mid-November before it was scheduled because of the infamous Trent 1000 engine issues. BA denied my EC261 claim, so I submitted my claim to the CEDR to fight BA's dismissal of my claim. BA finally posted their defense to my claim this week, and I am preparing to retort. I will paste my retort below for comments before submitting should anyone have any advice. Hopefully it will also serve to help those would have similar issues, because I am not the first and undoubtedly not the last to have this problem with BA.

When I submitted my claim to the CEDR, I initially argued that BA did not take every reasonable measure available to them to avoid this cancellation. Their defense goes on about the problems with the Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engine, and how they cannot be blamed for this failure and that it is an exceptional circumstance that should elevate them from having to pay compensation according to EC261. They point to the numerous Airworthiness Directives (AD) released since April 2017, with the most recent being released in April 2019. They then state that three 787s were already grounded because of engine issues when the plane my flight was to use was grounded. Those planes were grounded on 26 June, 04 Sept, and 09 Sept. They also stated in their defense that it takes 21-days to organize a 'wet-lease', and curiously, that wet-leases are harder to obtain in the spring/summer, even though my flight was in November. (Shows just how often they are defending themselves here that they have an obvious template). I argue that with 3 planes on the ground since early Sept, they had over 60 days to arrange a wet-lease in case they lost another plane, to a LONG KNOWN malfunction, to avoid cancelling flights. They chose instead to risk that they won't need it, and their gamble failed. This makes it obvious that they did NOT take every reasonable measure available to them to avoid the cancellation, and therefore should be liable to compensate me as per EC261.

Thanks to everyone that posted to the 2019 tread that helped me originally, especially corperate-wage-slave.
Dear CEDR,

Although British Airways claims that they have taken all reasonable measures in their defence document, I disagree with this argument, and I will lay out my reason for disagreement below.

As I stated in my initial claim, the problems with the Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines are well known and have been known over two year prior to scheduled flight on 19 Nov 2019, with the initial AD being released on 19 April 2017. Even with the consideration that following the initial AD release there was a fundamental shift in Rolls-Royces understanding of the problem over time, the most recent AD was released on 29 March 2019 and went into effect 12 April 2019, which was still over 7 months prior to the scheduled flight.

In their defence, they readily admit that they were already short on aircraft when plane G-ZBKD was grounded on 16 November 2019, which they appear to argue was the maintenance issue that caused the cancellation of my flight BA171 on 19 Nov 2019. The document they submitted says that three planes already grounded with G-ZBKD was grounded, G-ZBJE grounded on 26 June 2019 (compressor), G-ZBKN grounded 04 Sept 2019 (compressor) and G-ZBJF grounded on 09 Sept 2019 (turbine). This indicates that for over 60 prior to the grounding of G-ZBKD British Airways knew that they were one maintenance inspection failure away from not having enough aircraft to meet their schedule requirements. British Airways states that it takes approximately 21 days to arrange a wet lease.

According to their defence, the grounding of the third aircraft on 09 Sept 2019 placed them in a position where one more failure caused by a well-known manufacture defect would force them to cancel flights. Beginning the process of arranging a wet-lease agreement at this time should not be considered an unreasonable measure. Had they begun the wet leasing process after grounding the third aircraft, they would have had the agreement in place on 16 Nov 2019 when G-ZBKD was grounded. Curiously, their defence states that it is more difficult to wet-lease aircraft in the spring/summer season, while the flight at the centre of this disagreement happened in the winter. This further indicates that arranging a wet-lease agreement from 09 Sept 2019 would be a reasonable measure British Airways could have taken to mitigate risk. That British Airways chose not to mitigate flight cancellation risks posed by a long-known manufactures defect was a gamble that they obviously chose to make. It is not, however, a gamble I chose to make, but rather one that was made for me.

As one of the worlds largest airlines, with significant resources at its disposal, British Airways could have done more to avoid the cancellation of flight BA 171 on 19 Nov 2019. I hereby restate my initial claim that British Airways did not take every reasonable measure available to avoid the cancellation, and as a passenger scheduled to take that flight, I ask that the adjudicator will uphold my claim and ensure that I am fairly and legally compensated for British Airways failure to meet the standards set in EC 261.

Kind Regards,


kellyseamus

kellyseamus is offline  
Old Jan 24, 20, 7:18 am
  #86  
Moderator, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges, and Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold; Flying Blue Life Platinum; LH Sen.; Hilton Diamond; Kemal Kebabs Prized Customer
Posts: 56,739
I think that's a reasonable reply. I would look at some of the other CEDR rulings in this and last year's thread, and perhaps lift a sentence or two here and there. I would also point out that this fault was discovered on ANA back in February2016. I know CEDR are still regarding it as extraordinary but as we approach 4 years since the blade cracking issue was discovered, I think that specific defence is looking a bit thin. Airline can and have bought/leased aircraft in within a much shorter timeframe.
corporate-wage-slave is online now  
Old Jan 24, 20, 8:07 am
  #87  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 247
Bit of an unusual one but just wanted to get an idea of what I can expect from this:

Flying TPA-MIA-LHR-MAN , first 2 flights on AA and then LHR-MAN on BA. Ticket was AA too.

the MIA-LHR arrived around 50mins late, meaning I missed the LHR-MAN at 10:50am by about 10mins. Went to connections desk and was told the next available seat LHR-MAN wasn't until 17:30 which was far from ideal, but they would put me on standby for the 13:10 and I might have a chance on a business ticket and being a GCH. I even said I would be willing to downgrade to economy if they could get me a seat. At 12:35 I went to the desk in the GF lounge and luckily they had found me one economy seat on the 13:10 to get me to my destination. Boarding pass printed I went down the other end of the terminal and caught boarding half way through. The boarding pass was refused at the e-gate, so I went to get assistance at the manned gate. It was again refused, and the staff member tapped away on the computer for a bit and said I couldn't board the flight as I wasn't booked on it and they had no idea how or why I had that boarding pass in my hand. I explained the situation with just getting it printed in the lounge as I was on standby etc, and they said there's nothing I could do as I wasn't in the system for that flight so I was refused boarding. Highly embarrassing and highly incovenient, after travelling for 14hrs already. I trudged back to the GF lounge back to the desk and told them what happened. They looked at the system again, insisted I was booked on the flight correctly and that the staff at the gate had not followed the correct procedure to get my boarding pass working to get me on board the flight. It was then of course too late, and I was stuck at LHR until the 17:30 flight.

Obviously, I can claim for the delayed arrival at my destination, but what can I claim for the utter cock-up and incompetence that caused me to be denied boarding for the flight they put me on at 13:10?
RedDevil83 is offline  
Old Jan 24, 20, 8:13 am
  #88  
Moderator, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges, and Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold; Flying Blue Life Platinum; LH Sen.; Hilton Diamond; Kemal Kebabs Prized Customer
Posts: 56,739
Originally Posted by RedDevil83 View Post
They looked at the system again, insisted I was booked on the flight correctly and that the staff at the gate had not followed the correct procedure to get my boarding pass working to get me on board the flight. It was then of course too late, and I was stuck at LHR until the 17:30 flight.
In other words, did they not transfer the biometric data over? If so, it's always good to hold on to the boarding pass issued at the biometric point since it's actually a fairly easy job to locate your biometrics with that.

As for the EC261 claim, it depends somewhat on the cause of the delay from MIA. If it was just jet-stream + ATC you may not get very far on that. As for the boarding process, well that's just bad luck I would say. You may get a customer service gesture for it. I suppose you could claim for IDB, but I suspect that would be met with the defence that you hadn't cleared security (assuming it was the biometrics).
corporate-wage-slave is online now  
Old Jan 24, 20, 8:43 am
  #89  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: London, UK
Programs: BAEC Gold, Hilton Gold, Accor Gold, SPG Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 3,251
Hi guys!

Asking for a friend (not a joke!). She had a booking for a return ticket to ATH from NCL via LHR in December. A few days before the flight (if not the day before) she realised that BA had cancelled the LHR-ATH flight. It took her a long time to be rebooked, and I think she arrived the day after, or at least with a substantial delay, within the parameters that would make her eligible for EU compensation, which she filed under my recommendation.

BA denied compensation, on the basis that the flight was cancelled for commercial reasons, which they think was out of the company’s control, but they didn’t want to specify, which sounds a bit weird.

To add to the complexity, the flight was actually cancelled in July, but they failed to notify my friend, which they admitted. Apparently the fact the flight was cancelled in July is not why they're denying EU compensation. They have offered a 100 voucher instead.

A few questions then:
  1. What "commercial reasons" outside of their control could they be referring to?
  2. If the airline fails to notify the passengers within the limits mentioned by the legislation, are they in breach and therefore obliged to compensate?
  3. What should my friend do?
ringingup is online now  
Old Jan 24, 20, 8:59 am
  #90  
Moderator, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges, and Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold; Flying Blue Life Platinum; LH Sen.; Hilton Diamond; Kemal Kebabs Prized Customer
Posts: 56,739
Originally Posted by ringingup View Post
  1. What "commercial reasons" outside of their control could they be referring to?
  2. If the airline fails to notify the passengers within the limits mentioned by the legislation, are they in breach and therefore obliged to compensate?
  3. What should my friend do?
1) They could probably make more money using the aircraft / crew on some other service. Or a shortage of crew/equipment.
2) Yes, the onus is on BA to give at least 2 weeks notice, and the onus on proving that this notice was given also falls to the airline.
3) If she is ok with the 100 then she can stick with that, but the actual amount due would be 400€ per person, unless the rearranged flight was within certain timescales close to the original flight timings. So she should point this out to BA, and ask if their answer will change. If it will not change then off to CEDR she can go. Just avoid a to-and-fro on this, it's possible BA will realise they are liable before CEDR, but more likely it will be while they prepare a defence for CEDR.
ringingup likes this.
corporate-wage-slave is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread