Jan 1, 2020, 2:30 am
Last edit by: Prospero
The Air Passenger Rights and Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Link to Text of the regulations in PDF format
Downgrades: Mennens case - calculation formula is in this post
787 cancellations due to Trent engine issues - CEDR ruling information from the post in the 2018 thread and onwards.
For the 2019 thread:
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club/1948451-2019-ba-compensation-thread-your-guide-regulation-ec261-2004-a.html
Link to Text of the regulations in PDF format
Downgrades: Mennens case - calculation formula is in this post
787 cancellations due to Trent engine issues - CEDR ruling information from the post in the 2018 thread and onwards.
For the 2019 thread:
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club/1948451-2019-ba-compensation-thread-your-guide-regulation-ec261-2004-a.html
The 2020 BA compensation thread: Your guide to Regulation EC261/2004
Jan 28, 2020, 1:25 pm
#91
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: YVR, HNL
Programs: AS 75k, UA peon, BA Bronze, AC E50k, Marriott Plat, HH Diamond, Fairmont Plat (RIP)
Posts: 7,832
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.
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.
Jan 30, 2020, 12:36 am
#92
Join Date: Jun 2010
Programs: SQ*G BA GGL/CCR
Posts: 188
Reroute & Downgrade
Hello all. Technical failure on an inbound means that my WTP CPT-JNB-LHR flight is delayed 12 hours+ (moves from 7am to 7pm arrival at LHR). BA has managed to get me onto the CPT-LHR direct flight so that I arrive on time now but no availability other than WT on the direct flight. In the event of a reroute like this but a downgraded cabin - what comp is applicable?
Thanks!
Thanks!
Jan 30, 2020, 12:50 am
#93
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bangkok, Thailand. No longer Palm Coast, FL though still exiled, again, from the Bay Area.
Programs: Only the good ones
Posts: 5,153
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.
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-Royce’s 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 manufacture’s 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 world’s 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
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-Royce’s 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 manufacture’s 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 world’s 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
Jan 30, 2020, 12:58 am
#94
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: BAEC silver
Posts: 464
Isn’t RedDevil83 done by the fact the MIA-LHR leg was on AA?
Jan 30, 2020, 3:16 am
#95
Ambassador: Emirates Airlines
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 18,613
Jan 30, 2020, 11:40 am
#96
Join Date: Sep 2010
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 255
I've had a similar issue before going MIA-LHR-MAN with the MIA-LHR on AA and then transferring onto BA and they paid me out for that (but only for the shorter BA leg), that was a flight cancellation mind.
BA have asmed me for the exact departure time of my AA flight MIA-LHR, is anyone able to find the details for that flight online somewhere? It was AA38 on January 17th.
Also, as a reference point, BA have paid me out for the Involuntary Denied Boarding too that was discussed in my original post.
BA have asmed me for the exact departure time of my AA flight MIA-LHR, is anyone able to find the details for that flight online somewhere? It was AA38 on January 17th.
Also, as a reference point, BA have paid me out for the Involuntary Denied Boarding too that was discussed in my original post.
Jan 31, 2020, 12:24 am
#97
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 7
EU Compensation denied BA269 29th Jan
Hello,
I was on flight BA 269 to LAX on Wednesday the 29th Jan. I received an email from BA before I left home informing me "due to essential engineering work being carried out on the aircraft the estimated departure would move from 15.30 to 17.30." At 17.30 the plane was still not ready for boarding. I saw the crew make their way to the plane and then saw them back in the departure gate and then head back towards the plane.
We were told that the further delay to our departure was due to the plane being cleaned and the crew needing to do security checks.
When we boarded the plane we were told that we were waiting for a tug. Then a crew member had run out of time and we were waiting for a replacement crew member. They boarded and the captain announced we were then waiting for the tug again.
The 15.30 eventually left Heathrow just after 8pm. I put in a claim for the late arrival of the aircraft in LAX 10.46pm instead of 6.50pm.
I was told that my claim was denied as the delay was due to "aircraft control restrictions being in place over a block of airspace my aircraft intended to travel". Hmmm that is not what information we received via email and from the Captain.
Is there anyway I can take this forward? BA customer relations seem adamant that it was due to air traffic control.
I was on flight BA 269 to LAX on Wednesday the 29th Jan. I received an email from BA before I left home informing me "due to essential engineering work being carried out on the aircraft the estimated departure would move from 15.30 to 17.30." At 17.30 the plane was still not ready for boarding. I saw the crew make their way to the plane and then saw them back in the departure gate and then head back towards the plane.
We were told that the further delay to our departure was due to the plane being cleaned and the crew needing to do security checks.
When we boarded the plane we were told that we were waiting for a tug. Then a crew member had run out of time and we were waiting for a replacement crew member. They boarded and the captain announced we were then waiting for the tug again.
The 15.30 eventually left Heathrow just after 8pm. I put in a claim for the late arrival of the aircraft in LAX 10.46pm instead of 6.50pm.
I was told that my claim was denied as the delay was due to "aircraft control restrictions being in place over a block of airspace my aircraft intended to travel". Hmmm that is not what information we received via email and from the Captain.
Is there anyway I can take this forward? BA customer relations seem adamant that it was due to air traffic control.
Last edited by Happychick; Jan 31, 2020 at 12:28 am Reason: grammar typos
Jan 31, 2020, 12:34 am
#98
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Vancouver, CA
Programs: AC 35K
Posts: 670
Am I misreading this or are you just under the 4hr delay mark, and thus compensation is not payable regardless of reason?
tuf
tuf
Jan 31, 2020, 12:35 am
#99
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 7
Hi, I have just been denied compensation by BA Customer Relations and was told it was an air traffic control issue. Which I feel is not very honest. Is there a way that I can take this further?
Jan 31, 2020, 12:39 am
#100
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 7
BA are saying they are not liable because it was due to an air traffic control restriction.
Jan 31, 2020, 12:55 am
#101
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Vale of Glamorgan
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 2,991
According to FlightStats, the flight was 4 hours 10 minutes late in arriving at LAX (scheduled 18.50, actual 23.00).
Jan 31, 2020, 1:11 am
#103
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: London
Programs: BA Silver, Marriott Platinum, Hilton Gold
Posts: 302
There is a great EU261 thread (sorry can’t link it as I’m on phone). Have a look in there and look to take it to CEDR. The process is detailed in the wiki of the thread. It sounds like you definitely have a case and they should pay out. But BA being BA are trying their luck and hoping this excuse will stop people from pursuing a claim.
I wish EU261 had a clause that found if the courier made false claims when denying EU261 then they’re fined heavily.
ps. It is for BA to prove it doesn’t fall within EU261. So have them send evidence.
I wish EU261 had a clause that found if the courier made false claims when denying EU261 then they’re fined heavily.
ps. It is for BA to prove it doesn’t fall within EU261. So have them send evidence.
Jan 31, 2020, 1:29 am
#104
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: 63,803
Much more details and information on CEDR in the main EC261 thread, which you will find in the BA Forum Dashboard, a sticky at the top of the forum. The EC261 thread is usually hovering near the top too so you may be able to find it just paging down a bit.
Jan 31, 2020, 2:10 am
#105
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 7
CWS thank you for the welcome. I'll give customer service a call when I get home. Thank you for your swift response and advice.