Jan 3, 2021, 2:19 am
Last edit by: corporate-wage-slave
Link to the full original text of the regulations in PDF format
Downgrades: Mennens case - calculation formula is in this post
Brexit and Covid pointers: see post 8
Click here for last year's (2020) thread.
Downgrades: Mennens case - calculation formula is in this post
Brexit and Covid pointers: see post 8
Click here for last year's (2020) thread.
The 2021/22 BA compensation thread: Your guide to Regulation EC261/2004
Jul 16, 2022, 4:22 am
#1846
Join Date: Jul 2013
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, Hilton Diamond *, IHG, Couples Romance Rewards
Posts: 2,351
i think the experience will be BA say no and blame HAL so it’s circumstances beyond Ba’s control, and you would have to go to CEDR/MCOL to argue that these cancellations are not exempt from compensation and have any hope of getting something. I don’t think anyone has got that far yet on these latest cancellations.
Jul 16, 2022, 4:45 am
#1847
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 859
As a slight diversion, why are BA not sending texts when flights are cancelled (am only receiving emails). Bookings have my mobile number, is there something I have to set to receive texts as well as emails?
Jul 16, 2022, 5:41 am
#1848
Ambassador, British Airways; FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Leeds, UK
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, GfL, HH Diamond
Posts: 42,977
its an interesting point. Given emirates (and other airlines) have said No to HALs pleadings citing contractual agreements them it could be argued that BA also could have said no to HAL, therefore making the matter under BAs discretion and voluntary control and making it subject to compensation as well. Not affected by this directly but it sounds like an interesting case for an FTer to pursue although I am not a lawyer...
compensation isn’t payable if the cancellation “is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.” Now if the airport demands you cancel flights it is a hard argument to say that doesn’t apply here.
Jul 16, 2022, 6:34 am
#1849
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London
Programs: BA GGL (for now) and Lifetime Gold, Marriott fan thanks to Bonvoy Moments
Posts: 5,115
The key aspect will be was this extraordinary? And if so could the operating airline have reasonably done something about it. Generally speaking, slow boarding may delay a flight 10 - 15 minutes or so, but if that prevented a connection on the same ticket then usually the airline will say this was just a factoid of a busy day and a very tight connection. That's putting it very generally, different airlines have different approaches. If this a reference to Iberia, to take a randome example, there is almost no easy path for them to pay EC261.
Jul 16, 2022, 6:49 am
#1850
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club, easyJet and Ryanair
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 15,928
well EK have now said ok, presumably HAL have offered them some reduction in fees.
compensation isn’t payable if the cancellation “is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.” Now if the airport demands you cancel flights it is a hard argument to say that doesn’t apply here.
compensation isn’t payable if the cancellation “is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.” Now if the airport demands you cancel flights it is a hard argument to say that doesn’t apply here.
Preamble 14 of UK261 provides:
As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier.
Preamble 15 continues:
Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where 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, even though all reasonable measures had been taken by the air carrier concerned to avoid the delays or cancellations.
Preamble 8 provides:
This Regulation should not restrict the rights of the operating air carrier to seek compensation from any person, including third parties, in accordance with the law applicable.
There is an arguable case that nothing in UK261 allows an airline to invoke the 'extraordinary circumstances' defence in the circumstances under discussion here, especially when read in conjunction with Article 13:
Right of redress
In cases where an operating air carrier pays compensation or meets the other obligations incumbent on it under this Regulation, no provision of this Regulation may be interpreted as restricting its right to seek compensation from any person, including third parties, in accordance with the law applicable. In particular, this Regulation shall in no way restrict the operating air carrier's right to seek reimbursement from a tour operator or another person with whom the operating air carrier has a contract. Similarly, no provision of this Regulation may be interpreted as restricting the right of a tour operator or a third party, other than a passenger, with whom an operating air carrier has a contract, to seek reimbursement or compensation from the operating air carrier in accordance with applicable relevant laws.
The reason for the cancellations, a shortage of staff, does not fall under the general definition of an 'extraordinary circumstance'. The CAA have already issued guidance to the affect that a lack of workforce (even if as a result of COVID) does not constitute an 'extraordinary circumstance'. The argument is that a passenger whose flight is cancelled within 14 days of departure is entitled to compensation under UK261 and because those cancellations are at the request of the airport (due to its staffing difficulties) a right of redress applies under Article 13 allowing the operating airline to be reimbursed or compensated.
EC261 was brought to protect the consumer, an airport cannot remove that protection unilaterally.
Jul 16, 2022, 9:58 am
#1851
Join Date: Oct 2017
Programs: Honors Diamond
Posts: 1,640
I was downgraded on CAG-LGW.
2x Avios RFS ticket with a lap infant. Checked in about 23 hours before the flight. We were in 1DF and then the aircraft config changed overnight to the type without it. Online the adult without the infant was reseated into 1A and me (with the baby) was shown as seat will be given at check-in.
At check-in we were both “asked” to agree to be moved into row 9 in ET because Club was oversold by 1. It was implied I would maybe have to standby with our baby otherwise, although this wasn’t totally explained.
I made clear to the check in staff that I thought this was an involuntary downgrade for both of us as me and our baby going on standby wasn’t really a credible option, and asked them to note this in the booking which they agreed to.
Couple of questions for the hive mind:
- how did a checked-in passenger flying with a lap
infant end up as the one person without a seat?
- can we claim the sandwich we bought in the terminal? We were told we would have lounge access still but were turned away at the lounge (BA passengers at CAG now have lounge access).
- what refund are we due? I assume half the Avios, including the infant, and £25? This would be same using either 261 or fare difference?
2x Avios RFS ticket with a lap infant. Checked in about 23 hours before the flight. We were in 1DF and then the aircraft config changed overnight to the type without it. Online the adult without the infant was reseated into 1A and me (with the baby) was shown as seat will be given at check-in.
At check-in we were both “asked” to agree to be moved into row 9 in ET because Club was oversold by 1. It was implied I would maybe have to standby with our baby otherwise, although this wasn’t totally explained.
I made clear to the check in staff that I thought this was an involuntary downgrade for both of us as me and our baby going on standby wasn’t really a credible option, and asked them to note this in the booking which they agreed to.
Couple of questions for the hive mind:
- how did a checked-in passenger flying with a lap
infant end up as the one person without a seat?
- can we claim the sandwich we bought in the terminal? We were told we would have lounge access still but were turned away at the lounge (BA passengers at CAG now have lounge access).
- what refund are we due? I assume half the Avios, including the infant, and £25? This would be same using either 261 or fare difference?
Jul 16, 2022, 10:07 am
#1852
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: 63,830
Couple of questions for the hive mind:
- how did a checked-in passenger flying with a lap
infant end up as the one person without a seat?
- can we claim the sandwich we bought in the terminal? We were told we would have lounge access still but were turned away at the lounge (BA passengers at CAG now have lounge access).
- what refund are we due? I assume half the Avios, including the infant, and £25? This would be same using either 261 or fare difference?
- how did a checked-in passenger flying with a lap
infant end up as the one person without a seat?
- can we claim the sandwich we bought in the terminal? We were told we would have lounge access still but were turned away at the lounge (BA passengers at CAG now have lounge access).
- what refund are we due? I assume half the Avios, including the infant, and £25? This would be same using either 261 or fare difference?
Jul 16, 2022, 10:15 am
#1853
Join Date: Jul 2013
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, Hilton Diamond *, IHG, Couples Romance Rewards
Posts: 2,351
There is an arguable case that cancellation compensation under UK261 remains due where flights are cancelled within 14 days of departure notwithstanding this is at the behest of Heathrow Airport. EC261 was established to protect the interests of the consumer, not airlines or airports.
Preamble 14 of UK261 provides:
As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier.
Preamble 15 continues:
Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where 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, even though all reasonable measures had been taken by the air carrier concerned to avoid the delays or cancellations.
Preamble 8 provides:
This Regulation should not restrict the rights of the operating air carrier to seek compensation from any person, including third parties, in accordance with the law applicable.
There is an arguable case that nothing in UK261 allows an airline to invoke the 'extraordinary circumstances' defence in the circumstances under discussion here, especially when read in conjunction with Article 13:
Right of redress
In cases where an operating air carrier pays compensation or meets the other obligations incumbent on it under this Regulation, no provision of this Regulation may be interpreted as restricting its right to seek compensation from any person, including third parties, in accordance with the law applicable. In particular, this Regulation shall in no way restrict the operating air carrier's right to seek reimbursement from a tour operator or another person with whom the operating air carrier has a contract. Similarly, no provision of this Regulation may be interpreted as restricting the right of a tour operator or a third party, other than a passenger, with whom an operating air carrier has a contract, to seek reimbursement or compensation from the operating air carrier in accordance with applicable relevant laws.
The reason for the cancellations, a shortage of staff, does not fall under the general definition of an 'extraordinary circumstance'. The CAA have already issued guidance to the affect that a lack of workforce (even if as a result of COVID) does not constitute an 'extraordinary circumstance'. The argument is that a passenger whose flight is cancelled within 14 days of departure is entitled to compensation under UK261 and because those cancellations are at the request of the airport (due to its staffing difficulties) a right of redress applies under Article 13 allowing the operating airline to be reimbursed or compensated.
EC261 was brought to protect the consumer, an airport cannot remove that protection unilaterally.
Preamble 14 of UK261 provides:
As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier.
Preamble 15 continues:
Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where 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, even though all reasonable measures had been taken by the air carrier concerned to avoid the delays or cancellations.
Preamble 8 provides:
This Regulation should not restrict the rights of the operating air carrier to seek compensation from any person, including third parties, in accordance with the law applicable.
There is an arguable case that nothing in UK261 allows an airline to invoke the 'extraordinary circumstances' defence in the circumstances under discussion here, especially when read in conjunction with Article 13:
Right of redress
In cases where an operating air carrier pays compensation or meets the other obligations incumbent on it under this Regulation, no provision of this Regulation may be interpreted as restricting its right to seek compensation from any person, including third parties, in accordance with the law applicable. In particular, this Regulation shall in no way restrict the operating air carrier's right to seek reimbursement from a tour operator or another person with whom the operating air carrier has a contract. Similarly, no provision of this Regulation may be interpreted as restricting the right of a tour operator or a third party, other than a passenger, with whom an operating air carrier has a contract, to seek reimbursement or compensation from the operating air carrier in accordance with applicable relevant laws.
The reason for the cancellations, a shortage of staff, does not fall under the general definition of an 'extraordinary circumstance'. The CAA have already issued guidance to the affect that a lack of workforce (even if as a result of COVID) does not constitute an 'extraordinary circumstance'. The argument is that a passenger whose flight is cancelled within 14 days of departure is entitled to compensation under UK261 and because those cancellations are at the request of the airport (due to its staffing difficulties) a right of redress applies under Article 13 allowing the operating airline to be reimbursed or compensated.
EC261 was brought to protect the consumer, an airport cannot remove that protection unilaterally.
Jul 16, 2022, 10:56 am
#1854
Join Date: Apr 2014
Programs: BA Exec Club Gold, Hilton Diamond, IHG Platinum, Marriott Bonvoy Platinum
Posts: 214
There is an arguable case that cancellation compensation under UK261 remains due where flights are cancelled within 14 days of departure notwithstanding this is at the behest of Heathrow Airport. EC261 was established to protect the interests of the consumer, not airlines or airports.
Preamble 14 of UK261 provides:
As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier.
Preamble 15 continues:
Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where 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, even though all reasonable measures had been taken by the air carrier concerned to avoid the delays or cancellations.
Preamble 8 provides:
This Regulation should not restrict the rights of the operating air carrier to seek compensation from any person, including third parties, in accordance with the law applicable.
There is an arguable case that nothing in UK261 allows an airline to invoke the 'extraordinary circumstances' defence in the circumstances under discussion here, especially when read in conjunction with Article 13:
Right of redress
In cases where an operating air carrier pays compensation or meets the other obligations incumbent on it under this Regulation, no provision of this Regulation may be interpreted as restricting its right to seek compensation from any person, including third parties, in accordance with the law applicable. In particular, this Regulation shall in no way restrict the operating air carrier's right to seek reimbursement from a tour operator or another person with whom the operating air carrier has a contract. Similarly, no provision of this Regulation may be interpreted as restricting the right of a tour operator or a third party, other than a passenger, with whom an operating air carrier has a contract, to seek reimbursement or compensation from the operating air carrier in accordance with applicable relevant laws.
The reason for the cancellations, a shortage of staff, does not fall under the general definition of an 'extraordinary circumstance'. The CAA have already issued guidance to the affect that a lack of workforce (even if as a result of COVID) does not constitute an 'extraordinary circumstance'. The argument is that a passenger whose flight is cancelled within 14 days of departure is entitled to compensation under UK261 and because those cancellations are at the request of the airport (due to its staffing difficulties) a right of redress applies under Article 13 allowing the operating airline to be reimbursed or compensated.
EC261 was brought to protect the consumer, an airport cannot remove that protection unilaterally.
Preamble 14 of UK261 provides:
As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier.
Preamble 15 continues:
Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where 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, even though all reasonable measures had been taken by the air carrier concerned to avoid the delays or cancellations.
Preamble 8 provides:
This Regulation should not restrict the rights of the operating air carrier to seek compensation from any person, including third parties, in accordance with the law applicable.
There is an arguable case that nothing in UK261 allows an airline to invoke the 'extraordinary circumstances' defence in the circumstances under discussion here, especially when read in conjunction with Article 13:
Right of redress
In cases where an operating air carrier pays compensation or meets the other obligations incumbent on it under this Regulation, no provision of this Regulation may be interpreted as restricting its right to seek compensation from any person, including third parties, in accordance with the law applicable. In particular, this Regulation shall in no way restrict the operating air carrier's right to seek reimbursement from a tour operator or another person with whom the operating air carrier has a contract. Similarly, no provision of this Regulation may be interpreted as restricting the right of a tour operator or a third party, other than a passenger, with whom an operating air carrier has a contract, to seek reimbursement or compensation from the operating air carrier in accordance with applicable relevant laws.
The reason for the cancellations, a shortage of staff, does not fall under the general definition of an 'extraordinary circumstance'. The CAA have already issued guidance to the affect that a lack of workforce (even if as a result of COVID) does not constitute an 'extraordinary circumstance'. The argument is that a passenger whose flight is cancelled within 14 days of departure is entitled to compensation under UK261 and because those cancellations are at the request of the airport (due to its staffing difficulties) a right of redress applies under Article 13 allowing the operating airline to be reimbursed or compensated.
EC261 was brought to protect the consumer, an airport cannot remove that protection unilaterally.
Jul 16, 2022, 11:00 am
#1855
Ambassador, British Airways; FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Leeds, UK
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, GfL, HH Diamond
Posts: 42,977
Thanks. Yes sorry I didn't mean to imply there wasn't a coherent argument in favour of compensation being payable, I guess my cautious tone was really a reflection that anyone pursuing BA would face a bit of a fight to have any chance of success.
Of course I assume anyone who uses your argument and wins will forward an appropriate percentage
Of course I assume anyone who uses your argument and wins will forward an appropriate percentage
Jul 16, 2022, 4:44 pm
#1856
Join Date: Nov 2021
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 331
Is there not also an argument that it's a commercial decision by the airline over which passenger and/or which flight they choose to cancel to fit in with HAL's request?
Jul 16, 2022, 8:26 pm
#1857
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: SFO/YYZ
Programs: AC 25K, AS MVP Gold, BA Bronze, UA Silver, Marriott Titanium, Hilton Diamond, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 2,472
I still have a 50% off Avios booking in J that has been pushed many a time due to cancellations, and is now booked this winter on HND-LHR.
It's very possible that BA cancels this flight on their winter schedule. If that occurs, my understanding of the regulations is that I have a right to be rebooked "at the earliest opportunity", but no explicit right to be rebooked on another airline. In this situation the earliest opportunity to fly on BA could be months later.
I am wondering if BA has a general policy on what situations they would agree to re-book on a codeshare partner like JAL, and if I'm likely to have success with a request like that? Although this is all theoretical now, it's not an unlikely scenario with the Russian airspace issues so I'm wondering if I should be planning a backup option now or if BA will take care of me.
It's very possible that BA cancels this flight on their winter schedule. If that occurs, my understanding of the regulations is that I have a right to be rebooked "at the earliest opportunity", but no explicit right to be rebooked on another airline. In this situation the earliest opportunity to fly on BA could be months later.
I am wondering if BA has a general policy on what situations they would agree to re-book on a codeshare partner like JAL, and if I'm likely to have success with a request like that? Although this is all theoretical now, it's not an unlikely scenario with the Russian airspace issues so I'm wondering if I should be planning a backup option now or if BA will take care of me.
Jul 17, 2022, 12:26 am
#1858
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London
Programs: BA GGL (for now) and Lifetime Gold, Marriott fan thanks to Bonvoy Moments
Posts: 5,115
”3. An operating air carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.“
Jul 17, 2022, 3:17 am
#1859
Join Date: May 2018
Location: London
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 320
I’d been keen for people to update us here with how they go on seeking compensation for the HAL cancelled flights, I realise it may take months - but time is on our side - what compensation route people took and what arguments they made (if they were ultimately successful).
Jul 17, 2022, 3:32 am
#1860
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Programs: BA BLUE BADGE
Posts: 1,324
Final decision received....."An update from British Airways
Thanks for contacting us about your claim for EU compensation. We're sorry it was necessary to delay flight, BA0664, on 11 June. I understand this is something you feel strongly about and I appreciate why you're unhappy with our previous reply.
I’ve had another look at your claim for compensation and I’ve taken time to make sure our response is accurate and up-to-date. Based on this, our decision hasn’t changed and the response you’ve received about the eligibility of your EU compensation claim are correct.
As your flight was delayed due to member of the flight crew reported sick and wasn't well enough to operate the flight it means you’re not eligible for EU compensation.
Article 5.3 of the EU Regulation 261/2004 states a carrier is not obliged to pay compensation if it can prove the delay or cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances, that couldn’t have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. In Recital 14 and 15 of EU Regulation 261/2004, extraordinary circumstances include weather, strike and the impact of an air traffic management decision which gives rise to a long delay. This means you’re not entitled to compensation under the EU Regulation for your delayed flight.
If you would like to know more about EU compensation, please visit our pages on ba.com.
Thanks again for contacting us."
The advice from posters above is that this is certainly not extraordinary circumstances and I'm going to go with that.
Quick question - there were two people on the booking. Should we do 2 separate cases or one naming two people?
MCOL or CEDR? - I'd obviously like to go down the route of more likely success.
1st time going this far so any other tips welcome.
Thank you.