Originally Posted by zchapk9

They are now arguing that this should be reduced by 50% in accordance with Article 7, the bit which says compensation is reduced if the new arrival time was less than three hours late. That seems very odd: my claim is not for lateness at all, but excessive earliness. By this logic, they could rebook me literally days ahead of schedule, and then cut down compensation because, although I was ridiculously early, I was not actually late.

Originally Posted by stifle

The relevant part of the regulation reads "When passengers are offered re-routing to their final destination on an alternative flight pursuant to Article 8, the arrival time of which does not exceed the scheduled arrival time of the flight originally booked by [three hours]... the operating air carrier may reduce the compensation provided for in paragraph 1 by 50 %"

Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave

So for a long time this was held to be the position, but there have been a number of CJEU cases where the courts have held that the 50% reduction applies to a much narrower set of circumstances than previously considered. There is a full description of this courtesy of NickB here in post 827. see also various follow points after that, and there is also a post that CEDR has agreed to a claim on this basis. So you have a choice here - accept the half rate, or continue to court but argue on the basis of the CJEU rulings from the Azurair case.

Originally Posted by zchapk9

Thank you both! Super helpful.
Am I allowed to try and negotiate directly with the BA rep who filed the defence? Or does it all have to play out in the Court now?

Originally Posted by stifle

8 July is at least two weeks prior to 22 July, so I think you are onto a loser here.

Originally Posted by Simonmiller

After a battle with customer services at KLM I eventually filed a small claims court case. KLM have filed a defence this morning to say I'm not due compensation because the flight was cancelled more than 14 days in advance (they are using the scheduled time of departure whereas I had been using full days in my calculations). Should I just drop the case as I suspect they may be correct?

Originally Posted by georgegebbett

I have submitted my response to CEDR, hinging on all of the above points, as well as the fact that certain categories of flight are excluded from the caps imposed by HADACAB, and amongst those are My main argument at this point is that given that such flights can be operated regardless of the capacity quota, there was nothing stopping BA from taking the reasonable measure of ferrying the aircraft empty from LHR, and returning it full of passengers to literally any UK airport, from where they could arrange onward transport to LHR.

Another point I made is that whilst BA are relying on the CAA's declaration that HAL-imposed cancellations constitute extraordinary circumstances, this is actually a question of statutory interpretation, which falls far outside of the CAA's remit as an aviation regulator, and can only be done by a court, and as such, the CAA's statement should not be afforded any weight in coming to a decision.

I will await the outcome of the CEDR ruling, which I fully expect to be in BA's favour, upon which I will proceed to MCOL...

Originally Posted by georgegebbett

Amazingly, the claim has succeeded at CEDR! The most salient point for those in a similar decision is this:



If anyone else is in a similar situation and wants to direct CEDR towards this decision for them to base another decision off of, the reference is 642262.

Off to fight easyJet with AviationADR now…

Originally Posted by Crastonts

Could I submit a MCOL claim given that I am the one technically entitled to the refund? I'm aware I can't fill a claim on her behalf.