VSLover

long time listener, first time caller i have been fortunate to never have to learn or use this forum so far!

at T-10days i got the cancellation notice for VIE-LHR and they scrapped all flights that day. eventually i found VIE-HEL-LHR on the same day and eventually the BA site allowed the change.

now only after reading other threads and BA.coms own EU261 page it seems i would be entitled to something given i did arrive 3:55 before original scheduled arrival time, however the alternative offered route resulted in my departure TEN hours before the original departure time.

when i wrote in to claim, while i appreciate being answered within 10hrs of submitting my claim, i was rejected because my flight "was cancelled due to operational reasons" which...isn't that the purpose of these rights?

yes i arrived nearly 4hrs early but it is the fact that i had to take the entire day off to fly the alternate route by departing in the morning rather than evening.

thanks!

corporate-wage-slave

They may have made a mistake there and allegedly they are pro-actively contacting people to amend this. Have a look at some of the recent posts and the link to a longer thread on the issue. So If you did get that rejection, by all means write back saying "I've heard that these cases are being reviewed - can you confirm whether my case has been included in that review, if not kindly confirm your decision has not changed".

GBOAC

I am about to respond to BA's defence of my CEDR claim (claim is that 50% off avios flights cancelled, BA insisted they rebook within ticket validity, I'm arguing EU261 allows for rebooking beyond validity of available flights, with no extra cost to me).
BA have argued that on cancellation my flight was automatically turned back into an FTV (I didn't ask for this, indeed intentionally cancelled the live sector and left the cancelled sector in place). Given it was an FTV therefore I would have to pay the difference in avios anyway. They further argue that the FTV has now been auto-refunded so I'm free to rebook with another carrier.
They are further arguing that because it was cancelled more than 14 days out, EU261 compensation does not apply (I'm not actually asking for compensation, merely asking for reinstatement of tickets at my convenience), and are refusing to book me on future available flights because of this.

My rebuttal to BA's defence is that
a) I didn't ask for the FTV to be created, and had left the cancelled sector in place while I tried to negotiate with BA (and then CEDR)
b) I didn't ask for the auto-refund (I have already made this point in an amendment to the CEDR case), and the refund was automatic and done during the ongoing CEDR claim. They are trying to wrigle out of things by aruging that I cannot have a refund AND ask for a rebooking (despite the fact I've only every asked BA and CEDR for a rebooking)
c) EU261 in terms of rights to rebooking at convenience on available flights DOES apply even if cancellation is more than 14 days out. I am asking for such a rebooking, at no additional cost to me, and NOT cash compensation. Furthermore, when first cancelled BA offered such a rebooking, but changed the rules between my final involuntary cancellation and my deciding on new flights to adopt

Does this rebuttal make sense? and is it strong enough. Are there any glaring errors in my logic.
This is the simplest submission I have actually made the CEDR throughout this process. So I'm worried its too straightforward
BA's defence really seems quite weak given my knowledge of booking history and the rules such as they are. So I'm worried I'm missing something

corporate-wage-slave

Yes, it does. The core protection of EC261 is your choice between refund, rebooking on a flight at the earliest convenience, rebooking on a later flight at your convenience subject to seats being available. Article 8. And from the looks of this, BA have not offered these three options from which you choose one ot them. It's not even a complicated posiition.

Swiss03

Quick question on definitions here for those more knowledgable than me:
BA cancelled BA190 AUS-LHR back in feb.
They finally got back to me saying they're willing to cover hotels but no compensation as it was weather-related (hard to believe since BA was the only flight cancelled and the plane landed in Austin on time). Furthermore, they gave me a piece of paper at the airport stating it was due to "Operational Constraints" which to me does not sound like the weather.

Can anyone more familiar with BA clarify if Operational constraints includes the weather or not?

Thanks

zanderblue

Swiss03 which date in February was this? They have just agreed to pay me compensation for cancellation on 25th February on same route.

Swiss03

Interesting, mine was on the 23rd of feb, as far as I'm aware the aircraft operated LHR-AUS on the 23rd and then sat in Austin for a while as when I left on the 24th it was still in Austin

S_W_S

I think I already know the answer to this (and it's going to be no!), but is anything due on the following?

CDG-LHR-JFK-SFO booked via BA, last flight marketed by BA but operated by American.

STA was 20:20, landing time was actually 00:44.

I wasn't sure as it started in the EU and the flight was marketed by BA.

The delay was due to a plane going tech in BOS and them having to find us a new one.

KARFA

So simple answer would be no, your JFK-SFO isn't within scope of EC261.

However, there have been two recent ECJ cases which suggest it is if on a connecting itinerary where your trip starts in the EU, one was the Czech airlines case where the delay was actually on the later Etihad AUH to BKK flight. The other one was this year but I can't immediately remember which airline was involved. I would say that if you really wanted to pursue this you will have to go to MCOL or further, I doubt any EU/UK airline is going to start paying out for ones like this without a fight despite this recent case law.

mikeyfly

Well well! At 13.33 today after several extensions by BA for my CEDR case for cancelled flight :

BA442 London Heathrow (LHR) – Amsterdam (AMS) 26 December 2021 18:05 20:30
BA cancelled on 22 December 2021 at 15:45 GMT

They have written a thorough (five page PDF) plus 10 attachments denying the claim and setting their position out. The cancellation according to them was extraordinary due to COVID and all reasonable measures were taken !

What a joke ! Is there a next step here ?

corporate-wage-slave

Have a look at Orbitmic's posts above, I bet you have an identical response, and also have a look at some of the other posts. My own view is
- COVID has been around for over 2 years, it's not extraordinary.
- Extraordinary circumstances is not sufficient - BA also needs to demonstrate they took all reasonable measures, and the fact is that BA did run a significant number of shorthaul flights that day, they just chose to cancel a few due to a lack of resources.
- It was certainly around when they sold you the ticket
- At the time in question there were other airlines flying the route (presumably) and other BA services before and after.
- BA has fired a lot of staff for economic reasons, too many to be able to run a service on Boxing Day. This was BA's commercial decision
- Therefore while BA has the right to make commercial cancellations, they are still required to pay the appropriate compensation.
- Also mention anything irrelevant about the package (e.g. anything relating to Portugal for example).

SK AAR

Your first assumption is correct. As BA is not the operating airline BA is not liable for the AA JFK-SFO flight. Although AA is the operating airline, a JFK-SFO AA flight is outside the scope of EU Reg. 261/04 regardless that the OP originated in EU/UK with BA. No chance I'm afraid.

The case law you refer to doesn't change these fundamental rules on which flights EU Reg. 261/04 is applicable to.

KARFA

Well I think it does change it, which is the point of the case law to try and define what certain terms and phrases mean. They are rulings on the interpretation of the Regulation. The result of those two cases clearly can't be incompatible with the Regulation and does set precedent when it comes to what flights are within scope of the Regulation. Clearly the ECJ did judge a delayed EY operated AUH-BKK flight was in scope of the Regulation when connecting from a OK operated flight from PRG to AUH.

Can I suggest you have a read of the cases if you haven't already done so? There clearly does seem to be some movement in this area now, and the clear lines we thought existed are becoming a little more fuzzy now.

adrianlondon

"Covid was here at the time BA sold me the ticket, and there were no changes in exit/entry requirements between when BA sold the flight and when BA cancelled it. Other airlines were still flying between A and B on that date".

if the above isn't true, maybe because you bought your ticket ages ago, then change the wording to say something like "between BA selling tickets on that fight and it being cancelled ...."

meechyathere

Weird voucher vs. cash compensation question.
Finally got a positive response from BA about an EC261-eligible delay several years ago. They denied it twice, but we continued to pester them.

BOS-LHR was delayed about 2.5 hours: engine was repaired on the ground, and later failed on landing, was eventually towed in.
My mother missed her LHR-LIS connection, and was rebooked on the last flight of the day, arriving almost 12 hours later than scheduled.

BA offered a €900 voucher instead of cash compensation. The email (long-winded) did not specify the required amount. Will try to find out what the cash amount is. Is €900 the new EC261 amount? Or is it normal for them to offer higher voucher amounts instead of cash for EC261 claims?