corporate-wage-slave

I'm not sure everyone necessarily reads your words as stated, though they are clear enough. There clearly is an argument that this was due to something mechanical and inherent in the running an aircraft, so someone making that claim has a plausible and potentially strong claim. However there is also another line of argument that the loss of temperature has no bearing on the passengers or rest of the cargo, and it's possible the dogs would have survived an extended period of very cold temperatures. The extraordinary bit was having to divert - at huge cost to the airline regardless of EC261 - out of concern for the animal's welfare. That aspect that needed to be checked was extraordinary, it's not something that I recall happening before quite like this, and it was difficult to avoid a diversion in order to do this. I don't think this is as strong an argument as the opening gambit, but a judge would have to rule on that, rather than this armchair non-lawyer. After all if faulty air-conditioning was a factor in someone having an cardiac crisis, and thus a medical offload of a passenger, then BA would have a similar extraordinary circumstances argument too.

Ladyfliestheredwhiteandblues

This is all getting very emotional! As a dog lover I applaud the captain’s decision. If there was any doubt the animals would survive then they needed to be landed ASAP.
That’s completely different to whether the root cause was an extraordinary circumstance or not. If other passengers were inconvenienced / missed connections / etc then if it’s within scope for compensation they should have it. It doesn’t mean that those passengers callously wanted the dogs left to fry or freeze. Two entirely different issues.

ermis177

But I never said that BA did the wrong thing. What I am saying is that if it’s BA’s fault that the temperature became too hot/cold then of course I will claim for a compensation according to law. Of course BA did not fail go get the passengers to LHR but that’s not the point. As I said if the diversion was due to BA’s fault and the flight was delayed for many hours then passengers have the right to be compensated.

rapidex

I quite agree. If I need to transport my big Labrador to our house in Thailand I will charter a Gulfstream, or he can stay here.

GBOAC

I was just about to post this.
I know the whole series is a bit non-PC now, but it IS very well observed, in terms of characters and, as we see here, situations that actually happen (or thank goodness didn't happen).

I do wonder why they didn't diver to somewhere in Canada rather than fly south to Chicago. Pax were not going to be deplaned. Are there no A380-suitable fields further north?

ermis177

Exactly my thought. I am not sure why people can’t understand the difference. If someone is entitled to compensation they should get it. Also BA still uses the Covid excuse to deny legitimate compensation and during Covid most of the airlines made it nearly impossible to get your money back with issueing Monopoly money (vouchers) instead of refunds. I don’t see any reason to give BA or any other airline a break…

AJA_

You are entitled to your view however i see this as an extraordinary circumstance, the diversion was done because of the concern for the welfare of the animals on board, that's what caused the delay. It was not the aircraft cargo hold temperature fault in itself. If there were no animals in the hold i doubt the flight would have been diverted. How many flights have been delayed in similar circumstances.? I've never heard of this happening before.

Plus If everyone claims for compensation because the aircraft was delayed due to concern for the animals then in future the pilot may well take the decision not to divert. That doesn't bear thinking about.

ermis177

I am sorry but I feel we are reading different threads. One of the passengers told us that the pilot informed them regarding the issue with the temperature. The temperature issue then caused the welfare issue. Once again the compensation entitlement has nothing to do with the welfare of the dogs. I am not sure why you keep mixing the 2 issues.

IluvSQ

[QUOTE=GBOAC;34284393
I do wonder why they didn't diver to somewhere in Canada rather than fly south to Chicago. Pax were not going to be deplaned. Are there no A380-suitable fields further north?[/QUOTE]

I originally thought the same when the cause for diversion was unknown, but since learning animals were involved I presume
there are differing animal quarantine regulations that would make it more difficult to off-load the dogs in a foreign country.

S_W_S

Unlike the radio comedy Cabin Pressure from what I have read from BA pilots on twitter it seems that things like compensation don't even come into their decision making when choosing whether to divert.

AJA_

This is my last reply to you on this issue. You see this differently to me. That's fine. I explained why I see this differently to you and I explain again.:

You selectively quote my reply ignoring entirely the question I posed about whether the aircraft would have been diverted if there were no animals in the hold while there was a temperature fault. I doubt the plane would have diverted if there was simply a temperature fault in the cargo hold. The two issues were as a result connected, as you concede - the temperature fault led the captain to have concerns for the welfare of the dogs in the hold. That concern led the captain to divert, not the cargo temperature fault. I see the resultant diversion as extraordinary.

SeattleDavid

This isn't a BA issue - the UK doesn't allow pets to arrive in the cabin – non assistance animals are required to travel as live cargo.

Having brought our dog with us when we moved from the USA to the UK (not going on vacation) we were very glad to have her as cargo on the same flight as us and she met us at the Heathrow Animal Arrivals Facility as happy as could be. She had clearly been spoilt by the cargo crew in SFO and by the Heathrow crew as well.

wrp96

Not just that, but if things had been extended during the divert, there's also the issue of offloading passengers in a country you know they are eligible to be in (the US) vs a country where you don't know their status (Canada). Also more support and more alternatives at ORD from both BA and AA. If this had been an immediate emergency, I'm sure they would've diverted to the nearest airfield. But in this case, choosing one like ORD was a good choice.

PUCCI GALORE

However Le Shuttle manage it perfectly well in both directions

If they stick to the two 6kg rule inc basket as per Iberia etc, and the animal stays there - as the rule states I don’t see a problem. I think that I have seen more disorder from humans than animals on or off an aircraft.

It is a licence to print money. It costs me 60€ for what ends up as a bag on the floor. People should not see or hear the animal as I could quite understand people being vexed if they did. I know that it’s government driven but like the quarantine rules of old; it is somewhat outdated. Still this is all in the realms of fantasy; I doubt that this will change.

DYKWIA

Indeed. I bet there were people on that flight that were connecting on different PNRs. When they turned up to the ticket desks trying to change their ticket, would BA (to whoever) say “Of course, which flight would you like?”. No, they’d say “Tough Titties - your own fault for booking separate tickets”.