BA's compensation policy: in breach of Regulation 261/2004?
Jan 6, 2008, 11:53 am
#16
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: LON BCN SYD
Programs: BA, OZ, A3, VA, VS, DL, QF, former BD and others
Posts: 1,074
I had cause to request compensation for denied boarding and a consequent 24 hr delay ex-EDIin 2007. Ground staff (Aviance?) made no mention of compensation or assistance, and when I asked for a statement of my rights as I was entitled to under the EU regs, they professed ignorance, said they did not work for BA and there were no BA staff/managers available to talk to, and I would need to claim via BA.com.
To cut a long story short I did get compensation in the end, slightly over the EU minimum, but only after 2-3 months' worth of pressure from both myself and Amex PTS who had booked the tickets. And needless to say the compensation was offered as a goodwill payment, on the basis that BA believed that the EC regs did not apply, and with a gagging clause - since I am not identifying myself here, hopefully I am not breaching it
.
I wonder how may other people are fobbed off. I suspect it is only the persistent who get any compensation. The fact that BA staff and agents pretend to know nothing about the EU regs is slightly galling - you have to jump through so many hoops when assistance/compensation should be your right under law.
To cut a long story short I did get compensation in the end, slightly over the EU minimum, but only after 2-3 months' worth of pressure from both myself and Amex PTS who had booked the tickets. And needless to say the compensation was offered as a goodwill payment, on the basis that BA believed that the EC regs did not apply, and with a gagging clause - since I am not identifying myself here, hopefully I am not breaching it
.I wonder how may other people are fobbed off. I suspect it is only the persistent who get any compensation. The fact that BA staff and agents pretend to know nothing about the EU regs is slightly galling - you have to jump through so many hoops when assistance/compensation should be your right under law.
Last edited by wyvern; Jan 7, 2008 at 5:02 am
Jan 6, 2008, 12:03 pm
#17
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
The reason why I believe it is potentially (I'm not certain!) criminal behaviour is quite simple.
Whether a flight cancellation is compensatable or not is quite binary and independent of the passenger or fare. It all relates to the circumstances that lead to the cancellation. The absolutely logical thing for BA to do therefore is to have an automatic process by which every time a flight is canceled, before it is announced a qualified person decides whether the flight is compensatable and whether the "right to care" obligation is triggered. That decision is then appended to the flight record and from then on every BA employee is informed and knows definitively how to handle customers, including the wording of notifications sent out. Legal knowledge or sub-contractor ground handling and all other excuses become redundant.
This approach is the clear and logical approach to handling every flight cancellation. The fact that BA chooses not to do this when it is so logical implies heavilly they wish to treat customers individually (he who shouts loudest) when the act does not allow them to do so and a corporate conspiracy in the avoidance of legal obligations might be criminal activity.
Whether a flight cancellation is compensatable or not is quite binary and independent of the passenger or fare. It all relates to the circumstances that lead to the cancellation. The absolutely logical thing for BA to do therefore is to have an automatic process by which every time a flight is canceled, before it is announced a qualified person decides whether the flight is compensatable and whether the "right to care" obligation is triggered. That decision is then appended to the flight record and from then on every BA employee is informed and knows definitively how to handle customers, including the wording of notifications sent out. Legal knowledge or sub-contractor ground handling and all other excuses become redundant.
This approach is the clear and logical approach to handling every flight cancellation. The fact that BA chooses not to do this when it is so logical implies heavilly they wish to treat customers individually (he who shouts loudest) when the act does not allow them to do so and a corporate conspiracy in the avoidance of legal obligations might be criminal activity.
Jan 6, 2008, 12:11 pm
#18
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: London
Programs: I've got three passports, A couple of visas, Don't even know my real name.
Posts: 909
I have to wonder if BA will offer you a fat pay off in exchange for not disclosing the terms of the settlement though. So if we hear this case suddenly go quiet then we know what happened.
Jan 6, 2008, 12:21 pm
#19
Moderator: British Airways Executive Club, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges and Environmentally Friendly Travel
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London, UK
Posts: 22,212
Welcome to Flyertalk, alexss.
Apologies for the slight delay to your first post displaying here. FT has an aggressive anti-spam filter which triggers into action when it suspects a newbie may not be kosher.
You are now good to go. Enjoy
Apologies for the slight delay to your first post displaying here. FT has an aggressive anti-spam filter which triggers into action when it suspects a newbie may not be kosher.
You are now good to go. Enjoy
Jan 6, 2008, 12:50 pm
#20
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Programs: Mucci, BA LTG + GGL, SPG LTP, HHonors Diamond, IHG Spire Ambassador
Posts: 12,695
Well, I guess 'taking it all the way' may well prolong the wait you mention in your sig 
(Just joking, it's a crappy situation and I feel for you and everyone else caught up in it and I do hope you get somewhere - it probably does need a lawyer to take it on and push through a test case to establish precedent and boundaries correctly once and for all).
FF was asking about the aircraft, not the crew (who obviously would have been available today, but today's cancellation will presumably have a knock-on effect to the appropriate future TLV-LHR unless they ferry out a crew to cover it). I can only assume they simply still flew the aircraft out to TLV with flight deck crew and cargo but no pax or cabin crew?
(Just joking, it's a crappy situation and I feel for you and everyone else caught up in it and I do hope you get somewhere - it probably does need a lawyer to take it on and push through a test case to establish precedent and boundaries correctly once and for all).
Originally Posted by jonnye
Crew sleeps over in TLV from previous flights Red-Eye. So basically they were there for 2 nights.
Jan 6, 2008, 1:06 pm
#21
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA/BD Gold/IC A/*Wood Gold - Certified BodyCombat and BodyPump Instructor
Posts: 6,070
Jan 6, 2008, 1:12 pm
#22
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,885
Good luck to you, MileHigh
Because I wear make-up for a living this is all rather beyond me - I suppose that's what BA are counting on to be the case with 99.9% of people shafted like this - but I must say it's pleasing to have a cogent debate about such matters by people who know what they're talking about and with letters after their name and everything.
Like the rest of the board, I'm sure, I'd be most interested to know what the outcome of your case is.
And you have my sympathies. I've witnessed at first hand the insanity that accompanies the travels of (in my case the 42nd) President. Given that this is Shrub and Israel, I have every confidence that the authorities, in a manner not unlike that of the boyband Blue, have quite literally got the city on lockdown. Can't be fun.
Because I wear make-up for a living this is all rather beyond me - I suppose that's what BA are counting on to be the case with 99.9% of people shafted like this - but I must say it's pleasing to have a cogent debate about such matters by people who know what they're talking about and with letters after their name and everything.
Like the rest of the board, I'm sure, I'd be most interested to know what the outcome of your case is.
And you have my sympathies. I've witnessed at first hand the insanity that accompanies the travels of (in my case the 42nd) President. Given that this is Shrub and Israel, I have every confidence that the authorities, in a manner not unlike that of the boyband Blue, have quite literally got the city on lockdown. Can't be fun.
Jan 6, 2008, 1:14 pm
#23
Join Date: Mar 2005
Programs: IHG Diamond Ambassador, Accor Plat, M&M FTL, BA Blue, QR Gold
Posts: 3,728
Tom
Jan 6, 2008, 1:26 pm
#24
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SCL, MCT, LGW and a variety of 1W lounges in between.
Programs: BA Mucci (Seigneur et Ingenieur des Appareils Volants (Gold)), QF (WP and LTG), AA EXP, GF Gold
Posts: 3,931
Dear MHL,
In my work to get all the airfares to quote online with fees etc included, I have established a significant contact with the Trading Standards specialist in air travel.
I am sure that he would be very interested in your case. He would provide a faster and possibly sharper cattle prod than the bloody slow and ineffective ATUC. Should you wish contact details, then please PM.
In addition, I suggest that you take a pop at the UK CAA Economic Regulation Group as they should be, but might not be, interested.
Best regards
Spottie
In my work to get all the airfares to quote online with fees etc included, I have established a significant contact with the Trading Standards specialist in air travel.
I am sure that he would be very interested in your case. He would provide a faster and possibly sharper cattle prod than the bloody slow and ineffective ATUC. Should you wish contact details, then please PM.
In addition, I suggest that you take a pop at the UK CAA Economic Regulation Group as they should be, but might not be, interested.
Best regards
Spottie
Jan 6, 2008, 1:40 pm
#25
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
It looks like there is an enforcement obligation (for the CAA?) in Article 16 to ensure that all previous Articles are complied with. MileHighLawyer's complaint should trigger that enforcement.
Article 5 Cancellation
2. When passengers are informed of the cancellation, an explanation shall be given concerning possible alternative transport.
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.
4. The burden of proof concerning the questions as to whether and when the passenger has been informed of the cancellation of the flight shall rest with the operating air carrier.
Article 5 Cancellation
2. When passengers are informed of the cancellation, an explanation shall be given concerning possible alternative transport.
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.
4. The burden of proof concerning the questions as to whether and when the passenger has been informed of the cancellation of the flight shall rest with the operating air carrier.
Article 9 Right to care
1. Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall be offered free of charge:
(a) meals and refreshments in a reasonable relation to the waiting time;
(b) hotel accommodation in cases
- where a stay of one or more nights becomes necessary, or
- where a stay additional to that intended by the passenger becomes necessary;
(c) transport between the airport and place of accommodation (hotel or other).
2. In addition, passengers shall be offered free of charge two telephone calls, telex or fax messages, or e-mails.
3. In applying this Article, the operating air carrier shall pay particular attention to the needs of persons with reduced mobility and any persons accompanying them, as well as to the needs of unaccompanied children.
1. Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall be offered free of charge:
(a) meals and refreshments in a reasonable relation to the waiting time;
(b) hotel accommodation in cases
- where a stay of one or more nights becomes necessary, or
- where a stay additional to that intended by the passenger becomes necessary;
(c) transport between the airport and place of accommodation (hotel or other).
2. In addition, passengers shall be offered free of charge two telephone calls, telex or fax messages, or e-mails.
3. In applying this Article, the operating air carrier shall pay particular attention to the needs of persons with reduced mobility and any persons accompanying them, as well as to the needs of unaccompanied children.
Article 14 Obligation to inform passengers of their rights
2. An operating air carrier denying boarding or cancelling a flight shall provide each passenger affected with a written notice setting out the rules for compensation and assistance in line with this Regulation. It shall also provide each passenger affected by a delay of at least two hours with an equivalent notice. The contact details of the national designated body referred to in Article 16 shall also be given to the passenger in written form.
2. An operating air carrier denying boarding or cancelling a flight shall provide each passenger affected with a written notice setting out the rules for compensation and assistance in line with this Regulation. It shall also provide each passenger affected by a delay of at least two hours with an equivalent notice. The contact details of the national designated body referred to in Article 16 shall also be given to the passenger in written form.
Article 16 Infringements
1. Each Member State shall designate a body responsible for the enforcement of this Regulation as regards flights from airports situated on its territory and flights from a third country to such airports. Where appropriate, this body shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the rights of passengers are respected. The Member States shall inform the Commission of the body that has been designated in accordance with this paragraph.
2. Without prejudice to Article 12, each passenger may complain to any body designated under paragraph 1, or to any other competent body designated by a Member State, about an alleged infringement of this Regulation at any airport situated on the territory of a Member State or concerning any flight from a third country to an airport situated on that territory.
3. The sanctions laid down by Member States for infringements of this Regulation shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
1. Each Member State shall designate a body responsible for the enforcement of this Regulation as regards flights from airports situated on its territory and flights from a third country to such airports. Where appropriate, this body shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the rights of passengers are respected. The Member States shall inform the Commission of the body that has been designated in accordance with this paragraph.
2. Without prejudice to Article 12, each passenger may complain to any body designated under paragraph 1, or to any other competent body designated by a Member State, about an alleged infringement of this Regulation at any airport situated on the territory of a Member State or concerning any flight from a third country to an airport situated on that territory.
3. The sanctions laid down by Member States for infringements of this Regulation shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
Jan 6, 2008, 2:04 pm
#26
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: London
Posts: 3,459
Article 14 Obligation to inform passengers of their rights
2. An operating air carrier denying boarding or cancelling a flight shall provide each passenger affected with a written notice setting out the rules for compensation and assistance in line with this Regulation. It shall also provide each passenger affected by a delay of at least two hours with an equivalent notice. The contact details of the national designated body referred to in Article 16 shall also be given to the passenger in written form.
The "exceptional circumstances" defence does not apply to Article 14. The failure to comply with this part of the regulation suggests that the airline is acting in bad faith in its approach to the regulation as a whole, and if it does attempt to claim "exception circumstances" have arisen in relation to other parts of the claim, then such claims should be looked upon with scepticism.
A failure to comply with certain parts of the regulation may be a criminal offence, not for the reasons suggested by uk1, but because of the following legislation:
The Civil Aviation (Denied Boarding, Compensation and Assistance) Regulations 2005
3. - (1) An operating air carrier who fails to comply with an obligation imposed on it by Article 4 to 6, 10, 11 or 14 shall be guilty of an offence.
although there may be a jurisdictional issue.
Jan 6, 2008, 2:13 pm
#27
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine, & London, UK
Programs: BA Gold; HH Gold; M&M; PS Classic; VV Silver (deceased); BD Silver (deceased).
Posts: 3,604
The Regulations also create the criminal offence of failing to offer compensation or to provide assistance as provided for by Regulation 261/2004.
Edited to add that Disco Volante types a lot faster than me!
Jan 6, 2008, 2:19 pm
#28
Join Date: Jan 2008
Programs: BA silver
Posts: 122
Unfortunately this is not right: Article 16 does not oblige the CAA to follow up and enforce in each individual case, nor is this practical given the number of complaints.
The AUC is the body designated by the Department for Transport to handle complaints for the UK, not the CAA, so you should complain to them. You might have luck with the AUC, but as they get several thousand complaints each year about airlines breaching this Regulation, there is not much they can do in each individual case either.
If you are sure that BA have breached the Regulation, the best thing to do is sue them through the small claims court. But (see my earlier post) it is not clear they have in this case.
You can find more information on the UK's "light touch" approach to enforcement here - http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/148/DBC%20...ary%202005.pdf
Jan 6, 2008, 3:10 pm
#30
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: London
Posts: 3,459
Unfortunately this is not right: Article 16 does not oblige the CAA to follow up and enforce in each individual case, nor is this practical given the number of complaints.
The AUC is the body designated by the Department for Transport to handle complaints for the UK, not the CAA, so you should complain to them. You might have luck with the AUC, but as they get several thousand complaints each year about airlines breaching this Regulation, there is not much they can do in each individual case either.
The AUC is the body designated by the Department for Transport to handle complaints for the UK, not the CAA, so you should complain to them. You might have luck with the AUC, but as they get several thousand complaints each year about airlines breaching this Regulation, there is not much they can do in each individual case either.
Article 16
2. Without prejudice to Article 12, each passenger may complain to any body designated under paragraph 1, or to any other competent body designated by a Member State, about an alleged infringement of this Regulation at any airport situated on the territory of a Member State or concerning any flight from a third country to an airport situated on that territory.
What is worrying is that as far as I am aware, the CAA have not brought a single prosecution under this legislation. Either the airlines and the CAA are resolving every valid complaint to the satisfaction of the customer, or the CAA is not doing its job properly.
MileHighLawyer can of course bring a private prosecution against BA