Thank you

The wheels do grind slowly but I'd question whether this particular vehicle should ever have set off in the first place.

The material evidence we have thus far is:

• Flight cancellation: BA2938 scheduled departure 12:15 LGW-EDI
• Passengers rebooked onto the later BA2938, with scheduled departure 14:55
• BA2938 departed LGW at 15:24

Add to this anecdotal information

At 07:00, we can deduce seats were available for sale on the 0930 flight to EDI as poggs and family were invited to upsell their restricted ticket if they wished to move onto this earlier flight. Had BA staff known of an impending technical fault, one would assume they would have been beckoning pax onto the 09:30 flight. Apparently, this did not happen, so one can read at face value BA did not foresee a problem at this time.

At 11:55 BA announced the cancellation of the 2938. If the gate crew were correct in saying the aircraft allocated for EDI had at the eleventh hour been switched to cover a now inoperable aircraft allocated for the MAN, then again on face value this leads me to believe the problem was not a foreseen one. Should a judge request details on what caused the cancellation, I would think this question would be a relatively simple one for BA to answer. I believe under the conditions of the EU directive, the responsibility is placed on the operator to demonstrate sound reasons why it considered the circumstances extraordinary so I expect this would be a robust reply.

I do sympathise with poggs and family. After waiting out a 6 hour connection, then to be informed you need to wait a further 2hr 35mins would make my heart sink. So poggs, I ask of you, upon objective review of the events you experienced, the information you are now in possession of relating to what caused the cancellation, is a day in court really going to give you closure?

A good summary except the part about the cancellation. The EDI flight appears cancelled due to a MAN one going tech. .
I don't see BA's defence in that situation. In fact this would be one of the scenarios that probably prompted the EU Regs - BA made a commercial decision.

Companies factor compensation into P & L. Therefore if you are due something you should take it.

Companies pay alot to attract a new customer and once they have you they do not want to loose you. Therefore they are willing to give back less than what it takes to attract a new customer. They prefer net gain than net loss.

If you ask you could be amazed at what you get!!

I understand your point and Jenbel also pointed this out in the original thread but I don't see the relevance - specific aircraft are not chained to specific routes. If ops had amended allocation to minimize overall disruption, surely this was the right thing to do.

I think it comes down to how you want to be as a person. I would never ask for compensation unless I really thought I deserved it.

We could explore scenarios but say that there were 6 Prems. travelling up to MAN for a conference. Do you think it right to pull the EDI one ?

We could and all night long too. Add to the list of possible scenarios perishable cargo, loads on the return flight.......

I believe the reason why it has gotten so bad about people asking for compensation is because of the way airlines treat their customers with regards to charging them for every little thing, whether it is food or luggage or change fees (sometimes the change fee on a discounted long haul business class ticket is 100% of the fare, I learned this the difficult way).

When the airlines become completely inflexible to most passengers, and they've paid what seems like a gouging fee for an extra, the passengers are ready to return the favor to the airline and charge them a fee for each mistake they make.

That's my take at least... when an airline treats me like a loyal customer, I'm much more willing to overlook reductions to my quality of service, but when they gouge me for every little thing, I'm a lot less tolerant.

It's because BA have made the decision to cancel the EDI flight, inconveniencing the EDI pax and use the plane on the MAN flight (if the comment was correct).

A MAN flight cancellation would be due to the plane going tech - extraordinary circumstances. But the EDI plane didn't go tech - it was swiped to fly LGW-MAN. That's as much a BA management decision as the management deciding that pax A should be allowed to board and pax B should be IDB'd. Why cancel the EDI flight? Why not the GLA one? Or the CDG one? Or the TAB one? Because it's likely easiest for BA to do that. And that manipulating cancellations - instead of them being down to happenstance - is what moves it from extraordinary circumstance to commercial cancellation. It was commercially good for BA to cancel EDI over MAN or any other flight that day - comp is owed. Those pax have been inconvenienced for a commercial decision of BA. That's the very essence of the EU regs.

Forgive me, I am still blind to the relevance of any perceived ownership of specific aircraft to a specific route. BA was clearly short of one aircraft at LGW that afternoon. As a result of that one flight was cancelled and single flight load of BA customers was not able to travel on their ticketed flight.

Is there any detail in the EU Directive or subsequent legal precedence that confirms the reclassification of cause you suggest?

An aircraft "going Tech." is not generally defined as "extraordinary circumstances" under EU rulings.

EU judges have ruled that airlines cannot use technical malfunctions, arising from routine operations, as an excuse to avoid paying compensation to passengers whose flights are cancelled.

More here:Specific Ruling:

This is what seems unusual to me as well; two things come to mind when considering the matter.

In post 31, poggs says 'My wife is still upset by the whole fiasco, demanding that BA be held to account for her distress....' - it seems a long time to hold on to a matter that whilst unpleasant at the time did have an ultimately happy ending, that of the poggs family travelling back to EDI safely.

And I wonder how much time and energy someone might devote to the matter? Let's say 100 hours, perhaps 150. Let's say a person's time is worth �20 an hour, plus or minus a fiver an hour. That's a substantial sum that could have been earned at work or almost a week spent on a quarrel with an airline that could have been spent with family or friends.

Everyone has the right to choose how they spend their time, and certainly if no one ever made a complaint and suggested ways to improve matters then changes for the better might not be implemented.

But there are occasions when one has to bow out and say my life / time is worth more than the effort made here and this is a battle I no longer want.

I guess that's what BA are hoping poggs will decide.

I'm still puzzled by this concept of morality.

Entitlement to compensation is derived from the regulations governing air transport in the EU, not a moral code. The system was set up to encourage airlines to better serve their customers. The idea is that modest fines, the compensation payments, will focus the minds of airline managers on ensuring customers' needs are met.

Not to proceed with a claim dilutes the impact of the regulation, thus weakening the effect of a provision aimed at improving public service.

Acting against "the public good" in this way puts the perpetrator on the wrong side of the angels, certainly on a slippery slope if you are seeking moral high-ground.