BMI baby flight cancellations

PolishBigSpender

will-in-estoril wrote: »

No, you do not. The comments you refer to are simply wrong. BMI Baby has fulfilled its obligations under Article 5 (and 8 for that matter.) You could begin proceedings, but I would take legal advice first.

It's probably worth stressing that anyone intending to claim under the articles should take legal advice, as you say. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if an airline decided to fight the claim.

It is unhelpful for those who are not legally trained or do not have any first hand experience of the legislation they cite to give false hope to others. (I fall into the latter category.)At least they have now desisted in this thread!

It is more than unhelpful - it is potentially troublesome. We already saw plenty of people losing money as a result of attempting to take legal action in regards to the banks - which is why anyone trying to attempt to enforce the EU legislation needs to take legal advice. The fact that Cityboy declines to state who provided him with legal advice is yet more reason why his posts cannot be taken seriously.

(My suspicion is that he is advertising the website that he links to frequently)

david236

I've just had 3 flghts cancelled to Palma from Manchester. It looks like bmibaby have cancelled the route which is bad news for me as I have a flat in Palma and bmibaby were the only carrier who flew out there in the winter!!

David

robins66

BMIbaby's terms and conditions:
9.2 CANCELLATION, REROUTING, DELAYS, ETC.
9.2.1 We will take all necessary measures to avoid delay in carrying you and your baggage. In the exercise of these measures and in order to prevent a flight cancellation, in exceptional circumstances we may arrange for a flight to be operated on our behalf by an alternative carrier and/or aircraft.
9.2.2 Except as otherwise provided by the Convention, if we cancel a flight, fail to operate a flight reasonably according to the schedule or, fail to stop at your destination, we shall, at your option, either:
9.2.2.1 carry you at the earliest opportunity on another of our scheduled services on which space is available without additional charge and, where necessary, extend the validity of your Ticket; or
9.2.2.2 within a reasonable period of time re-route you to the destination shown on your Ticket or an alternative destination acceptable to you by our own services without additional charge.; or
9.2.2.3 make a refund in accordance with the provisions of Article 10.2.
9.2.3 Upon the occurrence of any of the events set out in Article 9.2.2, except as otherwise provided by the Convention, the options outlined in Article 9.2.2.1 through 9.2.2.3 are the sole and exclusive remedies available to you and we shall have no further liability to you.
9.2.4 If we are unable to provide previously confirmed space, we shall provide compensation to those Passengers denied boarding in accordance with applicable law and our denied boarding compensation policy.

Have I missed something or does this not mean they should offer alternatives other than just a refund?

robins66

We have advised that we would be willing to travel from an alternative airport, but they simply respond that we have NO OPTIONS available to us. They have cancelled our bookings now ( but they didn't give us the option before cancelling). As a result to rebook with them via an alternative airport will result in our party of 7 paying quite a lot more to travel and having to incur additional travelling and parking costs.

SaveTheEuro

Maybe, in the airline's opinion, the text you quote only applies for a last minute change to its service. It doesn’t say that but it might be considered implied.

The airline may consider what you have suffered is not a cancellation but a change in schedule. It might be worth double checking the wording in the email you received.

But if you go to the small claims track of the county court the Judge will not get to hung up on legal jargon or the exact wording in the email. He/she will ask if you have been treated fairly. Much as I sympathise with your plight (I've been there before) I suspect he will think the airline didn't treat you badly by refunding you the full amount you paid.

If you think your case is strong there’s nothing wrong with going to court. You can make your claim online for about £25. No airline is likely to put much time and energy into its defence and you might win the day. But you'll need patience. You may need to wait months for a hearing.

robins66

No misunderstanding their email quite clearly states CANCELLED


flight cancellation:

Date: 17/02/2010

Dear MRS BRENDA ROBINSON
Booking Ref:
Flight Cancellation
Please click this link to confirm that you have read this email.

We are writing to advise that your bmibaby flight has been cancelled. We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause. Unfortunately most changes and cancellations result from operational issues and are unavoidable.
All affected customers are entitled to a full refund of the fare paid, which will be processed automatically to the original form of payment within the next 28 days. Therefore there is no need to contact bmibaby directly.
In line with bmibaby terms and conditions we will not be responsible for any additional charges incurred due to this flight cancellation. All passengers are advised to pursue any claims for additional expenses via their own personal travel insurers.
On behalf of bmibaby we would like to sincerely apologise for any inconvenience caused due to this flight cancellation.
This email was sent from a notification only email address and cannot accept incoming emails. Please do not reply to this email.

englishpacker

We have had a similar e-mail relating to our flights to Barcelona later in the year.

What annoys me is that we have had to search round to book other flights whilst BMIbaby hang onto our money for possibly another 28 days. We now have to pay out another £800 plus whilst they continue to earn interest on the existing paymnet they received off us over 3 months ago.

Something doesn't seem right with all this.....how many other peoples money have they got tucked away nicely for a period of time

WickedWolfie

Some people commenting on here obviously have not had experience of pre-legislative legal drafting (I, for my sins, have [at both national and EU level] - two day discussions over the placement of a comma are NOT fun! - the things some of us have to do for the taxpayer......:rotfl:).

Textual placement and punctuation is key when considering legal text. In general when text is placed in a heirarchical fashion (eg Article 5 of EC Reg 261/2004) text within sub-paras applies only to the overarching para at question.

In this case the key to understanding the meaning of the text of Article 5 is the placement of the semi-colons. The semi-colon at the end of Article 5 1(a) comes before the "and" - this means that the text prior to the semi-colon is a self-contained piece of text. A similar case applies to Article 5 1(b).

In normal legal drafting usage the "unless" clause in Article 5 1(c) applies ONLY to that sub-clause; had the drafters intended the "unless" clause to apply to Article 5 1(a) and Article 5 1(b) they would have placed it within Article 5 1 (in drafting parlance the "chapeau") itself! As such Article 5 1 c(i) limits only Article 5 1(c) which deals with Article 7 claims; should limitations apply to Article 5 1(a) and/or Article 5 1(b) separate caveats to that effect would have been placed on those clauses.

To put this in clear English what Article 5 is saying is that in the event of a cancellation Article 8, Article 9 (different parts depending on certain conditions) and Article 7 (subject to other conditions) apply. A limitation on the applicability of Article 7 cannot be deemed to apply to rights under Articles 8 and 9.

I am taking the liberty of posting the actual text of EC Reg 261/2004:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32004R0261:EN:HTML

The bottom line is I believe that Cityboy was entirely correct with his comments. As such it would be well worth spending the £60 necessary to issue County Court proceedings through MoneyClaim Online.
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex50_web_0210.pdf

I strongly suspect the airline will settle rather than have an adverse precedent set (though I note and agree Cityboy's comments re courts of first instance also).

Alan_Bowen

Looking at their conditions, it is clear the offer to re route is only to one of their own services, not that of a rival company. Others might think that an airline would not defend proceedings but I am sorry to say I think exactly the opposite. What no airline would want is a decision which interprets the law as our previous friend City Boy suggests as that would open the floodgates with 130 claims per flight for a whole season if the route was cancelled. Your best advice, and which will cost you nothing is to talk to the Airline Users Council on 0207 240 6061

WickedWolfie

Alan_Bowen wrote: »

Looking at their conditions, it is clear the offer to re route is only to one of their own services, not that of a rival company. Others might think that an airline would not defend proceedings but I am sorry to say I think exactly the opposite. What no airline would want is a decision which interprets the law as our previous friend City Boy suggests as that would open the floodgates with 130 claims per flight for a whole season if the route was cancelled. Your best advice, and which will cost you nothing is to talk to the Airline Users Council on 0207 240 6061

I wholly agree that it is possible that an airline will fight a claim.

I agree that the airline's conditions relate to their own services not those of a rival. HOWEVER, their T&Cs do NOT trump EU regulations and their national legislative implementation.

My 20 years experience in drafting and implementing EU/national legislation for HMG led to my assessment of what EU reg 261/2004 actually means (which is not necessarily the same as what the drafters intended....). Only once in that time was my interpretation challenged (and the courts agreed with me)....you pays your money and takes your choice as to what that means!

From everything I have heard and seen the AUC are about as much use as a chocolate fireguard! Having said that a phone call costs very little.

Additional text:

Having taken a look at Flightmole I found this thread:
http://www.flightmole.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1027

What is interesting is the AUC advice! It appears they agree with Cityboy and I AND are prepared to intervene - I may have done them a disservice!!!

We may also soon get to see what the view of a Court is.....

while courts of first instance do not set a precedent wouldn't that scare the bejabbers out of Mr O'Leary and Ryanair.....