Flight delay and cancellation compensation, BA ONLY

Justice13075

They could use the Jeremy Corbyn defence, Just glanced at it and if they had looked at it properly they would have paid compensation.

U.N.C.L.E.

Great - thanks for the advice!

U.N.C.L.E.

BA came back to my previous message with the following.

“Your flight BA2733 on 15 March was delayed for 20 hours. The reason for delay is crew shortage. I agree that it's the airline's responsibility to maintain a crew for the smooth operation of flights. In this case, the crew shortage was out of our control, also there was adverse condition at your departure station. Under EU legislation, I’m afraid we’re not liable for a compensation payment in this situation.”


Strange that they say it’s perfectly within reason to cause a 20 hour delay when they also take responsibility for a crew shortage. There were flights taking off and landing all day - I was watching them through the window as there was little else to do.

Do you still think it’s worth the NBA? They will probably say it was ATC limiting flow or something that Inhave no way of proving or knowing about.

NoviceAngel

U.N.C.L.E. wrote: »

..........Do you still think it!!!8217;s worth the NBA? They will probably say it was ATC limiting flow or something that Inhave no way of proving or knowing about.

Get the NBA issued and if they dont respond start court proceedings, IF you dont fancy doing it yourself then at least use a good NWNF Solicitors.

This looks like a straightforward case, theyve already dug themselves a hole, dont let them get away with it. You are due compensation, get the NBA in, and two weeks later get on MCOL.

How can crew shortage be beyond their control?? What utter rubbish!

jpsartre

U.N.C.L.E. wrote: »

Do you still think it’s worth the NBA? They will probably say it was ATC limiting flow or something that Inhave no way of proving or knowing about.

Opinions may differ but I suspect you're fighting an uphill battle. You would have to argue that BA could have taken reasonable steps to prevent your delay which in effect means they should have had a spare aircraft and crew ready to go at Arrecife once it became clear that the original aircraft had to be diverted. To my mind that is not a reasonable expectation to have at an airport like Arrecife that only has a handful of flights per week. That said, it's not like the regulations specify what constitutes reasonable steps in the regulations so I cannot rule out that you'll get a small claims court judge that disagree with me.

NoviceAngel

The regs are quite clear, its either an EC that affects the flight concerned or it isnt.

Reasonable steps dont come into it IMHO.

If the OP doesnt want to take this on, then pass it Botts way. Im sure theyd be more than willing to take it up.

jpsartre

NoviceAngel wrote: »

The regs are quite clear, it's either an EC that affects the flight concerned or it isn't.

That is most certainly not clear from the regulations.

NoviceAngel

Reg. 261/2004 is quite clear about this in preamble paragraph 14 -

"(14) As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier."

It says The flight concerned. This is not ambiguous to me.

jpsartre

That is a list of salient *examples* of extraordinary circumstances. It is simply a logical fallacy to infer from this that events not listed are non-extraordinary. Whether they are or they aren't will depend on whether the airline could have taken reasonable steps to prevent them.

JPears

However, in this case, the OPs delay was not caused by "meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned"
This is a specific part of the regulation, in writing, in black and white.
Whislt it doesn't state that "meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight a later flight is NOT an EC", this is a very strong inference that cannot be ignored.
The reasonable delay and effort made to minimise is a seperated and independent test to an EC.