Flight delay and cancellation compensation, BA ONLY

beong

hi all,

i was trying to claim for flight delay for BA flight london - Lisbon (>1500 km). The claim was rejected because the delay according to BA was 2 hrs 58 mins (2 mins shy of 3 hours). Has anyone tried disputing BA's stats before and if it worked? and other than compensation for food and drinks (which i do not have receipt for), do i have a shot at the claim?

Vauban

beong wrote: »

hi all,

i was trying to claim for flight delay for BA flight london - Lisbon (>1500 km). The claim was rejected because the delay according to BA was 2 hrs 58 mins (2 mins shy of 3 hours). Has anyone tried disputing BA's stats before and if it worked? and other than compensation for food and drinks (which i do not have receipt for), do i have a shot at the claim?

How long do you think you were delayed for? What does the flightstats website reckon?

beong

Hi vauban,

i thought it was slightly over 3 hours but i have no proof really. the flightstats website stated only 2 hr 50 mins so that is of no use as well. i just find the idea of missing by 2 mins too convenient...

Vauban

beong wrote: »

Hi vauban,

i thought it was slightly over 3 hours but i have no proof really. the flightstats website stated only 2 hr 50 mins so that is of no use as well. i just find the idea of missing by 2 mins too convenient...

It's measured when the wheels hit the tarmac, rather than when you taxi to the gate - so that might explain the discrepancy. Oh well - close but no cigar.

beong

Oh well.. thanks for your advice

CMCNotts

I have received this response from BA to my first compensation request letter following a delay of over 7 hours on our flight:

Thank you for contacting us about EU compensation for your bmibaby flight from Malaga to East Midlands on 1 August 2012.
Your claim for compensation has been refused because flight WW5328 on 1 August 2012 was delayed due to aircraft damage that was not caused by bmibaby or British Airways. Under EU legislation, bmibaby and British Airways are not liable for a compensation payment in this situation.
Unfortunately airline operations are subject to circumstances outside the airline's control. British Airways and bmibaby takes all reasonable measures to avoid delaying a flight in such circumstances. Consideration is given to whether there are any operational options available before a decision to delay is made. We are sorry that the delay was necessary in this case.

On the day of the flight we heard rumours that the delay was due to a passenger on the previous flight accidentally damaging the emergency lighting with their high heeled shoe. If this was the case, would that constitute an 'extraordinary circumstance'? Surely passengers walking on the plane is "inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned" per the Sturgeon ECJ case?

I'd be very grateful for any advice on whether it is worth pursuing this claim? I guess the next step would be to request further information on the "aircraft damage" BA referred to?
Thanks for your help.

Vauban

CMCNotts wrote: »

I have received this response from BA to my first compensation request letter following a delay of over 7 hours on our flight:

Thank you for contacting us about EU compensation for your bmibaby flight from Malaga to East Midlands on 1 August 2012.
Your claim for compensation has been refused because flight WW5328 on 1 August 2012 was delayed due to aircraft damage that was not caused by bmibaby or British Airways. Under EU legislation, bmibaby and British Airways are not liable for a compensation payment in this situation.
Unfortunately airline operations are subject to circumstances outside the airline's control. British Airways and bmibaby takes all reasonable measures to avoid delaying a flight in such circumstances. Consideration is given to whether there are any operational options available before a decision to delay is made. We are sorry that the delay was necessary in this case.

On the day of the flight we heard rumours that the delay was due to a passenger on the previous flight accidentally damaging the emergency lighting with their high heeled shoe. If this was the case, would that constitute an 'extraordinary circumstance'? Surely passengers walking on the plane is "inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned" per the Sturgeon ECJ case?

I'd be very grateful for any advice on whether it is worth pursuing this claim? I guess the next step would be to request further information on the "aircraft damage" BA referred to?
Thanks for your help.

Write an NBA giving them 14 days to explain exactly the nature of the damage, and why they believe EC is justified. High heeled passengers don't cut the ice, IMHO.

Ich_2

On the day of the flight we heard rumours that the delay was due to a passenger on the previous flight accidentally damaging the emergency lighting with their high heeled shoe. If this was the case, would that constitute an 'extraordinary circumstance'? Surely passengers walking on the plane is "inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned" per the Sturgeon ECJ case?

Given the numbers of passengers that no doubt stand on the lights without breaking them, then one of them does break them with a heel I doubt makes it a common occurrence. Of course you will be able to prove your statement if asked!

Vauban

Ich wrote: »

Given the numbers of passengers that no doubt stand on the lights without breaking them, then one of them does break them with a heel I doubt makes it a common occurrence. Of course you will be able to prove your statement if asked!

Irrelevant. Wallentin: "The frequency of the technical problems experienced by an air carrier is not in itself a factor from which it is possible to conclude the presence or absence of ‘extraordinary circumstances’."

Ich_2

Inoperative emergency lighting is a flight safety issue.
The aircraft is capable of flying but legally prevented from doing so on safety grounds by decree of the manufacturer and the regulatory authorities (CAA AESA FAA to name a few)

Actually that is slightly incorrect it can still be allowed to fly, just without passengers