Flight delay and cancellation compensation, BA ONLY

David_e

flymeaway wrote: »

Your claim for compensation has been refused because flight BA0209 on 26 December 2013 was delayed due to unexpected flight safety shortcomings, which prevented the aircraft operating as scheduled. Under EU legislation, British Airways is not liable for a compensation payment in this situation.

Nonsense!

flymeaway wrote: »

As this particular ‘part’ was not due to be replaced, this constitutes as extraordinary circumstances.

Complete nonsense!!

Wallentin ruling, para 37:

" ... the frequency of the technical problems experienced by an air carrier is not in itself a factor from which the presence or absence of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 can be concluded".

flymeaway wrote: »

Consideration is given to whether there are any operational options available before a decision to delay is made.

Doesn't sound as if they made the huge efforts to avoid your delay that would be required for them to avoid liability, even if it was EC, which it isn't.

I suspect the consideration consisted of something like "Can we get away with a 5 hour delay - which is the cheapest possible option?"


Don't waste any more time with this. Send your NBA and get your claim ready to submit.

richardw

Vauban wrote: »

My comment is that BA's assertion that an unscheduled replacement of a part constitutes extraordinary circumstances is bunkum. That is not what the law says. And they know it.

Is that a slap wrist for BA then with regard to the CPRs?

David_e

richardw wrote: »

Is that a slap wrist for BA then with regard to the CPRs?

Should be but then don't all the airlines do the same, asserting with no legal support whatsoever that something is EC when it isn't? If the CAA had any credibility at all, they would be monitoring and ideally sampling airline responses to claims.

Cocoh

hi,
my wife and I were traveling from Edinburgh to Hong Kong via London Heathrow.
Our flight to London was cancelled so we were put on the third next flight. We could have been put on any of the two flights after the cancelled one but London only travelers were given priority, and people with connecting flights had to wait while the London only people got served first.
Getting this later flight made us miss the connection flight to Hong Kong, BA gave us accommodation at Heathrow till next again morning, this made us miss a night in Hong Kong which was greatly missed as we were scheduled to stay three nights and only got two.


If anyone could give us guidance and advice as to what compensation we can claim it would be much appreciated.


thanks, Colin & Lorraine

Caz3121

start with the FAQs here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4384701

it all depends on the reason for the cancellation

skman50

Centipede100 wrote: »

Final destination according to the Reg is the originally booked airport i.e. TPA. For compensation not to be paid you would have had to arrive in or around TPA before 19.40 (3 hours late from original schedule). Since it is clear that you arrived in or around 2100-2200 in TPA then the full 600 euros per passenger is payable.

"Final destination" is explicitly defined in Article 2 of the Reg:

(h) "final destination" means the destination on the ticket presented at the check-in counter or, in the case of directly connecting flights, the destination of the last flight; alternative connecting flights available shall not be taken into account if the original planned arrival time is respected;

As for the defence claiming time should be deducted for immigration then I don't see this mentioned anywhere in the Reg or case law on the subject.

If delay was due to birdstrike 2 flights prior then the airline has clearly not taken all reasonable measures as LGW is one of its 2 main operating bases.

If you don't get a judgment due to the judge being confused regarding the final destination arrival time I would encourage you to appeal but it also does depend on what other facts he finds in the written judgment.

Judge stated:

- Final destination would be Tampa as that was on original ticket and not "new destination" of reroute of Orlando.
- That since I was taken from Orlando to Clearwater hotel direct, and did not go to Tampa at all, defence could have argued that there was in fact no Final Destination. Since they did not the case was valid on that point.
- 30mins was deducted from time delay due to distance between Tampa and Clearwater. No further deduction for immigration etc. though.
- Birdstrike was extraordinary even in a heavily populated bird area with many birdstrikes reported daily.
- No accounting for knock-on effect and my assertion that BA had plenty of options at Gatwick other than delay of 24 hours to departure of that aircraft.
My assertion was just that she said. Finnair judgement she said was specifically for Denied boarding only. Other cases regarding knock-on inc. Easyjet etc. not considered.
- Therefore case dismissed, and permission to appeal also dismissed.

Vauban

skman50 wrote: »

- Therefore case dismissed, and permission to appeal also dismissed.

Very sorry to hear this. It sounds like the problem was

a) that the birdstrike was considered extraordinary (and that is an arguable point);
b) that knock-ons are not explicitly ruled out - and Finnair was no good [a point that has been made before];
c) that the Judge did not apply the "all reasonable measures test" in Wallentin, which is very disappointing. It simply cannot be reasonable to justify a 24 hour delay in Gatwick due to a problem encountered previously - BA needs to have contingency plans in place.

I don't know whether the last point would enable you to appeal, if you were so inclined: perhaps PM CobyBenson.

But litigation is inherently uncertain - esp on the small claims track. And I think you were just unlucky with your judge.

JPears

Although yours was a slightly unusual case, a poor decision in my view and probably others. Some Judges really aren't getting the concept/raison d'etre of 261/2004 in relation to "all measures to reduce delay" etc.

skman50

Vauban wrote: »

Very sorry to hear this. It sounds like the problem was

a) that the birdstrike was considered extraordinary (and that is an arguable point);
b) that knock-ons are not explicitly ruled out - and Finnair was no good [a point that has been made before];
c) that the Judge did not apply the "all reasonable measures test" in Wallentin, which is very disappointing. It simply cannot be reasonable to justify a 24 hour delay in Gatwick due to a problem encountered previously - BA needs to have contingency plans in place.

I don't know whether the last point would enable you to appeal, if you were so inclined: perhaps PM CobyBenson.

But litigation is inherently uncertain - esp on the small claims track. And I think you were just unlucky with your judge.

Thank you both for your sympathy - I have the same judge on 28th re: Monarch case so we shall see if she knocks down my pins again for a double strike.

Vauban

skman50 wrote: »

Thank you both for your sympathy - I have the same judge on 28th re: Monarch case so we shall see if she knocks down my pins again for a double strike.

Oh dear ...

If the Monarch delay is technical defects, make sure you brandish Huzar prominently. And the Judge is inclined to stay until after Huzar is appealed, I would probably bank that!