We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Flight delay and cancellation compensation, BA ONLY

Options
15354565859274

Comments

  • Vauban
    Vauban Posts: 4,737 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    Ich wrote: »
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22652718

    IO think you will find that as the airport was CLOSED because of the emergency it is not the responsibility of BA.

    Though it was one of their aircraft that was involved it makes no difference

    Why do you say that last point, Ich? If the airport closure was the consequence of something BA did or did not do, then the origin of the extraordinary circumstance (the airport closure) could be argued as something very much within the airline's control (which Wallentin says means compensation would be due). Other airlines could claim ECs, but BA might find it trickier.
  • Vauban
    Vauban Posts: 4,737 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    offshore1 wrote: »
    LBA = Letter before action. You put the company on notice that unless they respond substantively you will commence legal proceedings.

    It is all in the FAQs on page one, which you need to read if you plan to take this further.
  • Ich_2
    Ich_2 Posts: 1,087 Forumite
    Interesting!
  • IO think you will find that as the airport was CLOSED because of the emergency it is not the responsibility of BA.

    Though it was one of their aircraft that was involved it makes no difference[/QUOTE]


    The airport wasn't closed, flights were leaving slowly/not BA and we eventually flew 4 hours or so later
  • It makes a fundamental difference in terms of the Reg as the runway was closed as a direct result of BA's apparent negligence in not securing the engine cowls following a visit to the maintenance hangar.

    BA have started to pay claims in respect of this incident as reported on the BA forum on Flyertalk: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club/1536530-ba-compensation-thread-your-guide-regulation-261-2004-a-7.html#post22177627

    Note that other airlines impacted by this runway closure do have a legitimate defence of 'extraordinary circumstances' since the incident was outside of their control.

    Would Article 13 of EU261/2004 apply for other airlines? They could pay out compensation and claim it back from BA?
    The above is just my opinon - which counts for nowt! You must make up your own mind.
  • Ich_2
    Ich_2 Posts: 1,087 Forumite
    edited 5 February 2014 at 6:54PM
    So a lot of the discussion on here has revolved around the situation that an airline cannot use something that happened to a previous or other flight (say an out bound or an aircraft swap) as an excuse.
    Everything is directed at the flight directly affected.
    Fine!

    So nowhere have I seen in any law or ruling where there can be a claim where an airport is closed or flights restricted by an airport where the operation of another flight by the same airline can be taken into account.

    If the aircraft that had an emergency was to be used on a subsequent flight that was delayed and folk claimed or the folk on that aircraft claimed if they were delayed, possibly fair enough.

    But, really, I think you are stretching your desire to punish the airlines and your interpretation of the law a bit thin!!

    Given also that the investigation is not complete and there seems to have been similar incidents affecting other airlines!
    a quote from elsewhere
    This cowl V2500 thing has happened some 32 times before
    Or
    The AAIB recomended in a similar case involving a Virgin A320 mentioned earlier in this thread to modify the V2500 fan cowls such that when closed but not latched they would sit proud of flush and therefore more likely to spotted on a walk round and until such times as a Mod was in place carry out Duplicate Inspections of the latches.

    I wonder what the AAIB will recomend now as it would appear that this Aircraft had the Mod and BA were still doing Duplicate Inspections!!
    So is it a design error?

    It's absolutely no skin of my nose and if the OP wishes to claim they can, I think in this case it may not get far! (well actually it hasn't really)
  • Thank you for coming back to us.


    Your flight was delayed arriving into London Heathrow by 41 minutes due to a security search area delay three flights previously. This has been classified as an extraordinary circumstance and is even listed as an example of such on the CAA's website. I can also confirm we have not received any correspondence from the CAA regarding your claim for compensation.
    After a fifth review, our position has not changed. Under EU legislation and as per CAA guidelines concerning extraordinary circumstances, British Airways is not liable for a compensation payment in this situation. We now consider your case to be closed. We will not respond to any further communication regarding this claim for compensation.




    Best regards

    Stephen Grey
    EU Compensation Claims



    Got the above final reply and looking for advice on how/if to procede. The CAA have just batted it back to BA and closed my case so getting no real help there.

    I get the security delay issue and would support this if stuck in said queue, but to claim it affected a flight 3 flights later as an extraordinary is taking the mickey surely? I am sure it did affect it but only after they took the decision to carry using that plane for my flight, i.e. the delay was avoidable, they could have made different arrangements but chose not as they could fall back on this excuse.

    Put simply I accept long queues at security are an extraordinary circumstance the CAA website states this, but is it and extraordinary circumstance 3 flights later?

    Thanks in advance
  • Vauban
    Vauban Posts: 4,737 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    Exactly right. It is a nonsense. It doesn't meet the Wallentin test of "all reasonable measures". Time for court.
  • Vauban wrote: »
    Exactly right. It is a nonsense. It doesn't meet the Wallentin test of "all reasonable measures". Time for court.

    Is that in response to my post numbered 610?
  • Vauban
    Vauban Posts: 4,737 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    Is that in response to my post numbered 610?

    Yes it is.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.5K Spending & Discounts
  • 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.