British Airways cancel flight which means costs for me the passenger - what to do?

jpsartre

helenacuriosa wrote: »

When would you suggest it is safe to book?

You can book as early you like, just try to avoid committing to non-refundable accommodation, transfers, parking, etc.

callum9999

richardw wrote: »

It says re-routing, which can be any airline!

I doubt that if a small claim was pursued any airline would let the claim go to a hearing.

It could also be private jet or limo, they're clearly not going to happen though!

While I can't be certain as the OP is being annoyingly cryptic with the details (and seems to think rerouting isn't feasible anyway), BA are very unlikely to agree to the reroute and while a judge is more likely to agree than BA, I think it's still likely they'll side with BA.

richardw

callum9999 wrote: »

... while a judge is more likely to agree than BA, I think it's still likely they'll side with BA.

No airline would let it get to a hearing.

callum9999

richardw wrote: »

No airline would let it get to a hearing.

I highly doubt that, especially given the reason I assume you're going to give (setting a precedent) is effectively null and void.

MCOL can't set precedents, and by the time appeals are exhausted in higher courts should someone want a precedent, the law would have changed anyway.

richardw

Article 8 is clear, there's an absolute right to re-routing, if an airline let it go to a hearing there's a risk that the judge would deem their conduct 'unreasonable'.

Nowt to do with precedents.

callum9999

richardw wrote: »

Article 8 is clear, there's an absolute right to re-routing, if an airline let it go to a hearing there's a risk that the judge would deem their conduct 'unreasonable'.

Nowt to do with precedents.

We aren't discussing whether there's a right to be rerouted or not, we're discussing whether there's a right to insist a reroute on a different carrier, which is most definitely not clear.

So if BA aren't bothered by a precedent being set, why would they (and "all" airlines) be so bothered by losing a minor MCOL case?

System

richardw wrote: »

Article 8 is clear, there's an absolute right to re-routing, if an airline let it go to a hearing there's a risk that the judge would deem their conduct 'unreasonable'.

Nowt to do with precedents.

Article 8 is non-effective if the notice is greater than 2 weeks

Article 5

Article 5
Cancellation
1. In case of cancellation of a flight, the passengers concerned shall:
(a) be offered assistance by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 8; and

(b) be offered assistance by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 9(1)(a) and 9(2), as well as, in event of rerouting when the reasonably expected time of departure of the new flight is at least the day after the departure as it was planned for the cancelled flight, the assistance specified in Article 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(c); and

(c) have the right to compensation by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 7, unless:
(i) they are informed of the cancellation at least two
weeks before the scheduled time of departure;

richardw

No !!!!!!, the two weeks is only referring to the right to compensation (c)

Btw http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=30279665

lewroll

Agree with richardw, sorry !!!!!!.

It only applies to compensation not re-routing.

System

Don't the AND's make all conditions inclusive for the 'unless' (Basic logic) or is there evidence that the law interprets logical conditions differently

I see it as
If the flight is cancelled then you shall be offered A and B and C UNLESS condition i applies.

I believe the conditions are 1(i), 1(ii), 1(iii) and not 1(c)(i) etc as seems to be argued above