MSE News: BA flights chaos after IT meltdown

gingercordial wrote: »

Indeed. If there were no hotels to be had at £200 or less (because everyone else was also booking them, and already a bank holiday weekend) BA should pay out higher than this. A screen shot or similar of a hotel booking website showing nothing available at that price range would be helpful evidence if anyone had to book something more expensive, if they thought to take one.

Agreed, I don't expect passengers who have been through the mill for hours, so to speak, to then start running around trying to find a cheaper hotel, meals, transport etc on behalf of BA.

The regs are very clear that it is the responsibility of the airline to make all the necessary duty of care arrangements. If they cannot be bothered, for whatever reason, to comply with the regulations then it will and should cost them.

All this, and a lot more, should have been made clear by the CAA and BA in a timely fashion.

Here is a longish guide on the EC's thinking about a duty of care.


c. Right to care in the event of denied boarding, cancellation or delay at departure

i. Concept of right to care

When the passenger, following an incident of denied boarding, cancellation or delay at departure agrees with the air carrier to re-routing at a later date at his or her own convenience (Article 8(1)(c)), the right to care ends. In fact, the right to care subsists only as long as passengers have to wait for re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at the earliest opportunity (Article 8(1)(b)) or a return flight (Article 8(1)(a) second indent).
14
ii. Provision of meals, refreshments and accommodation
The intention of the Regulation is that the needs of passengers waiting for their return flight or re-routing are to be adequately taken care of. The extent of adequate care will have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, having due regard to the needs of passengers in the relevant circumstances and the principle of proportionality (i.e.: according to the waiting time). The price paid for the ticket or temporality of the inconvenience suffered should not interfere with the right of care.
With regard to Article 9(1)(a) (meals and refreshments), the Commission considers the expression ‘in reasonable relation to the waiting time’ to mean that operating air carriers should provide passengers with appropriate care corresponding to the expected length of the delay and the time of day (or night) at which it occurs, including at the transfer airport in the case of connecting flights, in order to reduce the inconvenience suffered by the passengers as much as possible, while bearing in mind the principle of proportionality. Particular attention has to be given to the needs of people with disabilities or reduced mobility and unaccompanied children.
Furthermore, passengers should be offered care free of charge in a clear and accessible way, including via electronic means of communication when passengers have accepted to give their personal data. Otherwise, passengers should make themselves known to the operating air carrier in the event of travel disruption. This means that passengers should not be left to make arrangements themselves, e.g. finding and paying for accommodation or food. Instead, operating air carriers are obliged to actively offer care. Operating air carriers should also ensure, where available, that accommodation is accessible for people with disabilities and their service dogs.
If care is nevertheless not offered even though it should have been, passengers who have had to pay for meals and refreshments, hotel accommodation, transport between the airport and place of accommodation and/or telecommunication services can obtain reimbursement of the expenses incurred from the air carrier, provided they were necessary, reasonable and appropriate37.
If a passenger reject the air carrier’s reasonable care which has to be offeredunder Article 9 and makes his or her own arrangements, the air carrier is not obliged to reimburse the expenses incurred by the passenger, unless otherwise established under national law or agreed beforehand by the air carrier and in any case, up to the amount corresponding to the afore- mentioned air carrier’s ‘reasonable offer’ in order to provide equal treatment between passengers. Passengers should also retain all receipts for the expenses incurred. However, passengers do not have the right to be compensated for damage suffered because of a lack of care if they have not incurred expenses.
In any event, passengers who feel that they are entitled to have more of their expenses reimbursed or to obtain compensation for damage suffered as a result of a delay, including expenses, retain the right to base their claims on the provisions of the Montreal Convention, as well as Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 and to pursue the air carrier through a national court procedure or address themselves to the competent national enforcement body. In some Member States passengers may have to address themselves to alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes entities.

SimonEvans wrote: »

Now the fun begins.... Just come off the phone to my travel insurance looking to claim for unused accommodation and car hire in Italy as a result of BA cancellation on Saturday. Told that the "outage" specified as the reason by BA is not a "technical fault" and therefore I will receive no pay out. I'm still filing a claim form but beyond that what can I do?

I would have though an outage was about as technical as you can get?
If insurance say no, then you make an escaltion to complaint then take to ombudsman if necessary.

I wonder if they haven't tested the UPS(uninterrupted power supply) backup units, and when it came to it the batteries in them were shot..

SimonEvans wrote: »

Now the fun begins.... Just come off the phone to my travel insurance looking to claim for unused accommodation and car hire in Italy as a result of BA cancellation on Saturday. Told that the "outage" specified as the reason by BA is not a "technical fault" and therefore I will receive no pay out. I'm still filing a claim form but beyond that what can I do?

If the flights cost more than £100 per person, and if you paid by credit card, then you are protected by S75. The CC company is jointly liable with BA for the consequential losses.