Flight delay and cancellation compensation, BA ONLY

Just to add my ha'porth.

After following the incoming flight on Planefinder I can see that the weather was causing problems to quite a few aircraft at that time. Some managed to land and some diverted to an alternate airfield.

The incoming BA aircraft attempted to land but failed, circled for a while and then diverted to Fuerteventura until the weather calmed down, when it popped back over to Arrecrife. However, the crew were then out of available flying hours to legally operate the return flight to LGW.

The delay was weather related, but to the previous flight to the op's, so it was a knock on delay.

That, in it's self, is enough to qualify for 261 delay compensation.

As a backup argument, you then could also look at the 'all reasonable measures' requirement of the regs and look at alternative options to see if BA could have done anything to prevent such a long delay.

In this case there was a later BA flight from LGW to ACE which landed at 17.59. BA could have put a spare flight crew on that flight to bring the stranded passengers back. Perhaps that flight was full tho! In that case 6 or 8 passengers could have been offered a financial incentive to stay in a hotel at LGW and catch a flight the following day. That would have saved BA having to put 180 or so stranded passengers up in a hotel overnight and got everyone home the same day.

There were also other flight from LGW to ACE that evening, but with other airlines, they could also have been alternative options.

So, imo, BA also fails the 'all reasonable measures' requirement, compensation is due to the op.

Do you have a case in mind where a knock on effect claim in the small claims court has been rejected.

In this case I think Tyzap's reasoning is sound and believe compensation is due.

jpsartre wrote: »

No, it isn't. The idea that knock-on effects are automatically non-extraordinary is a myth that's unfortunately perpetuated in here.

They are not in all circumstances.

I believe that they are in the case of weather, but not in the case of ATC/airport closures etc where the regs say it can affect one or more delays to that aircraft.

My post referred to the ops specific circumstances only.

jpsartre wrote: »

There is nothing in the regulations which suggests knock-on effects from bad weather cannot be extraordinary.

Understanding the regulations is all a matter of interpretation, which is why there is such a lack of clarity about their meaning.

I base my understanding of this particular area of the regs upon what a leading firm of solicitors say about it (see below) and on case law.

What Are Extraordinary Circumstances?

The term ‘extraordinary circumstances’ may apply to a number of scenarios where the delay/cancellation was caused by something out of the ordinary; things like:

Acts of terrorism or sabotage
Security risks
Extreme weather conditions e.g. volcanic ash cloud
Political or civil unrest
Hidden manufacturing defects
Industrial action (strikes unrelated to the airline such as baggage handlers or air traffic control)

What Are NOT extraordinary circumstances?

If your long delay was caused by one of the following, you may be entitled to compensation according to EU law:

Issues with airline staff e.g. crew turning up late or understaffing
Bad weather affecting a previous flight, causing your flight to be delayed
Denied boarding due to the flight being overbooked
Technical problems with the aircraft (except hidden manufacturing defects or problems caused by sabotage)

I also have seen cases where using the above argument has been won at CEDR and court level, which does not set a precedent, but it does suggest you are on the right track.

Just to diversify slightly.

There are many areas of the 261 regulation where a precedent has not been set and I do not believe that this is an accident. Airlines will often not pursue a case to a higher court level, where a precedent could be set, so that it remains a grey area, thus allowing them wiggle room to avoid legitimate claims.

How happy do you think the airline industry was with Jet2 when they caused a precedent to be set over technical faults?

It was a massive area where the airlines had been avoiding compensation claims for years by claiming technical faults with aircraft were EC's and exempt from compensation.

When the supreme court decided tec faults were not EC's it cost the whole industry many millions of £s in claims and gave them one less avoidance tactic.

So keeping things in this grey area helps the airlines.

The solicitors, who supplied the above information on their website help to put an end to this situation, but lots of areas remain unclear.