Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
Page 97
    • jpsartre
    • By jpsartre 8th Apr 18, 10:01 AM
    • 3,494 Posts
    • 2,230 Thanks
    jpsartre
    That is a list of salient *examples* of extraordinary circumstances. It is simply a logical fallacy to infer from this that events not listed are non-extraordinary. Whether they are or they aren't will depend on whether the airline could have taken reasonable steps to prevent them.
    • JPears
    • By JPears 8th Apr 18, 11:43 AM
    • 4,188 Posts
    • 1,140 Thanks
    JPears
    However, in this case, the OPs delay was not caused by "meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned"
    This is a specific part of the regulation, in writing, in black and white.
    Whislt it doesn't state that "meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight a later flight is NOT an EC", this is a very strong inference that cannot be ignored.
    The reasonable delay and effort made to minimise is a seperated and independent test to an EC.
    If you're new. read The FAQ and Vauban's Guide

    The alleged Ringleader.........
    • jpsartre
    • By jpsartre 8th Apr 18, 12:00 PM
    • 3,494 Posts
    • 2,230 Thanks
    jpsartre
    However, in this case, the OPs delay was not caused by "meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned"
    Originally posted by JPears
    I'm not arguing it was. The delay was caused by knock-on effects from extraordinary circumstances. The only guideline the regulations provide as far as whether these are extraordinary is whether or not they could have been avoided taking reasonable steps.

    The 'reasonable steps' criterion is not an independent and separate test, it is the *only* test, the examples listed in the regulations are simply particularly salient examples of circumstances where no reasonable steps could have been taken.
    Last edited by jpsartre; 08-04-2018 at 12:06 PM.
    • Tyzap
    • By Tyzap 8th Apr 18, 12:50 PM
    • 1,640 Posts
    • 715 Thanks
    Tyzap
    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.
    Last edited by Tyzap; 08-04-2018 at 3:29 PM. Reason: Clarification
    Please read Vaubans superb guide. To find it Google and then download 'vaubans guide'.
    • jpsartre
    • By jpsartre 8th Apr 18, 1:06 PM
    • 3,494 Posts
    • 2,230 Thanks
    jpsartre
    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.
    Originally posted by Tyzap
    No, it isn't. The idea that knock-on effects are automatically non-extraordinary is a myth that's unfortunately perpetuated in here.
    • Justice13075
    • By Justice13075 8th Apr 18, 1:28 PM
    • 1,425 Posts
    • 514 Thanks
    Justice13075
    Do you have a case in mind where a knock on effect claim in the small claims court has been rejected.
    • jpsartre
    • By jpsartre 8th Apr 18, 2:05 PM
    • 3,494 Posts
    • 2,230 Thanks
    jpsartre
    Not a small claims court case but SAS recently won a case in the Danish High court over a knock-on delay (http://www.hoejesteret.dk/hoejesteret/nyheder/Afgorelser/Pages/Ikkekompensationforflyforsinkelse.aspx - link in Danish, Google translate should be able to help with that).

    That being said, my point wasn't based on a particular court ruling but on what the regulations say. And there is nothing in the regulation which rules out that knock-on effects can be extraordinary. Again, the test for whether or not an event is extraordinary is whether or not the event could have been avoided taking reasonable steps. Depending on how 'reasonable steps' is interpreted, this is certainly compatible with knock-on effects being extraordinary.
    • Justice13075
    • By Justice13075 8th Apr 18, 2:14 PM
    • 1,425 Posts
    • 514 Thanks
    Justice13075
    In this case I think Tyzap's reasoning is sound and believe compensation is due.
    • jpsartre
    • By jpsartre 8th Apr 18, 3:06 PM
    • 3,494 Posts
    • 2,230 Thanks
    jpsartre
    In what case? I'm not saying compensation isn't due, I'm saying you cannot infer from the fact that the delay is a knock-on delay to the conclusion that it IS due.
    • Tyzap
    • By Tyzap 8th Apr 18, 3:08 PM
    • 1,640 Posts
    • 715 Thanks
    Tyzap
    No, it isn't. The idea that knock-on effects are automatically non-extraordinary is a myth that's unfortunately perpetuated in here.
    Originally posted by jpsartre
    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.
    Please read Vaubans superb guide. To find it Google and then download 'vaubans guide'.
    • jpsartre
    • By jpsartre 8th Apr 18, 3:33 PM
    • 3,494 Posts
    • 2,230 Thanks
    jpsartre
    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.
    Originally posted by Tyzap
    There is nothing in the regulations which suggests knock-on effects from bad weather cannot be extraordinary.
    • Tyzap
    • By Tyzap 8th Apr 18, 5:07 PM
    • 1,640 Posts
    • 715 Thanks
    Tyzap
    There is nothing in the regulations which suggests knock-on effects from bad weather cannot be extraordinary.
    Originally posted by jpsartre
    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 Ďextraordinary circumstancesí 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.
    Please read Vaubans superb guide. To find it Google and then download 'vaubans guide'.
    • jpsartre
    • By jpsartre 8th Apr 18, 5:34 PM
    • 3,494 Posts
    • 2,230 Thanks
    jpsartre
    If your long delay was caused by one of the following, you may be entitled to compensation according to EU law:
    [...]
    Bad weather affecting a previous flight, causing your flight to be delayed
    Originally posted by Tyzap
    I take what Bott and Co say on their website with a grain of salt, they are not an unbiased part and have an interest in getting as many people as possible to claim through them. E.g. they also suggest that bad weather must be "'freak' or 'wholly exceptional'" to be extraordinary which I think is fairly dubious. Aside from that, I don't disagree with the qouted part above. Again, I'm not saying knock-on delays from bad weather are always extraordinary, I'm saying they *may* be if the airline can show that they took all reasonable steps to avoid it. The flipside is that they may well not be.
    • NoviceAngel
    • By NoviceAngel 8th Apr 18, 8:00 PM
    • 2,102 Posts
    • 629 Thanks
    NoviceAngel
    The discussion could continue indefinitely until such a case reaches the Supreme Court and I agree with Tyzap that it probably never will because of the precedent that it would set.

    My own opinion has not changed and my own interpretation of the regs is that the OP has a clear cut case for compensation, although I fully take on board jpsatre opinions.

    The fact that Botts will and do issue Court proceedings on knock on weather delays at their own expense when other Solicitors refuse is testament to their tenacity and no doubt also profit driven.

    There are many Solicitors that do this work and I wouldnít recommend any of them for a straightforward case but sometimes you just need their professional help, and if its on a NWNF basis then theres no harm in having a go.

    I still think that blaming the weather from a previous flight which subsequently made the crew late is all a little too convenient for BA. Iíve recently witnessed airlines cancelling flights hours in advance and making no effort whatsoever to either help passengers with right to care or re routing behaving disgracefully and just blaming weather on a previous flight. So much so that Botts have issued court proceedings on my behalf for a knock on weather delay that I suffered myself.

    I do feel slightly sad that I donít have the legal experience to argue such a case, but just maybe they will be able to get some compensation for me. The previous case that I was involved, I handled myself and the airline settled out of court after the Huzar ruling, so Im certainly not afraid to get stuck in myself on a more straightforward case.

    At the end of it all it will be the OP that decides which course of action they decide.

    1.. Accept what BA say
    2.. Issue the NBA then either go to 3 or 4
    3.. Follow the NBA with court proceedings youself
    4.. pass it all over to a NWNF Solicitors

    I wish the OP all the best of luck with their decision.

    Cheers

    NoviceAngel
    After reading PtL Vaubans Guide , please don't desert us, hang around and help others!

    Hi, weíve had to remove part of your signature. If youíre not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if youíre still unsure - MSE ForumTeam
    • jpsartre
    • By jpsartre 8th Apr 18, 8:06 PM
    • 3,494 Posts
    • 2,230 Thanks
    jpsartre
    My own opinion has not changed and my own interpretation of the regs is that the OP has a clear cut case for compensation, although I fully take on board jpsatre opinions.
    Originally posted by NoviceAngel
    Thanks and same here. I fully realize this is somewhat of a grey area and much comes down to how the regulations are interpreted so it's no surprise that opinions can differ. I hope the OP will pursue the case and come back to report the outcome.
    • legal magpie
    • By legal magpie 8th Apr 18, 10:51 PM
    • 922 Posts
    • 404 Thanks
    legal magpie
    It is a grey area but I am in the Tyzap camp on this one. I consider that crews going out of hours is part of the normal operation of an airline. Airlines can and sometimes do send out replacement crews on other airlines.
    I also don't agree that it makes sense for Botts to take cases if they know they can't be won as unless the case is won they don't get paid.
    But given that it is a grey area, I would recommend pursuing this through a NWNF solicitor on the basis that 65% (or whatever) of the compensation is better than nothing.
    • jpsartre
    • By jpsartre 9th Apr 18, 7:51 AM
    • 3,494 Posts
    • 2,230 Thanks
    jpsartre
    I also don't agree that it makes sense for Botts to take cases if they know they can't be won as unless the case is won they don't get paid.
    Originally posted by legal magpie
    That's not what I said. Again, I'm *not* saying knock-on delays are always extraordinary, there are no doubt cases where an airline could have avoided a knock-on delay and where compensation would be due. But I also have little doubt the opposite is sometimes the case. It all depends on the circumstances of the specific case.
    • U.N.C.L.E.
    • By U.N.C.L.E. 10th Apr 18, 9:39 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    U.N.C.L.E.
    Thanks for all the advice everyone. Clearly there are grey areas, and itís great that you are able to offer such advice all with the best intention - I really appreciate all the honesty and genuine opinions. Iíll go for the NBA and see what effect that has - I think I have little to lose. Then if not successful (or ignored!) Iíll look at the NWNF option most likely, just because of the ambiguities involved.

    Thanks to you all again for your advice and time!
    • NoviceAngel
    • By NoviceAngel 10th Apr 18, 10:02 PM
    • 2,102 Posts
    • 629 Thanks
    NoviceAngel
    Thanks for all the advice everyone. Clearly there are grey areas, and itís great that you are able to offer such advice all with the best intention - I really appreciate all the honesty and genuine opinions. Iíll go for the NBA and see what effect that has - I think I have little to lose. Then if not successful (or ignored!) Iíll look at the NWNF option most likely, just because of the ambiguities involved.

    Thanks to you all again for your advice and time!
    Originally posted by U.N.C.L.E.
    Youíre welcome and I think youíve come to a reasonable and sensible conclusion, Iím pretty sure youíll get a successful outcome and please do keep us all informed of your journey.

    All the best,

    NoviceAngel
    After reading PtL Vaubans Guide , please don't desert us, hang around and help others!

    Hi, weíve had to remove part of your signature. If youíre not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if youíre still unsure - MSE ForumTeam
    • ghol26
    • By ghol26 12th Apr 18, 3:48 PM
    • 69 Posts
    • 57 Thanks
    ghol26
    Success!
    Having contacted BA through their own website about a 24hr flight delay back on 28/12/17 and having had little success apart from being offered Avios points and highlife vouchers for my son (somehow despite having had a reply about an Avios household account I cannot add his membership to my bookings with BA) I decided to try Resolver last month. Today I got a reply from BA offering me flight compensation! Success in the end! Thanks to Resolver
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,594Posts Today

8,196Users online

Martin's Twitter