Why is it generally assumed that BA’s decision was at least partially influenced by the new EU compensation rules? Has anyone actually
read them ?
Firstly, it is relevant to ask, had the aircraft returned to LAX, would the passengers have been entitled to anything at all?
‘The BA flight departed at 8.45pm on Saturday’. In other words, it wasn’t delayed, it wasn’t cancelled, it was a routine departure. Nobody was denied boarding. What subsequently happened was an en-route event. The EU rules deal specifically with departure delays, they make no reference to en-route delays, arrival delays or diversions.
Secondly, even if the aircraft had been delayed on departure, there seems to be widespread ignorance of what the new rules provide for.
‘The regulation requires airlines to refund passengers the full cost of their tickets as well as flying them home if a delay lasts longer than five hours.’ INCORRECT. The airline is obliged to offer passengers the opportunity to abandon their journey and receive a full refund, OR continue with their journey.
In other words, the LAX-originating passengers could have said ‘I don’t want to go to London any more’ and claimed a refund. The London-originating passengers would have flown with a delay or on an alternative flight. They would not have been entitled to any financial compensation. The only exceptional cost to BA would have been if any passengers had originated in, say, Sydney, and opted to abandon their trip – the airline would have been obliged to get them back home AND refund their ticket.
Whatever the issues surrounding this particular event, I am sure that liability for compensation under the new rules played no part whatsoever in BA’s decision.