Compensation For Long Delay [Archive]

The SSK

27th Jul 2012, 10:38

Of all the pieces of EU legislation which weigh down the airlines, Regulation 261/2004 is probably the most ill-conceived. Because it was so badly drafted, it has been repeatedly challenged, and subsequent opinions from the European Court of Justice have only made it worse.

At its simplest level, it consists of two provisions – a duty of care in the case of schedule disruptions, extending to refreshments, meals and eventually overnight accommodation (I would hope that BA offered you this).

The second provision, of monetary compensation, was originally intended by the lawmakers as a deterrent, or a punishment, for perceived malpractice – bumping passengers because of overbooking or cancelling poorly-booked flights. This original intention has long been lost in subsequent interpretations of the Regulation. The latest of these rules that a long delay should be treated the same as a cancellation.

The compensation provision (but not the duty of care) does not apply in the case of ‘extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken’. Therein lies a licence for lawyers to print money.

Consider this: there might have been 300 passengers on your aircraft, another 300 on the return flight (which would have been similarly delayed). With a fixed compensation figure of €600 for flights over 3500km, that’s a potential exposure to the airline of a liability of €360,000 – just for one occurrence. What business can possibly live with risks like that?

Yellow Son

27th Jul 2012, 10:39

Agaricus Bisporus, who may of course be in possession of all the facts about last Saturday's events, thinks I am wrong to say that BA were 'very slow to obtain a replacement 747'. No, of course I don't expect BA to have several spares hanging around. How they keep their schedule is not my business; the fact that they should keep to it is their business, and the means are for them to decide.

On this occasion, a large part of the eventual delay was down to the extended time spent sitting in the original aircraft whle the engineers tried to sort out what was wrong (initially reported to us as a crack in a fairing but clearly more than that), and what to do about it. As it happens, they didn't replace the crew, though I was surprised by that.

Yes, surprisingly enough, I am aware that there is a lot to do in replacing an aircraft. But since you choose to raise the topic of 'imagination', perhaps a little more imagination on the part of the people involved could have suggested an earlier start on getting the replacement prepped?

Yellow Son

27th Jul 2012, 10:47

The SSK points out that the legislation is flawed. No surprise there - most legislation seems to be! But what seems to be happening here in this forum thread is that the discussion is taking its own path, away from what I had hoped to discover in my original question.

Yes, of course it would be expensive if every pax was paid compensation at these high rates. That's an argument that can justifiably form a thread of its own.

But my query was based on the fact that the legislation does exist, whether we approve of it or not; I hoped I might get some useful advice about how to take things forward.

Instead, sadly, I have somehow become the villain! What a pity, when every other discussion I have been involved with on PPrune has resulted in useful and constructive advice being passed back and forth between contributore. Still, like the airlines and their published departure times, I shouldn't expect 100% success rate.

lenhamlad

27th Jul 2012, 12:42

It's the nature of the beast. Forums are for discussion and, as I have found out to my cost, making ANY comments risk the possibility of being flamed. Had my fingers burned on the Flyer forum when they spotted I was a newbie despite having had thirty odd years experience of flying as a passenger. How dare I come on with a view having only posted once or twice! Now I take my chance then get my head down.

The SSK

27th Jul 2012, 13:10

I hoped I might get some useful advice about how to take things forward

It should not be difficult for you to identify a certain parasitic organisation which owes its existence to the deficiencies in R261; who, admittedly, will help you make a claim in a 'low-stress way' and who will cheerfully relieve you of a large chunk of any eventual compensation you receive.

lenhamlad

27th Jul 2012, 14:14

I think once the PPI boat has been docked for the last time, we can look forward to daytime adverts asking if your flight has ever been delayed. You may be entitled to compensation etc etc. I can hear it all now.

Capot

27th Jul 2012, 15:16

whle the engineers tried to sort out what was wrong (initially reported to us as a crack in a fairing but clearly more than that), and what to do about it. As it happens, they didn't replace the crew, though I was surprised by that.

What the hell do you mean "reported to us....but clearly more than that"?

It's that word "reported" that makes me want to reach for a club. The engineers(s) were somewhere in the bowels of one of the most complex machines on the planet, to find what was causing a fault indication. It's a complex process, and as professionals they would make sure that anything they did find was not concealing something else. Your safety depends on their thoroughness.

They were probably keeping in touch with the crew, not least to keep you informed rather than just sitting there nursing your many grievances. And the crew were passing on information as they got it, and good for them, so that you had some idea of what was going on.

You make it sound as they they were "reporting" to you as though you were somehow supervising their work. And then there is your petulant little phrase "clearly more than that". Do you really believe that they were with-holding some important information from you, just to annoy you? You find a fault, eg a cracked fairing, then you look for what made that happen. It can be a long process, and you are alive because engineers do that.

Others have commented, rightly, on the stupidity of expecting the B747 fairy to produce "a replacement 747" at a couple of hours notice.

I make no apologies for this ad hominem comment; I wish you luck in your pursuit of money and if you get any, which I hope you don't, I hope it chokes you. The airline got you there safely, and that requires the combined efforts of hundreds of people, yes, hundreds. It's a pity that their efforts are wasted on people who only see "Compinsayshun" whenever the opportunity offers.

I wonder if you are a banker? You sound a wit like one?

Yellow Son

27th Jul 2012, 16:18

What a spiteful set of outbursts I have sparked here. Sorry, Capot, if plain English is not to your taste, but I chose my words with care. Although the standard of intercomm wasn't great, the story as I understood it was that initially a crack had been spotted and that at some time later things were found to be worse - either the crack was worse than they thought, or another component was also found to be faulty, it wasn't easy to hear.

These facts were quite literally 'reported to us' by the captain over the intercom, as they emerged. How else am I supposed to have expressed that? I wrote that it was 'quite clearly more than that' because the captain said so! What do you find 'petulant' about that?

Perhaps English is not your native language? That might explain why your nickname appears to be that of a french contraceptive.

I flew professionally for long enough to know that things break, and can be complicated, and slow, to fix. I merely set out the circumstances of this particular case, and have been saddened by the flood of off-subject bile that has resulted.

Your grotesque rant may have made you feel better, but what I said in an earlier post to another 'outraged' contributor still applies
" - a little quick off the mark with your opinions there, I think . . . you have chosen to attribute 'greed' where the true impact was a good deal of distress (and extra costs) associated with late arrival which I chose not to expose here because they are not relevant to the facts."

It's clear from your comments that you are closely associated with the industry. Not in customer relations, I imagine. But if your way of expressing yourself is to describe as 'stupid' someone whom you don't agree with - and to hope they choke! - then for all our sakes it's to be hoped you're not flight deck crew.

Capot

27th Jul 2012, 17:24

I'm sorry, sunshine, you nailed your colours to the mast with your first post;

Is there a low-stress way of pursuing this to some kind of sensible conclusion, or do I have to resign myself to endless legalistic wrangling? Of course you're the villain!

And then you said a large part of the eventual delay was down to the extended time spent sitting in the original aircraft while the engineers tried to sort out what was wrong What on earth did you mean by that? The time was spent trying to fix the aircraft while you sat in it; how did that cause a large part of the eventual delay?

I flew professionally for long enough to know that things break, and can be complicated, and slow, to fix. Yes, well, sure you did. In that case, why do you find it difficult to understand why seeking advice on how to get your compinsayshun when your airline found a fault, took some trouble to fix it, and flew you safe and sound to where you wanted to go, gets peoples' backs up?

PS. I've just realised why, it's the thought of those several hundred Euros, of course. Funny how greed can drive people, isn't it?

Yellow Son

27th Jul 2012, 17:36

Get's peoples backs up? No, just some people with self control issues. Here's a thought - if I really was the self-absorbed type you accuse me of being, I'd be trying my best to stop your abuse. As it is, I'll just assume you've had a bad day.

Since you clearly don't understand what is written there's no point in continuing explaining the full facts of the case to you. Try sleeping it off. This link might help you Cyberbullying: cyberbullies on the Internet (http://www.bullyonline.org/related/cyber.htm)

Yellow Son

27th Jul 2012, 19:17

I started this thread because:

a. I understood that there was a probable entitlement under EU regulations to some kind of compensation for a very long delay my wife and I had experienced

b. BA weren’t being forthcoming about it

c. So I was hoping for advice as to what to do next.

The gist of the replies seems to be that there shouldn’t be an entitlement, but that even if there is I am wrong to pursue it. Well, people are entitled to their opinions, even if they do express them intemperately, distorting and/or misunderstanding what I have written and using personal abuse. It’s disappointing, though, that the original question has not received a sensible answer, but it’s clearly time for me to give up hoping.

So I will leave it to the trolls to have the last word,which I am sure is important to them. Perhaps they will take the opportunity to explain exactly what it is in what I have said that is factually incorrect.

edi_local

27th Jul 2012, 19:38

I would assume that since the airline got you to where you wanted to go then you have no claim of compensation at all.

Presumably at some point someone gave you refreshment vouchers to use in the terminal. That is all they need to do, with the amount going up every so often. Only if the flight looks like it's not happening do they start looking to rebook you or arrange hotel accommodation. If they cancel the flight and you chose not to travel at all then you would get a refund.

Why do you feel as though BA should essentially give you a free ride to New York? They delayed you, they didn't throw you off due to overbooking or cancel the flight and run off with your money. Many people on the aircraft probably paid "several hundred Euro" for the flight, it's nonsense to suggest they are just given that money back.

rgsaero

27th Jul 2012, 19:55

I simply cannot understand what, Yellow Son, you want to be compensated FOR!

Were you financially worse off? Did you miss a date with a lovely lady (who took exception to that?) Didn't you build any slack into your schedule (as most do?) Where's the beef? Oh - or are you just a child of the "compensation culture" who believes that whatever goes wrong someone should pay - you presumably?

I well recall in about 1983 an American gentleman - er, no, male person - shouting and complaining in a similar situation to the one you have presented here. A number of people asked him what he would have the airline / captain / engineers do? He said - "get this thing flying!"

I managed to quieten him by telling him that the Captain was being paid a good deal of money to "get this thing in the air" and regardless of the reason, hangover, headache, faulty engine or whatever if he wasn't happy about so doing I was with him.

May I respectfully suggest that as you claim to be have been a "professional" aviator, you demonstrate little understanding of the disciplines and pressures of the business.

And, for the record, I am not nor have been a "professional" though I am an engineer andI have many hours as a PPL, but I have been flying commercially as SLF since 1951! Try getting upset back then about a six hour delay!

Shack37

27th Jul 2012, 20:19

And I thought Jet Blast ran the outrage bus but even the worst bile producers there would learn a lot from this thread:ooh:

Yellow Son

28th Jul 2012, 09:58

Edi Local says "I would assume that since the airline got you to where you wanted to go then you have no claim of compensation at all."

Well, at the simplest level, I was involved in extra costs, but there were several other personal implications that are no business of anyone on this website. So I'm not sure that your assumption is valid - isn't there a saying in the business about assuming versus checking?

However, the main point is that EU legislation exists which - apparently - places on the airline a responsibility which is exactly what you say is unreasonable. In other words, your assumption doesn't match my understanding of the legal position. It may be 'nonsense to suggest' that BA should give the money back (or a fraction of it), but please bear in mind that the suggestion isn't mine, but the legislators'. As it happens, I have some sympathy with the argument that it is a badly-targeted piece of legislation; but since it does exist, I am struggling to see why I should ignore it.

mutt

28th Jul 2012, 10:37

The amount of compensation to which you are entitled depends on the length of your journey and how long a delay you suffer.

In the case of delays of two hours on a journey of up to 1,500km you should be eligible for free meals and refreshments and two phone calls, emails or faxes.

For a journey of between 1,500km and 3,500km you must be delayed by three hours for this entitlement, and if your journey is 3,500km or more the delay must be at least four hours.

If you are delayed by five hours or overnight on any flight you will also be entitled to hotel accommodation. If you decide not to travel you will be entitled to a full refund of your ticket price and a free flight back to your original starting point.

If you are not offered these you should complain to the airline operating the flight.

If your flight is cancelled or you are denied boarding because it is overbooked, you will be entitled to compensation unless the airline can prove this was a result of "extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken".

These could include things like strikes, bad weather and political instability.

If the airline is to blame you will be automatically entitled to a full refund and a return flight to the first point of departure, or to have your journey rerouted.

Compensation for a cancelled flight varies depending on the length of your flight and how long your arrival at your destination is delayed as a result of you being rerouted. The amount to which you are entitled is as follows::

· €125 (£99) on a journey of up to 1,500km delayed by up to two hours

· €250 on a journey of up to 1,500km delayed for more than two hours

· €200 on a journey of 1,500km-3,500km delayed by up to three hours

· €400 on a journey of 1,500km-3,500km delayed by more than three hours

· €300 on a journey of more than 3,500km delayed by up to four hours

· €600 on a journey of more than 3,500km delayed by more than four hours

Google is your friend and as you can see your "entitlement" was food!

Yellow Son

28th Jul 2012, 12:45

Thanks, Mutt. Pleasant change to have a non-ranting response.

My original query followed advice I had found by Googling eg 'Which' and other sources, which puts a different interpretation on things from yours. There are several references to these regulations applying to delays as well as cancellations; though I gather that the airlines are not happy about this, and legal wrangling continues. Of course, my understanding could be wrong.

Just to be clear, we were indeed fed and watered while were waiting (I don't think I've said or even implied otherwise). We did suffer a good deal of consequential loss due to our late arrival, but my understanding is that the detail of this is not strictly relevant since it is subsumed within a blanket figure imposed by EU regulations (not one dreamed up by me).

mutt

28th Jul 2012, 19:05

We did suffer a good deal of consequential loss due to our late arrival, Unfortunately thats what travel insurance is for. The airline has a contract to get you from A-B, or further if you pay for it, however once you have arrived at B, they have completed their contractual obligations.

Avionker

28th Jul 2012, 19:43

As I interpret the regulations you are entitled to no more than meals. refreshments etc.

Your flight was delayed, not cancelled. You were not re-routed, you travelled on your original flight number correct?

I would suggest that the only beef you might have is that you were not offered the option of not travelling.

If you are delayed by five hours or overnight on any flight you will also be entitled to hotel accommodation. If you decide not to travel you will be entitled to a full refund of your ticket price and a free flight back to your original starting point.

If you are not offered these you should complain to the airline operating the flight.

However I assume that if you had availed yourself of this option had it been offered you would have suffered the consequential loses anyway, correct?

As mutt says, travel insurance is your avenue now.

ImPlaneCrazy

29th Jul 2012, 18:50

It's still an ongoing battle between the EU courts and the airlines - although the compensation guidelines are there, because there are all sorts of legal appeals going through passengers aren't 'entitled' to any compensation at the moment.

This is said with loose lips; they are entitled to compensation but the airlines will not pay out and are not required to pay out until the dispute has been settled. An appeal from the airlines was actually dismissed in May, so we could be seeing some payouts coming towards us passengers sometime soon.

Although I agree with everyone's views on this subject, and I also think that this could be crippling to the aviation industry with passengers going compensation crazy (reminds me of the Americans love of suing... :ugh:) could put some airlines in serious trouble. However on the other hand, yes it is stressful to be involved in a delay and yes you should be compensated - to the tune of €600+ though I am not sure.

Log your case with BA (as it sounds like you have already done), and keep a close eye on the legislation which should be coming into play in the next few months.

PS For the ranters out there - if you were offered €600 for a delay automatically from any airline, are you really telling me that you would reject it? It's a lot of money in anyone's wallet, and if the OP doesn't claim it they'll be hundreds of other people that do and good luck changing their viewpoint on the matter...

Solar

30th Jul 2012, 00:21

Had a strange one recently regarding flight missed due airline delay.
Traveling from Yuzhno to Belfast via Moscow, Copenhegen and Birmingham. SK2535 Cop/Bir was delayed to the extent that I missed the Belfast connection. When I asked at the "customer service" desk I was told that as the Bir/Bel was a seperate booking it was not the resposiblity of SK therefore any additional costs were down to me.
Not withstanding the different bookings it was still the fault of SK that I was late, it was due to weather as I understand it.
My company travel agent said they would forward a complaint if I wanted but to be honest I could see little point in it.
Not what I would call good customer service and where possible they are on my avoid list.

easyflyer83

30th Jul 2012, 03:35

I agree with the sentiments of others regarding replacement aircraft. I personally think BA did very well to get you a replacement 747 to
A non base on the other side of the Atlantic, or reschedule a 747 already on the ground in just 6 hours. Sounds like very good management by BA op's, even if that isn't particularly obvious to 'joe passenger'.

SeenItAll

2nd Aug 2012, 21:41

I personally think BA did very well to get you a replacement 747 to
A non base on the other side of the Atlantic, or reschedule a 747 already on the ground in just 6 hours.
At the risk of stirring this pot further, YS was flying from LHR to JFK. If there is ever a location where BA should be able to procure a replacement aircraft quickly, it is at LHR. Now it is certainly possible this was simply a very bad day for BA (possibly because all of its available spares already been called for), but I would be very interested to know from the BA people on this board whether a six hour delay in obtaining a replacement 747 at LHR is pretty much what would ordinarily be expected? Or was it one of those bad days and that replacements are usually obtained more quickly?

ExXB

5th Aug 2012, 16:27

I am not a BA fan, I believe their service recovery is despicable and I have vowed not to use their services. So far I have succeeded, but if it suits MY purpose ...

Consider,

BA could have simply cancelled the flight and claimed 'extraordinary circumstances' to attempt to avoid compensation. Some may have disputed this and perhaps some of those may have convinced BA to cough up (due to their status, etc.) and even fewer may have gone to court which may, or may not rule in favour of BA's claim.

However they did operate as close to schedule as possible and got you where you are going.

The Montreal Convention 1999 (MC99) also applies in this case and if you have the time you can explore a claim through the courts of provable damages. Such damages are capped at around SDR1100 and you will have to prove that BA did not make best efforts to get you to your destination. I'll leave it to you to judge if your claim, less legal costs, would be worthwhile.

The European Court of Justice has ruled that in some circumstances a delay could be considered a cancellation, but did not provide any guidance on when/how that would apply. The ECJ has been asked to review this ruling (which cannot be appealed in a legal sense) and has not yet issued their final opinion. When they do it is not likely they will provide any guidance as to when a delay could be considered a cancellation, for the purposes of R261. So don't expect anything to get clearer in the future. Your mileage may vary, but it may surprise you what they may be prepared to do if you are reasonable, and if you fly enough on them to want to retain you as a customer.

Or you can do what I did. Don't fly BA

What I would do is to write to BA and set out my 'losses' and ask them very nicely to offset them. Be reasonable and do not threaten to never fly with them again unless they do something. Tell them (even if you are lying) that you love their airline, their service, their staff, their logo, their alliance and anything else you can think of, but because of your perceived mishandling you may take your custom elsewhere. Perhaps if your fairy godmother is working on that day you might get something. Cash, miles, upgrades, credits for future trips.

+TSRA

16th Aug 2012, 06:15

Well Yellow Sun, you really know how to get my back up.

As a current line pilot I find your desire, or any passengers desire for that matter, to seek compensation for safety delays to be classless. You say you've been a professional pilot. I doubt that based on your reaction. Every other professional pilot I've ever met in my career has always taken safety delays as an "oh well" moment. You seem to have taken it as a crusade, albeit based on regulatory support. Silly regulatory support that any decent, safety conscious person would do well to ignore.

Your contract with the airline to move you from point A to B is based on my ability as a pilot to determine if it is safe to fly. The decision is really quite simple: if I think any issue has the potential to kill you or me, then we don't go - to hell with any business meeting, family affair, or other meeting you will miss. If the issue will not kill you or me, then I will attempt everything in my power to make up the lost time, including taking a possible further hit to the airline in increased fuel costs. But I have never, and will never, take your potential lost personal or business time into consideration when making a safety decision. Hell, if anyone in the airlines did then they should be fired on the spot.

I agree with ensuring passenger comfort during the delay, whether that be refreshments or giving you somewhere to stay while we fix the issue. I do not, however, agree with these regulations stipulating that my company now has to pay you because I made you wait for 5 hours based on my desire not to kill you. That, good sir, is greed. Plain and simple. You want me to make you comfortable while I make sure you will not die, and then you want to take money from me because I made such a decision. Your type is what is wrong with the USA, with where Canada is going, and where the EU is following so very closely behind. There was a day where you would have said, "Thank-you for putting my safety ahead of all other concerns." Now, it seems, you would rather say, "Thanks for getting me here, but because I'm late, you will pay, and I'm going to make sure you do by telling my sob story to the government." Then the government, to get votes, will make a "feel good" rule that actually punishes the airlines for making safe decisions.

I think BA did an amazing job to find another company aircraft in 6 hours. Considering all their other aircraft would have already been scheduled to do other flights upon their return; considering some aircraft might have had to enter maintenance for whatever reason; considering there would have been ridiculous amounts of customs, flight planning, and crew rest considerations to take into account, not just in LHR, but also in JFK, I think they did a stellar job - I wonder if they were able to do all this without any net affect to other flights; were other passengers inconvenienced to get you to New York? If not, then simply an amazing job.

You've complained that no one responded to your post with an answer to your original question: How to find an easy, stress free way, to obtain compensation. You lambasted the first few posters who disagreed with you, and then further ridiculed those who tried to show you an interpretation of the regulations that you did not agree. Did you ever consider that there were going to be many more individuals, like minded to my style of post, who would find your desire for compensation to be incredibly brazen? Or, as it seems, did you rather think that the majority of people would come to your aid with the ways and means to "teach the airline a lesson?"

To conclude. There are certainly times where passenger compensation from the airline is absolutely required: being bumped from an overbooked flight, or being cancelled because of an undersold flight, or any number of similar situations. Safety, however, should never be penalized in the form of monetary compensation. If anything, it should be rewarded. You should want to travel on that airline again because they clearly put safety first, and their reward should be your continued custom. The "reward" should not be your attempt at making them pay because they made you six hours late for a decision to ensure that you actually made it in the first place.

lenhamlad

16th Aug 2012, 09:01

+TSRA

Succintly put and well said. Whenever I book my flights, I plan for the worst and hope for the best. More often than not I am pleasantly surprised and unless there is obvious incompetence or negligence I go with the flow.

TightSlot

16th Aug 2012, 09:19

Thanks +TSRA - Could not have phrased it better myself. On that happy note, I think we'll leave Yellow Son to his, hopefully fruitless search for compensayshun and move on.

OPENED AGAIN IN RESPONSE TO REQUEST

PhilW1981

16th Aug 2012, 21:42

Myself, partner and son recently took a return flight with Monarch to Barcelona en route to Benidorm. Outbound we were delayed by 3.5 hours (all spent aboard the aircraft with no complimentary refreshments offered). Inbound the delay was 6 hours. This time the delay was known about prior to check in and a free sandwich and drink was offered.

I was very frustrated by the lack of refreshments outbound and this may have clouded my judgment as in my opinion this should've been offered as a matter of course. Inbound delay caused both myself and partner to arrive home at 5am rather than 11pm and this meant we had to book an additionl day off work at significant cost. We also incurred numerous other incidental small expenses as a result of both delays (taxi, meals etc). Given both delays were significant I have asked Monarch for compensations to re-imburse me for these costs. Technically under EU261 we should be entitled to €250 per person per sector (€1500 in total) which is certainly not reasonable to the airline. I believe it is reasonable for expenses incurred to be refunded. (This totals £350 or so).

FTR the outbound delay was due to power cut at Manchester airport but we were the last to go, others were towed to T1 and got off with far less of a dely, inbound delay was due to aircraft going tech on previous route.

lenhamlad

16th Aug 2012, 21:52

I believe it is reasonable for expenses incurred to be refunded. (This totals £350 or so).

Given that no extra costs for food were incurred on the outward leg as you were stuck on the plane, perhaps you could detail your costs involved for the return journey. £350 spent on meals etc for three people for a six hour delay seems excessive to me.

I was stuck in Geneva for two days with my wife due to a French ATC strike and our costs for food came to nowhere near what you are claiming you spent.

PhilW1981

16th Aug 2012, 22:06

We had to pay for food on the plane outbound, £30. Needed due to the time spent onboard we were starving. £30 for a taxi home which had we been on time or delayed less than 3 hours, wouldn't have been necessary. The rest in a days extra holiday that we had to take.

SeenItAll

16th Aug 2012, 22:19

mutt

17th Aug 2012, 12:35

In the case of delays of two hours on a journey of up to 1,500km you should be eligible for free meals and refreshments and two phone calls, emails or faxes.

If you are delayed by five hours or overnight on any flight you will also be entitled to hotel accommodation. If you decide not to travel you will be entitled to a full refund of your ticket price and a free flight back to your original starting point.

If you are not offered these you should complain to the airline operating the flight.

PhilW1981, your flight was not cancelled, nor were you rerouted hence causing a delay, so where do you get the idea that they owe you money? If you didnt get the refreshments or phone calls you can complain, but 350 quid?

lenhamlad

17th Aug 2012, 12:56

Needed due to the time spent onboard we were starving

Starving after three hours?? Hungry perhaps, but not starving.

The rest in a days extra holiday that we had to take.

No expenditure there. As a retired person would I be entitled to a day's pension? As a matter of interest, how much did your airline tickets cost?

givemewings

17th Aug 2012, 13:50

TSRA, well said!!

Sometimes people can't see the forest for the trees.

Similar is happening in Australia, pax are paying rock bottom fares (between $20 and $100) for flights then bleating in amazement when the airline is not putting them up in a fancy hotel for the night when it hits the fan. If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys! As others have said, travel insurance. If you can't afford insurance, then you can't afford to fly.

To the OP, you can;t come on here complaining of 'significant losses' then expect us to take your word for it as to what those are to decide if your 'claim' would be reasonable or not. Anyone travelling on same day as an event or meeting that is so important that it cannot be missed or rescheduled is, in my opinion, travelling at their own risk.

For ultra long haul flights, you're flying across the darn world, for goddness' sake, some delay is to be expected. Just think, at one point in time going from the UK to Oz took up to ten days or more by plane...

Shack37

17th Aug 2012, 14:27

For ultra long haul flights, you're flying across the darn world, for goddness' sake, some delay is to be expected. Just think, at one point in time going from the UK to Oz took up to ten days or more by plane...

Ah, nostalgia ain't what it used to be. Finding it a little difficult to see the connection. (no pun intended)

givemewings

17th Aug 2012, 15:21

Point is, for such a long trip, a delay of 5 to 6 hours to ensure everyone's safety is really no huge deal. If one has planned properly, covered by insurance and not travelling on day of daughter's wedding etc, all should be well. Given that such trips could take up to 2 weeks historically, the fact that one can do so in less than 24hrs really is remarkable. I think people lose sight of that sometimes.

I just love how so many people today want to blame someone else for their failure to plan. I never travel on the day I need to be somewhere, if I can't afford the extra day or two as a buffer, then I don't go!

Have even had pax complain about landing an hour early because now they have to spend more time in the airport waiting for a connection...can't win! :rolleyes:

Here's some amusing viewing that maybe we should show in school (bear with the start, it gets to aviation a little bit in)

Everythings Amazing & Nobodys Happy - YouTube

Peter47

17th Aug 2012, 15:39

Realistically the only time you are going to get rich is when you are bumpted (either involuntarily or when you volunteer) as just about any other delay - weather, going tech, industrial action - will count as force majeur. I checked in for a LHR - FRA flight which got cancelled at the last minute but BA rebooked me on the next available flight operated by LH so doubtless at some expense so full marks there (I was on a cheap advance book fare).

Can someone clarify if you have to have checked in to eligable for compensation? Presumably this would include online check in. Of course with easyJet / Ryanair you can check in a long time beforehand.

What happened when the Icelandic volcano erupted in April 2010? I was stranded but made my own way back by train & ferry. Presumably hotels did very well?

I'm reminded of the memo which went round the office when I was in consultancy asking people to book a return flight late enough so that they didn't have to change their flight. It was because an unlucky woman was delayed outbound by easyJet then had to book a later return flight in consequence. Delays can also make airlines money.

ExXB

17th Aug 2012, 17:14

Can someone clarify if you have to have checked in to eligable for compensation? Presumably this would include online check in. Of course with easyJet / Ryanair you can check in a long time beforehand.

The Regulation does not mention check-in. Your flight could be cancelled long before you arrive at the airport.

What happened when the Icelandic volcano erupted in April 2010? I was stranded but made my own way back by train & ferry. Presumably hotels did very well?

No doubt the hotels, who applied no show policies, came out like bandits but there is no Regulation governing their behaviour. The airlines whose flights were cancelled we're no required to pay compensation because a volcano was considered to be an extraordinary circumstance. But this did not relieve them of their responsibility to cover hotel costs and other care. So if you had staid where you were you would have been covered, but since you used your initiative the Regulation gives you nothing.

But this is 261, the worst bit of legal drafting ever. For example if BA downgrades an aircraft from an A320 to an A319 for safety reasons they have to pay compensation to anyone bumped, but if they cancel the flight they don't.

JohnieWalker

19th Aug 2012, 04:44

I am still interested to understand whether a six hour delay in procuring a replacement BA aircraft at LHR (its hub) is standard, or just represents an unfortunate bad day.

I have (in recent memory) had a UA 777 go tech at IAD (its hub) and a CO 757 go tech at EWR (its hub), and in both instances replacement aircraft were found within two hours. In contrast, I have had a Copa 737 go tech at IAD, and it took 24 hours for a replacement. I assume that if it had happened at PTY, a replacement would have been available sooner.

Thus, while I perfectly agree that YS is due no compensation (air schedules are never guaranteed and safety is paramount), I am still wondering whether BA is running extremely lean (even at LHR), or whether my experiences with faster replacement of U.S. aircraft are the atypical ones. Thanks.

@SeenItAll

Might have been a bad day for BA, might have been a slow decision making by ops personnel on duty, really could have been anything.

We don't really know (as I understand) for how much time pax were kept on board of first aircraft before decision to disembark was made, afterwards technicians might have still tried to repair the faulty thingy but failed, then they may have tried to bring a replacement from another 747 (if any in LHR at that time) but it didn't fit (for whatever reason), then after declaring full AOG spare a/c had to be prepared, or maybe the suitable by pax number (as I understand BA have two classes of 747 with different seats amount) a/c was coming from somewhere and after landing it had to undergo DLY or any other check to be able to perform flights, then again probably some towing took place, which takes time, especially in such a busy airports, especially in Olympic season (I assume it is).

A lot of things really, only the BA ops know what happened for real :)

So an answer to your question: I believe it was just bad day for BA, and they got all Swiss cheesed.

Yellow Son

29th Nov 2012, 08:22

Just thought I'd draw a line under this by reporting that BA have now paid me what the law requires. If it's a bad law, that's another matter.

It seems only fair to donate some of this cash to the favourite charities of all those contributors to this forum who responded positively to my request for help or advice. Oh wait - there weren't any.

As to those who wished me harm (and called me a liar as well as a fool), well, I'll just hope the holiday season brings you a happier time.

Avionker

29th Nov 2012, 08:43

Out of interest would you care to share with us what exactly it was that BA owed you? I'm curious as the information in post#19 seems to indicate that refreshments were your entitlement.

Was your original flight cancelled and did you subsequently travel under a different flight number or something?

Basil

29th Nov 2012, 09:44

Although I agree with the original intention of punishing airlines which 'try it on', I'm reminded of our passengers on the Highlands & Islands routes when we had delays due to weather. There was never a peep from the locals who, almost invariably, were connected with, or knew someone who was involved in, fishing, shipping or crofting and understood that wind, ice and visibility were beyond our control.

Yellow Son

29th Nov 2012, 10:19

Avionker quotes Post 19, but for some reason ignores Post 20.

It's the law. You are perfectly entitled not to approve of the law, even to steam from the ears about it, but please don't take it out on me.

Avionker

29th Nov 2012, 10:50

I didn't actually think I had been taking anything out on you.....

I was just asking a question.

I wasn't so much ignoring post 20, I just didn't have time to go over the whole thread again. I vaguely remembered from several months ago the contents of post 19, so went looking specifically for it.

Yellow Son

29th Nov 2012, 11:16

OK, so you're too busy to find out what you are posting about. Neither do I have time to repeat all the details that were not, in any case, anyone's business. But to help you understand, the simple facts are:

I bought a weekend break package holiday to NY from BA, flight times dictated by them
Technical failure chopped off a large proportion of it
I believed that this fell within the provisions for compensation provided by EU law, but wasn't clear, so posted here to get advice
I have been lucky enough to get sensible and balanced comment from a few, and disappointed to get a torrent of personal abuse from others (at least one decided I couldn't be a pilot myself, presumably because I don't think along the same lines she does)
I went ahead on my own, following CAA advice, and BA eventually paid what the law dictates
Is it naive of me to think people will shut up now? Probably.

TightSlot

29th Nov 2012, 11:23

Is it naive of me to think people will shut up now? Probably.

You returned, replaced the Banderillas and now apparently are surprised at the reaction?

I'm pleased that you have received the compensation that the law specifies although you are somewhat coy about the exact amount? Of course, that is your business not ours, although having started the thread, the detail would have been interesting.

:)

Tableview

29th Nov 2012, 11:36

My son

bought a weekend ticket to Barcelona from Vueling, flight times dictated by them
Their schedule change at short notice chopped off a large proportion of it
I believed that this fell within the provisions for compensation provided by EU law, but wasn't clear, so posted here to get advice. Got some
I went ahead on my own and Vueling will eventually pay what the law dictates

I fail to see why some people think it's 'greedy' to claim compensation for failure of a supplier to deliver a service with reasonable proximity to that promised.

The problem is that EU 261/2004 was drafted by incompetent Bureauprats who have no idea of the realities of life, let alone air travel.

Yellow Son

29th Nov 2012, 12:01

I don't think I said I was surprised to receive more uninformed criticism. I've learned better.

I didn't mention the amount because it really doesn't seem relevant to arguments about principle, and it just seemed crass to brandish a 'loadsa money' figure which relates only to one particular set of circumstances. Please bear in mind that I didn't draft the law or set the amount. The figures are in the public domain; Mutt has made a clear summary in his commendably low-key contribution at Post 19. The distance from LHR to JFK is also in the public domain. But since you ask, it was 600 Euros.

I'm not sure how anyone will be helped by having that information. My only reason for posting an update was to inform and encourage any others on these forums who might be stuck in a similar position, and incidentally to show that the ghastly trolls were talking through their trousers all along.

On reflection, that's probably a waste of time, because they Know They Are Right.

The SSK

29th Nov 2012, 13:12

The problem is that EU 261/2004 was drafted by incompetent Bureauprats who have no idea of the realities of life, let alone air travel.

R261 was drafted with a mixture of incompetence and malice aforethought. There were a number of agendas in there from the Regulator’s side, some of them personal (names ... packdrill).

Then after 9/11 and before enactment it was shelved. The airlines persuaded De Palacio that it was potentially disastrous for them at a time they were struggling to stay afloat.

On the shelf the draft legislation could probably have stayed, but it was dusted off in 2003 to punish the airlines for their opposition to the EU’s pet Galileo satnav project – nothing whatever to do with service quality, simply political spite.

The duty of care delay provisions were inserted in the legislation not by Brussels Eurocrats but by France, Denmark and Sweden, countries which at that time were in danger of invasion from the LoCos. Their tight turnarounds and intensive aircraft utilisation was seen as making them vulnerable to accumulated delay, this was a protectionist move to favour the (then) state-owned national carriers.

R261 has been an utter mess, but bureaucratic incompetence is only part of the story. The ‘unelected’ Commission, the democratically-elected Parliament (who will always seek to have 'pro-consumer' on their re-election manifesto) and the self-interested member states all got their grubby hands on it. And that was before the European Court put its collective wig on and rewrote the legislation – something they have absolutely no mandate to do.