EU261. An actual experience when BA cancelled an EU flight.

[Danger]

Doctors certificate? It's not for me to decide.

Irrespective, a crew member becoming ill is, IMHO, not an extraordinary circumstance being part and parcel of operating an airline.

I cannot see any airline providing a doctor's certificate to prove a crew member was sick, particularly because of privacy reasons.

Again, too much opaqueness, I think.

I'm on fence about it being extraordinary. Istanbul is an out-station where BA only flies to a couple times of day. And it was allegedly a member of the flight crew, not cabin crew, which I assume further complicates matters.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Serfty is correct. Crew illness is not extraordinary. There are a dozen airlines flying out of IST, either non-stop or with connections... so the airline has a choice to put you on those other carriers.

Weather and ATC aside (fairly common), ‘extraordinary’ really does mean what it says... even maintenance for the safe operation of the aircraft is excluded, unless it was something that virtually couldn’t be foreseen (like an inherent manufacturing defect which could have been dormant from 20 years earlier at the time the plane was built, etc)

 

[Danger]

Serfty is correct. Crew illness is not extraordinary. There are a dozen airlines flying out of IST, either non-stop or with connections... so the airline has a choice to put you on those other carriers.

British Airways did move as many passengers as possible to the two TK departures. However, as is invariably the case in circumstances like these, the ground handling was a shambles. My partner phoned BA in an attempt to avoid the disorderly queue of passengers seeking re-booking but she was told only staff at the airport can book passengers on non-oneworld carriers. So by the time we got to the front of the queue, TK's flights were full. This was BA's last departure of the day.

And I think two issues are being conflated. I don't deny the fact the airline must accommodate passengers. The airline did have a choice and it exercised those choices. The issue in question for me is whether or not illness for a member of the flight crew is considered extraordinary. I hope BA shares your position.

 

[serfty]

I hope BA shares your position.

If they did I would be surprised; the general tendency for BA (and other airlines) is to obfuscate, deny, defer all in an effort to wear a claimant down so much that they give up.

In the likelyhood that BA do not accept the claim for compensation, there are other avenues such as the CEDR or (if you can use a UK mailing address) MCOL.

Also, there are the 'no-cost' legal firms that take about 30% of the compensation should a claim via them be successful.

 

[Danger]

My apologies to Austman for partly hijacking the thread.

British Airways has today - hold the phones - denied our EC261 compo claim for a 15 hour delay IST-LHR citing the illness of the first officer as being outside of its control as IST isn't a hub and therefore an example of extraordinary circumstances.

 

[PDog]

We are on this merry go round with another airline, who (after a year or 2 of ‘extraordinary beyond their control circumstances’ ie plane went tech- flight cancelled, rebooked us the next day) agreeded to settle and asked for our bank details late April! After a couple of months of ‘we paid you’ they’ve now said we can’t transfer to a non EU bank account, we’ll need to send you a cheque....

We were about to use one of those UK sols who take 30%, just as they agreed to pay. Our claim is ~$800.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

My apologies to Austman for partly hijacking the thread.

British Airways has today - hold the phones - denied our EC261 compo claim for a 15 hour delay IST-LHR citing the illness of the first officer as being outside of its control as IST isn't a hub and therefore an example of extraordinary circumstances.

Worth pursuing. Crew illness anywhere on the network (given they are a huge international airline) would be an inherent risk and part of normal operations. On that basis I'd be arguing it is not extraordinary (it must happen occasionally). A certificate of illness could be proffered, suitably redacted. But I'm not convinced that would be enough anyway.

This is an external legal firm specialising in EU261 claims, but they are likewise not convinced it is extraordinary: Flight delays caused by crew sickness: Can I claim?

 

[Danger]

Worth pursuing. Crew illness anywhere on the network (given they are a huge international airline) would be an inherent risk and part of normal operations. On that basis I'd be arguing it is not extraordinary (it must happen occasionally). A certificate of illness could be proffered, suitably redacted. But I'm not convinced that would be enough anyway.

This is an external legal firm specialising in EU261 claims, but they are likewise not convinced it is extraordinary: Flight delays caused by crew sickness: Can I claim?

Absolutely incredible. Thank you very much for this.

On the face of it, it's utter trash from BA to be claiming 'not our problem' in my situation given this ruling goes to the heart of it. Just pure contempt for passengers.

This gives me some solid ammunition.

I'd have no issue pursuing the matter in an Australian court if one had jurisdiction but of course it doesn't. I'm happy to use one of the 50% fee firms but I'd much rather fight the battle on my own for the sweeter victory. I expect to soon have some extra time on my hands so I might look into filings in a UK court.

 

[Austman]

A small update on my situation.

The next move, as advised even by the CAA (UK) is to contact the CEDR. And I do think I can supply a UK address.

The CEDR states that before I can submit a claim to them:

"You have already complained to the airline/airport and they have sent you a written final response that refers you to CEDR, or at least eight weeks have passed since you first complained to the airline/airport"
​

The first hasn't happened so I believe I have to wait the 8 weeks. That's from 12th July, so we are not quite there yet.

 

[serfty]

Maybe sending BA a "Letter before Action" giving 14 days to respond might expedite things (as noted in the FlyerTalk BA thread).

"Letter Before Action" - The 2018 BA compensation thread: Your guide to Regulation EC261/2004 - FlyerTalk Forums

PRACTICE DIRECTION – PRE-ACTION CONDUCT AND PROTOCOLS - Civil Procedure Rules

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I was thinking of this thread today watching season 3 of 'Heathrow'. They had a section where they were expecting possible sleet/snow in the evening and stated the airport cancelled 80 flights in anticipation of the bad weather. In the end it was consistent 'medium' rain, and there was apparently some sleet (you had to look pretty hard to see it) - but the point was that 80 flights were still cancelled, some time in advance, as part of the airport's plan to maintain operations.

So it might be that BA's argument has some basis here in stating it's outside their control, even though the weather may never have materialised.

 

[Austman]

Update:

I waited the 8 weeks and gave BA a last warning that I would commence action if compensation was not offered by them.

Their reply is the best explanation so far, going into quite some detail:

Dear Mr Austman,

Thanks for coming back to us about your EU compensation claim. You're clearly unhappy with my response and I understand why, but please let me explain our position.

I'd like to inform you that your flight BA0574 on 01 June was cancelled due to forecast low visibility and thunderstorms across London. There was widespread disruption across the UK on 31 May due to fog in the morning and thunderstorms in the London area and across Europe later in the day.

Low visibility caused by fog was forecast for 01 June. The flow rate was reduced to 40 flights per hour throughout the day, with further slot delays across Europe due to the weather. We always want to maintain a stable operation, as we know how much delaying a flight affects our customers.

On the day you were due to travel, there were restrictions in place affecting the aircraft coming in and out of London Heathrow, which was a direct result of the severe weather conditions. I’m afraid this was out of our control and caused unforeseen disruption.

Since the cancellation of the flight was caused by adverse weather conditions and Air Traffic Management decisions, under EU legislation, I’m afraid we’re not liable for a compensation payment in this situation.

Thanks for following this up with us. Please feel free to contact us if we can help you any further.


Best regards

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Austman... BA’s reply is consistent with what was explained in the ‘Heathrow’ program. So it might be ATC. I guess there are two options... either continue to pursue it yourself, or hand it over to one of the claims companies. You’ll lose 33% with a claim company but at least you’ll know for certain that you got the best outcome (or if not, nothing to lose).

 

[JohnPhelan]

Now that it is confirmed that ATC required BA to cancel flights, I would not consider that BA is liable under EU261.

More broadly, EU261 is designed to compensate passengers for inconvenience, etc. What inconvenience did you suffer? I say this as someone who had a BA flight that was delayed by about 4 hours, making me theoretically able to claim. I didn't, because I sat in the LHR lounge eating and drinking, and the time of my arrival in Poland did not actually cause my any problems. I didn't think it was right to claim compensation when there was really no loss that I needed to be compensated for.

 

[serfty]

I didn't think it was right to claim compensation when there was really no loss that I needed to be compensated for.

One of the reasons the regulation was enacted for was to make airlines thinks twice about selling seats on flights they were not likely to operate. Yes, that was happening regularly. These days due to the regulation, not so much. With that it is more of punitive measure to the airline rather than compensation for the PAX.

 

[Wanderlust_tim]

The thing that annoys me with BA is that they stuff you around with canned responses. If they had sent that explanation in the first place I dare say a lot of time would have been saved and potentially goodwill generated towards the airline.

I'd be of a mind to lodge a claim with one of the companies that do all the work for you. Sure if it comes off you lose a proportion of the money, but if it doesn't BA has to contribute time and money towards a response. It might not account for the time you wasted, but at least it is coming at some cost to BA.

 

[Danger]

My issue with these airline excuses is the opaqueness of it all. The passenger is supposed to blindly believe whatever the airline says.

My partner and I suffered from a BA delay a few days ago departing IST for LHR. At the gate it was announced the flight was "delayed" by 23h35-odd minutes resulting in an overnight at IST. We managed to get ourselves re-booked on a departure 15 hours later with the original flight ultimately departing just over 24 hours later.

The reason given by grounstaff was that one of the flight crew fell ill. And passengers have little choice but to accept it. I've filed with BA for EU261 compensation but will undoubtedly get the same response at Austman. And what are we to do? To my mind it seems very easy for an airline to claim a circumstance like this that can't be verified by the passenger in order to escape liability.

We've had success with CEDR, the independent UK adjudicator. After BA denied the claim multiple times I filed with CEDR. British Airways put up its defence, I responded, the adjudicator reviewed the case and found in our favour.

 

[Austman]

The problem I have with BA's last response is this part:

Low visibility caused by fog was forecast for 01 June. The flow rate was reduced to 40 flights per hour throughout the day, with further slot delays across Europe due to the weather.
​

It was indeed misty at LHR on 01 June. But not that many BA flights were cancelled. On the large BA departures board at the time, our flight was about the only one cancelled. And looking at the whole day, on June 01 only 7 LHR-EUR flight pairs were cancelled - which seem a fairly good day for BA cancellations out of LHR?

With a "40 flights per hour throughout the day" reduction, could BA operate with only 7 European flights cancelled?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The problem I have with BA's last response is this part:

Low visibility caused by fog was forecast for 01 June. The flow rate was reduced to 40 flights per hour throughout the day, with further slot delays across Europe due to the weather.
​

It was indeed misty at LHR on 01 June. But not that many BA flights were cancelled. On the large BA departures board at the time, our flight was about the only one cancelled. And looking at the whole day, on June 01 only 7 LHR-EUR flight pairs were cancelled - which seem a fairly good day for BA cancellations out of LHR?

With a "40 flights per hour throughout the day" reduction, could BA operate with only 7 European flights cancelled?

I guess it might also be possible that the flow rate was reduced to 40 flights per hour, airlines cancelled flights, but on the day itself they were able to restore some of those flights? BA would perhaps be in an easier position to restore flights if they were able to.

 

[Austman]

I guess it might also be possible that the flow rate was reduced to 40 flights per hour, airlines cancelled flights, but on the day itself they were able to restore some of those flights? BA would perhaps be in an easier position to restore flights if they were able to.

I thought about that too. The problem is our 10:30am flight was cancelled at about 01:00am local time and only with an email - not even an SMS although BA did have my mobile number in their system (I added it earlier). After a lot of stuffing around at 03:00am (awake due to jet lag), we managed to get on a 07:35am flight (only just!). There weren't any later flights available until the evening. So at the airport by 06:00am for our new 07:35am flight we could see what flights were operating and what flights were cancelled for the whole morning. Not much was being cancelled by BA!

Maybe reduce to 40 flights per hour means cancel only a couple of flights for BA?

Does BA actually reinstate cancelled flights like you suggest?