-
@AJA I’m quite aware that Eu261 didn’t apply in my case but I was using it as an example that even at an airport like SFO the options to reroute are still limited and not as easy to arrange as you seem to be implying they are.
I didn’t have to ask to be rebooked AA just did it and was notified me by text within a minute or two of the cancellation and just as I started to speak to the AA staffer at the desk.
@meta it’s £70 + £85 hearing fee = £155 and this case will surely go to a hearing. Where I am afraid you systematically go wrong is that you suggest someone will win because you allegedly won a case with similar but clearly not identical facts and as it is anyway a subjective decision, the sabe facts could result in a different decision. There are no binding judgments that cover the circumstances of this case so it will be considered on its facts and the law as it applied at the time (ie in 2017), not today. I don’t believe for one moment you would take this case to MCOL today.
Well JDB just the fact that BA has changed the reason for the delay 3 times, offering 3 different reasons one after the other, is a bit like BA waving a flag saying we’ll invent any excuse we can just so we can keep refusing.
That alone would give me serious cause to think about pursuing this in a place where BA is supposed to tell only the truth i.e. court/MCOL. Obvs everyone will do their own weighing up and make their own decision but BA isn’t doing themselves any favours changing their story like this.
@meta it’s £70 + £85 hearing fee = £155 and this case will surely go to a hearing. Where I am afraid you systematically go wrong is that you suggest someone will win because you allegedly won a case with similar but clearly not identical facts and as it is anyway a subjective decision, the sabe facts could result in a different decision. There are no binding judgments that cover the circumstances of this case so it will be considered on its facts and the law as it applied at the time (ie in 2017), not today. I don’t believe for one moment you would take this case to MCOL today.
Well JDB just the fact that BA has changed the reason for the delay 3 times, offering 3 different reasons one after the other, is a bit like BA waving a flag saying we’ll invent any excuse we can just so we can keep refusing.
That alone would give me serious cause to think about pursuing this in a place where BA is supposed to tell only the truth i.e. court/MCOL. Obvs everyone will do their own weighing up and make their own decision but BA isn’t doing themselves any favours changing their story like this.
According to the OP, BA has only changed the story once, originally saying the medical emergency was on his flight, then correcting that to saying it was on the inbound. That is quite likely a genuine error because the medical emergency will be referenced against both flights. As you say, it’s up to each person to decide; presumably from your advice, you would you go to court in this instance??
Personally, I think some battles are worth fighting and others aren’t and on that point we won’t agree!
You don’t know 100% if it will go to hearing. BA might settle. And OP can even withdraw before hearing without further costs.
I already said I wouldn’t pursue it, but you obviously can’t read because you are biased for whatever reason.
The OP doesn’t have the evidence and after nearly six years it will be hard to obtain proper evidence, given BA is changing the reason. This is the only reason why it’s not worth going to MCOL in my opinion.
OP could try and obtain correct info from Air Traffic Control, but given the time passed they will have a hard time.
Can the OP confirm whether the medical delay was on the inbound flight to PHX? The OP said above “ BA record keeping doesn’t seem to be great either. It took about three emails before they got the correct reason for the delay (a passenger falling ill earlier the previous day of the plane’s schedule).” which suggests it was the aircraft’s flight before the inbound to PHX (the flight to/from PHX is the same day). If this is correct, BA could have allocated another aircraft at its home base at LHR to the PHX flight to reduce the delay and would be on the hook for EU261 compensation.
<<cloudflare errors lost a reply here reminding @JDB BA did indeed try 3 different reasons for refusal, starting with denying he was on the flight, and thus lost all credibility.>>
BA have refused my claim twice for a delay caused by a medical emergency pre departure on the inbound flight. CEDR have accepted the case and now waiting for for BA’s response.
I also came across this article in my research. https://www.twobirds.com/en/insights/2020/uk/english-court-decides-aircraft-diversion-for-passenger-illness-is-not-an-extraordinary-circumstance
@meta it’s £70 + £85 hearing fee = £155 and this case will surely go to a hearing. Where I am afraid you systematically go wrong is that you suggest someone will win because you allegedly won a case with similar but clearly not identical facts and as it is anyway a subjective decision, the sabe facts could result in a different decision. There are no binding judgments that cover the circumstances of this case so it will be considered on its facts and the law as it applied at the time (ie in 2017), not today. I don’t believe for one moment you would take this case to MCOL today.
Well JDB just the fact that BA has changed the reason for the delay 3 times, offering 3 different reasons one after the other, is a bit like BA waving a flag saying we’ll invent any excuse we can just so we can keep refusing.
That alone would give me serious cause to think about pursuing this in a place where BA is supposed to tell only the truth i.e. court/MCOL. Obvs everyone will do their own weighing up and make their own decision but BA isn’t doing themselves any favours changing their story like this.
According to the OP, BA has only changed the story once, originally saying the medical emergency was on his flight, then correcting that to saying it was on the inbound. That is quite likely a genuine error because the medical emergency will be referenced against both flights. As you say, it’s up to each person to decide; presumably from your advice, you would you go to court in this instance??
Personally, I think some battles are worth fighting and others aren’t and on that point we won’t agree!
@JDB BA did indeed try to give 3 different reasons for refusal, changing their story each time. The first excuse was they tried to say he wasn’t on the flight then there were 2 more different ones. Three strikes and BA was out and lost all credibility sorry.
BA have refused my claim twice for a delay caused by a medical emergency pre departure on the inbound flight. CEDR have accepted the case and now waiting for for BA’s response.
I also came across this article in my research. https://www.twobirds.com/en/insights/2020/uk/english-court-decides-aircraft-diversion-for-passenger-illness-is-not-an-extraordinary-circumstance
Very interesting, thanks.
Except that ruling did not create a precedent. And whilst one could use it in aid of a case it won’t be the deciding factor. There isn’t even a case reference to quote.
Another judge could rule that diverting for medical emergency is indeed an exceptional circumstance.
This in particular is easily challenged
“the passenger illness was intrinsically linked to the operating system of the aircraft (in contrast to a birdstrike, for example)”
There is no way anyone’s illness is linked to the way an aircraft operates or any of its systems.
And there is a contraction in this
“He confirmed that EU jurisprudence makes clear that an extraordinary circumstance must endanger the aircraft, passengers and crew. This is not the case on a medical diversion”
A medical emergency does endanger a passenger. Or is the judge saying that more than one passenger must be I’ll for it to divert and be classed as an extraordinary circumstance?
I have just lost a CEDR case against BA for a flight I took back in October 2022 where the 3+ hour arrival delay was partly caused by the aircrafts previous flight having a medical incident during boarding. The BA liable non-extraordinary operational delay was 2 hours, the extraordinary medical delay was about 90 minutes.
BA provided quite a lot of in-depth evidence to back up their defence and heavily relied on Peskova (C-315/15) case law. The two key aspects of the Peskova case to note are;
1. When a delay is caused by both, extraordinary and non-extraordinary circumstances, air carriers will only be liable to provide compensation when, once it is deducted the delay caused by extraordinary circumstances, the overall delay is over three hours.
2. That an airline does not have to make intolerable sacrifices to avoid extraordinary circumstances.I don’t fully agree with the decision wording used by the adjudicator as it’s missing all of my written arguments but CEDR assure me just because its not referenced does not mean that they have not considered it in reaching a decision. But, for the extraordinary medical event cited (passenger felt nauseous and faint), i still feel 89 minutes to offboard said passenger was excessive yet CEDR agreed otherwise. Especially when that passenger took it upon themselves to ably walk off the plane at the 89 minute mark so it could have been even longer had they of waited for the paramedics to arrive. The same passenger admitted to waking up at 4am feeling unwell earlier in the day before the first leg of their connecting flight(s) so why were they even travelling?!
Unfortunately you always have a tall mountain to climb when fighting a case relating to a medical emergency which elicits sympathy from judges and arbitrators. It is quite standard for any decision or judgment not to address every one of your arguments; it’s just not practical or proportionate. It’s very difficult for you as passenger or CEDR to gauge the reasonableness of the time taken to deal with the medical issue but BA has absolutely no interest in stretching this out; airlines suffer from all these delays in all sorts of ways.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Popular articles this week:
