BA cancelled flight, booked via Tripsta

[obiter dictum]

Alex Cruz is now the British Airways Chief Executive officer

In April 2016, Alex was appointed Chairman and CEO of British Airways

 

http://www.ceoemail.com/s.php?id=ceo-9664

[king12345]

Already emailed Mr Cruz last week to no avail, that's why I've now emailed Mr Walsh.

The fact BA and Iberia are the same company, sister companies or whatever you call two companies that have merged, makes this story a joke.

Probably it'll never go as far as court, but I wonder what a judge would think.

[Vauban]

A judge would think that IAG have no liability under the Regulation for compensating you. But you could always try it if you don't believe me.

 

You're doing the right thing suing Iberia - they've not denied being the operating air carrier, as I understand you, but rather suggest it was BA's and not their fault - which is irrelevant. I hope you're right that they don't make you go to court, but so many of these airlines are still resisting the proper implementation of the Regulation, and the CAA - paid for by the airlines- does nothing to protect the passenger from this sharp practice.

[king12345]

No, I won't sue IAG.

As you said, Iberia seems to be the air carrier for that flight, even though my ticket says BA.

The fact that they never denied being the operator reinforces the suspicion that it is their flight.

Looking at the same flight in future, all websites, including Iberia, state that it is operated by Iberia.

One question for the county courts experts: as I have no substantial proof that it was an Iberia flight and my ticket says "operated by British Airways", should I name BA as co-defendant or is that going to be unwise?

[inertia]

No, I won't sue IAG.

As you said, Iberia seems to be the air carrier for that flight, even though my ticket says BA.

The fact that they never denied being the operator reinforces the suspicion that it is their flight.

Looking at the same flight in future, all websites, including Iberia, state that it is operated by Iberia.

One question for the county courts experts: as I have no substantial proof that it was an Iberia flight and my ticket says "operated by British Airways", should I name BA as co-defendant or is that going to be unwise?

 

My ticket and boarding pass - both state (operated by Iberia)....

[ericsbrother]

wont hurt to name them as co-defendants, a judge can decide if all of the liability lies with one or the ohter or either BA or Iberia can put their hands up and admit being liable. However, they will probably both say they are not liable, bigger boys did it and they had a stick.

[inertia]

wont hurt to name them as co-defendants, a judge can decide if all of the liability lies with one or the ohter or either BA or Iberia can put their hands up and admit being liable. However, they will probably both say they are not liable, bigger boys did it and they had a stick.

 

BA have already admitted liability for the IT outage....

[Vauban]

wont hurt to name them as co-defendants, a judge can decide if all of the liability lies with one or the ohter or either BA or Iberia can put their hands up and admit being liable. However, they will probably both say they are not liable, bigger boys did it and they had a stick.

 

 

 

 

I don't know the answer to King's question. But one point and one query:

 

a) assuming it was an Iberia flight, neither BA nor IAG have any liability to the claimant (King). No court can find them liable for a 261/04 case brought by King. Of course they might be liable to Iberia, if Iberia sought compensation from them in turn (the regulation is explicit on this);

 

b) my query is this: if you name BA as a joint defendant, even after you've been told they are were not the operating air carrier (and Iberia don't contest this) could you be liable for any of BA's costs, for acting unreasonably? Your defence would be that your ticket indicated that BA were scheduled to operate the flight, which would be fair enough. But are you certain this is what it says?

[king12345]

100% certain my original ticket issued by tripsta says "operated by British airways".

 

Just now I was looking through all the screenshot that I usually take when doing something online and found the Iberia website where I entered the passports' details.

 

Well, that page from Iberia website says "flight operated by Iberia" next to the flight details.

 

In light of this, should I leave BA alone and start a claim only against Iberia?

 

As mentioned, I don't want to end up paying BA costs.

[inertia]

BA have flat out refused all my claims for compensation (They could pay me whatever they like but they are only compensating customers under EU621 regulations - and they are sticking to this rule adamantly. Legally correct but not morally).

 

Iberia have also refused all claims.

 

Looks like I'll be going to court against Iberia too...

[dx100uk]

wonder if either of you paid by credit card?

 

 

dx

[king12345]

wonder if either of you paid by credit card?

 

 

dx

 

I did, but the credit card company won't pay compensation under 461/2004 and I doubt I would be able to get the ticket refunded under section 75 because I accepted an alternative flight 2 days later.

[king12345]

BA have flat out refused all my claims for compensation (They could pay me whatever they like but they are only compensating customers under EU621 regulations - and they are sticking to this rule adamantly. Legally correct but not morally).

 

Iberia have also refused all claims.

 

Looks like I'll be going to court against Iberia too...

 

I can't find EU621 regulation related to flight delays, what's that?

[tony3x]

Its reg 261

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_Compensation_Regulation_261/2004

[inertia]

I can't find EU621 regulation related to flight delays, what's that?

 

Sorry meant 261.......

[inertia]

wonder if either of you paid by credit card?

 

 

dx

 

Credit card can only get you refunds not compensation.

 

BA refunded my flight, as they could only offer me a flight 5 days later !!, then refused my compensation....

[king12345]

Sorry meant 261.......

 

That's right.

I made a mistake and quoted 461 in the lba.

Does it matter or do I have to re-rend it?

[inertia]

Iberia appear to be ignoring me...anybody had any success in court with them?

Edited July 19, 2017 by inertia
dupe

[inertia]

Did you get any response from Iberia....

.... I've heard nothing. Court action I feel is looming....

 

Did you get any response from Iberia....

.... I've heard nothing. Court action I feel is looming....

[king12345]

Update:

Following my complaint to ceo at British airways, Yesterday I received an email which states:

You were a passenger on the cancelled flight ba518 on 27/05/2017 so you are entitled to compensation under ec261/2004.

Lots of apologies and request for bank detail to make the payment.

 

30 minutes later, the same customer service agent emails back and states:

Please disregard my previous email, I see why my colleague initially denied your claim.

Flight ba518 was only delayed, not cancelled, so I would be grateful if you could explain why you didn't travel on this flight.

Also you said that you that you travelled on 27/05/2017 but also that you were delayed by 2 days, can you please clarify?

At this point she stated a couple of random flight numbers which would have not take me to Menorca.

 

Firstly all flights from terminal 5 on 27/05/2017 were cancelled and BA ceo video online confirms this.

Anyway, Looking at flight history, for some reason the flight ba518 appears to have been delayed by 4 and half hour, but never landed in Madrid.

The estimated arrival was 4 and half hours later than expected and too late to connect to any plane to Menorca, so even if we had taken that flight (which didn't depart anyway), we would have been delayed by more than 2 hours and still entitled to compensation.

I never said that I travelled on 27/05/2017, they just made that up and they know it because my reservation was amended following the flight cancellation.

 

I emailed this back to BA and because you can only email them with their online form which takes 21 days to be read, I emailed the customer service agent directly at [email protected].

My thought is that they're trying to mud the waters as much as they can to avoid paying compensation.

However, I need your advice: with the initial email accepting liability and validating my claim, has BA condemned themselves to pay up?

I ask this because if you read my previous posts it appears that the flight was in codeshare with Iberia and Iberia was the official air carrier, so they should pay compensation.

But ba has now accepted liability and soon after void my claim because their wrong record make the flight late and not cancelled which doesn't make any difference in terms of compensation.

What do you think?

[BazzaS]

b) my query is this: if you name BA as a joint defendant, even after you've been told they are were not the operating air carrier (and Iberia don't contest this) could you be liable for any of BA's costs, for acting unreasonably? Your defence would be that your ticket indicated that BA were scheduled to operate the flight, which would be fair enough. But are you certain this is what it says?

 

Update:

Following my complaint to ceo at British airways, Yesterday I received an email which states:

You were a passenger on the cancelled flight ba518 on 27/05/2017 so you are entitled to compensation under ec261/2004.

 

............

30 minutes later, the same customer service agent emails back and states:

Please disregard my previous email, I see why my colleague initially denied your claim.

Flight ba518 was only delayed, not cancelled, so I would be grateful if you could explain why you didn't travel on this flight.

...........

What do you think?

 

I think it opens the door for you to put both as the defendants in the claim (at much less risk of being found liable for their costs) as as it will be much harder for either to say they have been added unreasonably.

 

Add to that that if you can keep it in small claims track, it is even less likely costs can be heaped on, and you can point out that they are subsidiaries of the same parent and are each pointing the figure at the other : I don't think it could be held to be unreasonable to name both on a claim.

[king12345]

Hi guys,

update:

After a lot of ignored emails, twitter rants, threats of court action etc, BA seems to have capitulated.

 

They informed me that my claim has been accepted fully (bar a £4.50 beer because they don't pay for alcoholic drinks)

Let's see if they will really pay within the next 7 days as promised.

 

BTW, I emailed CAA to gain information about this flight and they sent me the full monty.

It was highlighted that the flight is "operated by Iberia on behalf of BA".

BA is the official air carrier they let Iberia operate that flight.

 

Incidentally Iberia finally replied to my 2 months old claim saying that because these were exceptional circumstances they don't need to pay,

as a gesture of goodwill they would (really??? How generous!)

 

However they don't make it clear if the wanted to pay compensation and expenses or just the expenses.

 

They wanted the following to proceed:

Photocopies of all passports

Boarding passes

Birth certificates of all under 16

Original booking

Credit card evidence that we paid for the flight.

 

I think I just go with BA as they are the same company.

 

Please note: I never intended getting double compensation,

I claimed from both airlines because it wasn't clear who was responsible.

[king12345]

Final positive resolution: Funds transferred from BA cleared in my account.

Result!

Thanks for your input