Cancelled flight SYD – LON – Compensation?

[TGLoyalty]

@meta it will obviously depend on when the connection was from SIN to LHR so no it doesn’t mean a flight leaving SYD within 20 mins gets to LHR within 20 mins of the original.

I’m assuming Singapore airlines is using a standard hub and spoke model in their home airport not just taking a refuelling stop on the way to UK.

[JDB]

@meta the arrival time in London would depend on the connection time between the two SQ flights vs BA’s scheduled layover in Singapore. And the time is over four hours delay for the full €520 and over three hours for 50% of that.

@TGLoyalty and @lhar are both correct that one can claim against BA for the equivalent of UK261 if the SQ flight were over three hours late. BA is inextricably bound into this and the operating carrier issue doesn’t matter in these circumstances. It’s not particularly straightforward and I wouldn’t bother trying at CEDR but with a carefully argued claim at MCOL, using the UK261 liquidated damages sum as a reference point, BA will fight hard until the last minute but not want a hearing as it would open a real can of worms. It’s not for the faint hearted, one needs to know what one is doing and be up for a fight. That is an entirely separate claim to any potential cancellation claim relating to the BA flight cancellation.

[meta]

Connection time has nothing to do with it. It has already been established by ECJ that connecting flight is the same as direct flight.

Once you accept a re-booking your operating carrier becomes SQ, BA no longe has responsibility as they are not an operating carrier. EC261 only applies to operating carrier up to the point you choose your option under article 8. I accept cancellation compensation is due until that point, but since the original was scheduled and arrive at around the same time, no compensation is due.

Once you are re-booked as per article 8, you are issued a new ticket, so your operating carrier becomes in this case non-EU/non-UK. We had here cases before where people were rebooked by Ba on American Airlines from US to UK and these flights got cancelled within seven days and they got no compensation.

[JDB]

@meta of course the total travel time SYD-SIN-LHR on SQ is affected by the connection time in SIN such that a SQ flight leaving SYD within 20 minutes of the BA flight could easily be scheduled to arrive in London more than three hours after the BA flight.

Re delay compensation, irrespective of a third country carrier becoming the operating carrier after a rerouting, you can claim delay compensation if that flight is over three hours late. If anyone got no compensation as you suggest, it’s only because they didn’t know how to plead their case. BA will naturally refuse, arguing they are (per their Conditions of Carriage) the agent when they are clearly the contracting carrier which entitles a claim under the Montreal Convention; plenty of higher court cases on that. You also have, as @lhar suggests above, a contractual claim even if as you stated, EC261 isn’t quite contractual. At CEDR, BA would quite possibly win. At MCOL the passenger would win, but BA will blink first.

[kaconym]

@meta you’d be right if you were only concerned with the SYD-SIN portion of the flight. But since the route is SYD-LON, which required a stopover an over 2 hour arrival delay to the final destination is absolutely possible for a flight that only departed 20 mins later than originally intended.

[Paul]

2.
When passengers are offered re-routing to their final destination on an alternative flight pursuant to Article 8, the arrival time of which does not exceed the scheduled arrival time of the flight originally booked

(a)by two hours, in respect of all flights of 1500 kilometres or less; or

(b)by three hours, in respect of all F3… flights between 1500 and 3500 kilometres; or

(c)by four hours, in respect of all flights not falling under (a) or (b), the operating air carrier may reduce the compensation provided for in paragraph 1 by 50 %.

[Matt]

@Meta – I think (hope!) you might be getting a bit confused between 2 different things.

If, as in this case, BA cancel a flight and re-book you on another airline, and because of that you get in more than 4 hours late then BA would be liable to pay compensation, assuming there weren’t exceptional circumstances. The delay timing is based on the scheduled arrival time of the replacement flight.

If BA re-book you on another airline that is scheduled to arrive at a similar time, and that flight is then delayed significantly then you wouldn’t have a claim against BA, and if the replacement airline is non-EU/UK then you wouldn’t have a claim against them either. That is where you would lose 261 rights.

[JDB]

@Matt – this is incorrect, per my post above you can make a claim against BA (if they were the original carrier) for a 3h+ delay (based on actual times) on a rerouted flight even if that operating airline is a third country carrier whose flight wouldn’t ordinarily attract 261 liability.

This is entirely separate and additional to any claim you might have vs BA for the cancellation which relates to scheduled arrival of the rerouted flights vs original.

[BA Flyer IHG Stayer]

I can’t believe that some people are complaing that BA rebooked onto another carrier when on other posts they complain when BA doesn’t!

BA clearly met its rebooking obligations as per the regulations are designed to do – and got the OP on their way ASAP

OP was lucky here that BA was able to rebook them so quickly. There may have been others on the cancelled flight who weren’t so lucky.

It’s all very well saying ‘oh just wait until there is a BA flight’ but that has consequences as well. By refusing a early and reasonable reroute it means you and not BA become liable for right to care costs for the extended stay.

OP seems pretty happy with the SQ offering which is good for them.

[TGLoyalty]

I don’t think anyone has said wait for a BA flight … there seems to have been some back and forth on BA’s responsibility for getting the OP from London to Sydney within 4 hours of their original arrival time which absolutely is still the case regardless of re routing unless it was completely voluntary (not the case here) ie declined a downgrade for example.

OP was happy but asked about compensation but never returned to answer what time they were meant to land in London vs the original flight nor if the subsequent 2 hour delay meant they were outside 4 hours either.

[Garethgerry]

On the CAA website it asks for feedback. “IF the website doesn’t answer all your question please contact us. ” The website is not clear who is responsible if you are rerouted on a non EU UK carrier, so I contacted them using their form. May or may not be a waste of time. Maybe they will update website.

[JDB]

Garethgerry wrote:

On the CAA website it asks for feedback. “IF the website doesn’t answer all your question please contact us. ” The website is not clear who is responsible if you are rerouted on a non EU UK carrier, so I contacted them using their form. May or may not be a waste of time. Maybe they will update website.

If the CAA answers at all or updates its website, you still won’t get the clarity you seek. In the strictest sense UK261 wouldn’t apply in the scenario of this post (a cancelled BA flight SYD-LHR, with the passenger rerouted on SQ) because SQ is a third country carrier operating from a third country. That is clear on the CAA’s website and shown on the table of permutations they provide.

However, in the rerouting scenario, as others have said above, accepting a rerouting on SQ doesn’t entail a passenger giving up other rights and they can still make a claim for 261 vs BA (for any delay on SQ for delay on that flight vs its actual scheduled time) albeit potentially not directly under the Air Passenger Rights and Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, but the passenger has Montreal Convention rights and contractual rights. The CAA rightly errs on the side of caution and only offers basic guidance leaving the courts to decide on law.

[Ihar]

IANAL but EU261 clearly states: (b) “operating air carrier” means an air carrier that performs or intends to perform a flight under a contract with a passenger or on behalf of another person, legal or natural, having a contract with that passenger

Now in my limited brain, BA “intended to perform a flight under a contract with a passenger”. Effectively sub-contracting that does not get BA off the hook. I can’t see any way in which BA can wriggle out of EU261 liability, without at least explicitly stating that you are signing away that protection.

Utlimately, take EU261 as intended and claim where reasonable instead of seeing it as a cash cow. I’d like to believe both MCOL and CEDR take a pragmatic approach, but I’ve no experience as BA has settled many, many cases with me without dispute.

[JDB]

@lhar – the ‘operating carrier’ provision is very specific and strictly applied which is why one has to claim on a slightly different basis so that one only really relies on EC261 for Article 13 and to identify a fair measure of liquidated damages. One needs to rely additionally on the Montreal Convention and basic contractual rights that enable a claim against the contracting carrier in these circumstances. The case of CS and Others v České aerolinie provides some slight support.

[Ihar]

@JDB – I am sure you’re right. Can you provide relevant rulings that say other than what I posted. I can’t think of any instance where a legal protection/right could be assigned away so easily.

I bow to your knowledge, and probably you’re right. Not sure it would hold up in UK contract law.

[JDB]

@lhar – I don’t really understand your post as I’m not only agreeing with you but also gave you credit upthread. EC/UK261 has nothing to do with English contract law and in the case of this thread, you could not make a claim against SQ for any delay compensation as they are a third country carrier operating a flight from a third country and such claims can only be made against the operating carrier which is made clear in the Interpretative Guidelines:-

2.2.3. Application to operating air carriers
In accordance with Article 3(5), the operating air carrier is always responsible for the obligations under the Regulation and not, for example, another air carrier which may have sold the ticket. The notion of operating air carrier is presented in recital 7.

In these particular circumstances, you need to approach the issue in a different way to make BA liable as the contracting carrier and this is via the Montreal Convention, in reliance on your contract with BA and EC261 Article 13. It is hard to see BA conceding a claim initially, they might also win at CEDR as it is slightly complex and BA will bamboozle them, but you would win at MCOL if, and it’s a big if, you plead your case well. In this instance BA will fold before any hearing.