-
Our return from Delhi on Aug 4 2025 at 1005am has been cancelled and they are offering to rebook on the 0135am Aug 4 flight which is really not ideal at all. We are in premium economy, I wouldn’t really have mind too much if we were business. There is a direct Virgin flight at 1050am and they have premium eco….. do we have any right to “demand” to go on that? Other options are rather limited due to lack of premium eco cabins and would anyway involve a stop somewhere. Also I don’t believe we are entitled to the £500ish compensation but maybe someone could clarify. Thanks.
Our 10.25am LHR to DEL also cancelled for next October and rebooked to 18.50 same day arriving the next morning.
@tomahawk – I think BA is very unlikely to rebook you onto Virgin without you taking the matter to CEDR or court where you would probably win. They probably should so it’s always worth asking, noting what they say and then deciding how to play it. You do only get one rerouting opportunity.
There’s no compensation as you have been given over 14 days notice.
Thanks JDB. In the end just decided to grin and bear it with the 1.35am flight. Was on holiday last week and didn’t really fancy spending half a day on the phone to BA. Might be lucky and get an upgrade at a reasonable price on the day, although last night they were quoting $670 to go from WTP to Club from Cancun which I thought was pretty steep for the old style zig zag seats.
Worth noting that you can take your time to decide whether to accept the reroute(s) on offer, especially as you’re not travelling for another 8 months so there was no urgency to deal with it while you were on holiday.
Once you have accepted a reroute you’re stuck with it.
Yes I did wonder how long I had to accept it. There was no choice of flights, the email said I was rebooked onto the alternative flight and I could either choose to accept it or cancel. So how long do you get I wonder? Surely they wouldn’t effectively hold me a seat on the alternative flight for, say, 5 months waiting for me to either accept or reject it?
Yes I did wonder how long I had to accept it. There was no choice of flights, the email said I was rebooked onto the alternative flight and I could either choose to accept it or cancel. So how long do you get I wonder? Surely they wouldn’t effectively hold me a seat on the alternative flight for, say, 5 months waiting for me to either accept or reject it?
There isn’t any official timeframe within which you must accept/reject the new flight being held for you (or arrange a different one) but contrary to some advice that people here offer to wait and see what happens, if you do nothing there is the risk that at some stage BA says you didn’t accept our rerouting offer so here’s your refund.
@JDB – surely the OP should go back to BA and insist on the VA flight under 261 8.1(c). I agree it might be a fight, but if there’s a dispute BA can’t simply “time it out”. Seems quite clear-cut to me. If the OP is insistent, surely it makes more sense for BA if they book the seats rather than the OP. The two flight times are far from close!
Of course what’s right, sensible, etc. isn’t always what happens – but if you know you’re going to lose, best to take the cheapest “lose option”.
@lhar – I suggested the OP should ask to be rerouted on Virgin, but the reality is that anyone can “insist” until they are blue in the face, but that doesn’t mean BA will agree. At that point a passenger has to decide whether to accept the offer of rerouting on BA (they might offer other options but those involve connections and/or don’t have PE cabins) or to litigate having either bought new tickets at their expense or hoped to get that concluded before August.
The problem is that the outcome of CEDR/MCOL is far from clear – the OP would quite probably win, but it’s far from a racing certainty and adds a lot of stress.
BA isn’t usually too bothered about low cost European self rerouting but even then they challenge quite a few and here they will fight. Here they will say their rerouting is entirely reasonable given the long notice and that anyway Virgin won’t co-operate.
When people say others should insist on a rerouting to another airline it’s not that easy.
There is no provision to make VS take these passengers. Just as VS couldn’t make BA accomodate passengers when VS cancelled their CPT flights next Easter for a short period.
And remember at times there really aren’t that many or even any alternative routings and / or airlines that are acceptable to most passengers.
The problem is that the outcome of CEDR/MCOL is far from clear – the OP would quite probably win, but it’s far from a racing certainty and adds a lot of stress.
Agree. But this is a point of law, not mediation. I also agree that you may need deep pockets (or credit card) and willing to run the gauntlet, but I would hope if this was a customer’s stated plan BA would concede. Hope!
There is no provision to make VS take these passengers.
If there are seats available, then they are available to anyone. It might be that VS don’t want to “sell” them to BA at whatever inter-airline agreement/rate they have, but again that isn’t the customer’s concern.
I completely understand BA’s stance – offer the cheapest solution and “massage” customers to accepting that. But I would hope (again that word) that if a customer plays hardball that BA would see the “new cheapest” option is for them to accept defeat rather than take a protracted resolution.
I certainly wouldn’t be accepting a re-booking of a morning flight to a 1am one. Not even close! YMMV 😉
@lhar – you appear to be something of a 261 purist, reading the twenty year old texts literally without taking into account the 70+ binding superior court judgments and practice observed from many lower court cases/ADR adjudications that have changed practice over time. The precedents, while binding, are all still only a framework, each caveated that local courts must apply them according to the specific facts. It’s no good applying generalities based on the texts.
In the instant case, there are two particular considerations – temporality and “availability”, neither of which I believe you have properly taken into account.
If BA had cancelled the 10.05am flight the day before and said you need to get to the airport 8½ hours earlier or wait until 01.35am the next day, the considerations are different to being given nine months notice. There’s no temporality in the words of Article 8 but it’s not difficult to interpret the intent or purpose of the statute nor the difference of impact on the passenger. It does get taken into account and airlines win cases on these grounds. BA are now regularly applying this to longer notice downgrades as well.
The “availability” reference simply doesn’t mean that BA must pay for the last seat on any flight and the reality is exactly as others state – except in the case of disruption when there are specific arrangements in place, airlines will not accept ‘refugees’ except by agreement. This is also why it’s not totally correct to say that Avios bookings are identical to cash ones for 261 purposes as other airlines won’t make space available to them without prior agreement, again save for disruption.
If you, as a passenger, decide to self-reroute and litigate to get reimbursed, the burden of proof will be reversed – it’s on you to prove (on the balance of probabilities) that the cost you incurred was “necessary, appropriate and reasonable”. The court will then decide, on the specific facts of the case, whether you met the three part test.
I’m often accused on HfP of being corporate biased, but unless one actually considers how an airline might challenge your case before acting, you place yourself at unnecessary risk. The other risk is that what you think is unreasonable might feel very different to an impartial third party.
I don’t always agree with @JDB. My approach as to prospects of success against BA etc tends to be bolder. However for what it’s worth the advice above is very sound especially because all litigation poses a risk. Potentially putting several thousand on a credit card to “re-route” myself over a few hours difference would likely be too much of a gamble even for me. The risk/benefit/effort calculation doesn’t fall in favour of paying for my own return flight and seeking reimbursement from the airline in these circumstances.
Secondly, “self-rerouters” are often going to have to fight their way through CEDR/Court which is time consuming and for non-lawyers often daunting. I thoroughly enjoyed the process but then I’m a lawyer and BA flat out refused to provide me with any flight at all and demanded I took a refund!
I really do think it is worth pursuing airlines where they are taking the mick or your alternative flight need is strong but as to what “taking the mick” is will vary from person to person. @meta has reported over the years superb success in circumstances I probably wouldn’t have fought over. You pay your money and take your chances!
@StillintheSun – a helpfully balanced approach. You are bolder, because you know your way around the system. Many will get quite scared when they get BA’s defence which will often border on the acceptable or even cross the line. Some seem to like the idea of having their day in court without realising that it will likely be quite an unpleasant, bruising experience for those unfamiliar with the system although these days most aviation cases are heard on the papers. This makes it all the more important to prepare the documents really well with concise arguments cross referenced to the evidence, not an entirely obvious process.
Finally, anyone planning to take BA to MCOL would be well advised to test their argument on a totally independent party who can be relied upon to give honest feedback. Unlike MCOL, CEDR publishes outcomes which I posted here earlier in the week – only 15% of claims succeed in full and 28% in part, so 57% fail entirely. That fail rate in previous years was 65% and 70%.
How long you have to choose alternative flights is like a game of chicken i once waited until after I’d flown the outbound and my cancelled flight was reinstated but ofcourse not everyone has that level of flexibility or don’t care attitude 🙂
@lhar – you appear to be something of a 261 purist
And that’s why @JDB I wanted your input (plus others). I just think moving a 10am flight to a 1am flight isn’t reasonable.
IANAL, but the stats don’t say anything – probably most are about a missing croissant 😉. Similarly, none of those “judgements” you mention are UK precedents or law. And I also disagree with your premise that “burden of proof is reversed”. The law doesn’t change because you disagree with some other person’s interpretation.
I’m not trying to be a 261 purist – I quite hate it in most of its forms. It’s quite silly, but so is most legal carp. The only thing I can say is that I wouldn’t accept the change. Perhaps instead of 261 we could have a different agreement instead of “we will get you there, possibly, sometime, if we can be bothered, but probably not”.
@lhar – if you sue someone for money at MCOL, it’s a very basic principle that the burden is on you, the claimant, to prove your case. It is up to the claimant to prove to the satisfaction of the court (in an aviation case) that they have met, inter alia, the three part ECJ test of “necessary, appropriate and reasonable” in light of the specific facts. The defendant will argue that you haven’t met the burden and the court will then decide. It’s rather extraordinary to claim otherwise.
PS the CEDR figures aren’t polluted with rubbish claims such as missing croissants, brunch in lieu of lunch, not getting first meal choice or defective IFE as they are not within scope. 57% of real claims fail entirely and only 15% succeed in full. Are you really surprised when one reads of so many fanciful claims?
three part ECJ test of “necessary, appropriate and reasonable” in light of the specific facts.
Can you quote specific ECJ case wrt to cancellation please (the dates also matter) . BA have made a commercial decision to cancel the flight. Not sure how that then falls on the customer to pick up the brunt.
EU261 is very, very clear so I’d be interested in how the ECJ has deviated from this, and the tests.
@lhar – I am totally lost for words. You are challenging such basic principles that these posts look quite ridiculous. It’s not a question of the passenger having “to pick up the brunt” and it’s pretty bloomin’ obvious that if you sue someone, as you have proposed, the burden is on you to prove they owe the money. The ECJ test comes from the 2013 case of McDonagh v Ryanair at para 51. It is endorsed by the CAA in its CAP2155 document.
If your assertion that EC261 is “very clear, very clear” were correct, it’s quite odd that more than seventy cases have been appealed to the ECJ or Supreme Court and cases continue to be tested in the courts and/or at arbitration all over Europe every day. Some are won by airlines, some by passengers.
The ECJ has dramatically changed the interpretation and effect of the texts by its decisions.
The key is that each case turns on its specific facts and many aspects are deliberately subjective whereas you are attempting to apply a one size fits all view.
You said in an earlier post that you wouldn’t accept the change that started this thread and if you didn’t, BA wouldn’t budge so you bought other tickets which they won’t reimburse then you have a civil dispute in which you, as the claimant, have to prove you were entitled to spend that money and BA should have to reimburse you. BA will say it acted lawfully in offering you the options it did and that your actions were unreasonable. A judge will decide who was right. It depends entirely on the facts pleaded by each party.
@lhar – The ECJ test comes from the 2013 case of McDonagh v Ryanair at para 51. It is endorsed by the CAA in its CAP2155 document.
Yes, that relates to Article 5(i)(b) and 9, whereas my argument relates to Article 8 of EU261. It is also in relation to the eruption of Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull, and that judgement has to be put in context.
CAP2155 clearly states in 6.3/6.5 that the OP has a right to be offered a flight on a different carrier, regardless of cost.
Whilst CEDR etc might make the “burden of proof” on the airline, that never existed via courts/MCOL. The burden of proof is always on the claimant to prove the case. I’m very happy for EU261 to have common sense, but in this instance it is BA profiting to the detriment of the consumer.
@lhar
1. Nowhere does the CAA say “regardless of cost” as you ridiculously claim. [This is unsurprising as any question of cost is a matter for the court or CEDR, not the passenger or regulator and you should realistically be expecting the court to be thinking Fiesta more than BMW].
2. Article 8 is expressly included at 6.7
If you or indeed anyone plans to litigate to reclaim self-rerouting costs, you are going to have to be an awful lot more precise and realistic to have any prospect of winning.
@lhar
1. Nowhere does the CAA say “regardless of cost” as you ridiculously claim. [This is unsurprising as any question of cost is a matter for the court or CEDR, not the passenger or regulator and you should realistically be expecting the court to be thinking Fiesta more than BMW].
2. Article 8 is expressly included at 6.7
If you or indeed anyone plans to litigate to reclaim self-rerouting costs, you are going to have to be an awful lot more precise and realistic to have any prospect of winning.
CAP2155: “However, where airlines do not have such arrangements in place, we do not accept that this should be a barrier to re-routing passengers on other airlines.” The cost is actually irrelevant, as is the choice of carrier (even though an airline may try and force you onto another of their/partner flights).
Whilst the terms “necessary, appropriate and reasonable” are subjective, it is much easier for the customer to argue than for the airline to defend. Those terms are not related to the cost of alternative ticketing.
You can probably argue a case under UK Consumer Rights Act as BA including unfair terms in their contract (they can change the flight time without penalty but you cannot). The key thing here is that BA have made a commercial decision and as a result the OP is disadvantaged. If it were me I wouldn’t be sucking that up. I consider myself “necessary, appropriate and reasonable” 😂
@lhar – well, you say an airline must reroute a passenger “regardless of cost” and that “the cost is actually irrelevant” whereas the Civil Aviation Authority at CAP2155 para 6.7, (final sentence) citing the ECJ says the rerouting costs must be “necessary, appropriate and reasonable.”
I wonder whether the court would go with @lhar or the ECJ?? Hmm, tough call.
Contrary to what you have posted above, the test is expressly stated to apply to ‘alternative ticketing’ as you call it.
@lhar – well, you say an airline must reroute a passenger “regardless of cost” and that “the cost is actually irrelevant” whereas the Civil Aviation Authority at CAP2155 para 6.7, (final sentence) citing the ECJ says the rerouting costs must be “necessary, appropriate and reasonable.”
@JDB I don’t want to get into an online spat because you are very knowledgeable and I value your expertise and input in this forum. But to finish the sentence you cite… “the expenses incurred by the passenger were necessary, appropriate and reasonable to make up for the shortcomings of the airline in offering the passenger a suitable re-routing option” (in relation to Article 8(1)).BA have been shortcoming in not offering the passenger re-routing under Article 8(1). BA should just hold up their hands and do the decent thing. They have a relationship with their customers – why jeapordise that for a few quid.
This isn’t a delay/last minute cancellation or such. It’s a commercial decision. BA needs to own it, and whilst they hope most will accept their re-routing, don’t for a minute think that it is anything other than.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Popular articles this week:
