moral_low_ground

Sorry for starting a new thread on this - am in somewhat of a hurry.

I am currently in IST on my way to Miami - was previously booked BA 675 and AA39 - last night they cancelled AA39 and renamed it 6901 (this is because they downgraded the aircraft from a 77W to a 772 (so no F and much less J).

I got on that (AA9601) and then BA now have delayed the 675 - so last night I also moved AA 6901 to AA57 leaving T3 at 1410.

However, the 675 is now getting later and later so it seems we will now arrive closer to 1300 and I need to get from T5 to T3. So, it might work but it might not.

Looking at alternatives I see VS 117 (Dep 1605) has space in J - can I ask for that either now before I leave IST or do I have to do it (at T3) assuming I misconnect with AA at T3. I presume AA will want to put me on the later flight to CLT and then gets to Miami at 2244 but I have a further flight from Miami at 2235 on a seperate PNR so would then need to stay in MIA the night before leaving the next day.

So - can I insist on VS117 and I guess EU261 comes into play as original arrival time was supposed to be 1710 in MIA and I guess I may be quite late if I miss AA57

TIA
P.S. I only have hand carry (no checked bags)

scottishpoet

there is no eu261 requirement to put you on an alternative carrier so you cannot insist they put you on the VS flight.

you can ask to be put on it, you may be successful depending what the other options available are

flarmip

You're entitled to be re-routed "at the earliest opportunity", so if the VS flight is the earliest opportunity they are required to rebook on it if requested.

Moreover, if re-routing at the earliest opportunity is refused, this can render compensation payable even if the original cause of the delay/misconnect was exceptional, as per LE v TAP.

corporate-wage-slave

I think I agree with that second sentence above, but not the first. I'm not aware of any case where there is a requirement to rebook on another airline and it certainly doesn't mention that in the regulation, it's just that if BA refuses to do so there may be compensation or other consequences that arise. Moreover the TAP case involved an avoidable overnight stay at departure, which was underlined in the CJEU judgement - usually a same day rebooking on the same airline would fall under the reasonable and proportionate tests. The fact that it goes via CLT, on the other hand, fails one of the other tests in that it's not direct.

It's a non productive argument, since Havaş in IST aren't going to be swayed by it, nor the contact centre. Since you are Gold you could call the Gold change booking line - which ends up in Manchester much of the time - and see if they will rebook on VS, but it's best framed as a request. If not, then try again when you get to T5, where they are usually sympathetic and do have access to the ARC team to do the reticketing. The BA App robotics will do BA to VS switches, but I don't think they do for AA to VS, and if it's a 001 ticket then it's AA's policies anyway.

moral_low_ground

It’s a 125 ticket and for AA57 I am actually on the Ba code share (ba 1525). All other segments on the ticket are Ba flights and metal

stifle

It's not clear that this journey comes under UK261 at all – it certainly doesn't come under EU law – I seem to recall a ruling that a ticket between two "third countries" via an EU stopover point was ruled out of scope. But I write this without the benefit of coffee.

corporate-wage-slave

It's not covered by EC261, as a Third Country trip, but since the UK is also a Third Country then it is covered by the UK version of EC261. UK261 relates to drones, so unrelated to this.

moral_low_ground

And in case any one wants to follow along. Flight delayed by 2 hours due to crew rest needs. Then we picked up a further 45 min - 1 hour slot delay with Thunderstorms over Europe. So eta is 1230-1245. I guess if 1245 then that’s less than MCT so hopefully they don’t automatically cancel as I might make it in time to T3

scottishpoet

The obligation on the airline is to re-route you under comparable transport conditions to your final destination “at the earliest opportunity”. Thus, if there are two BA flights to your destination and seats are available on both, you could insist on being put on the earlier flight. However, the Regulation is silent as to whether the obligation extends to putting you on any flight, including other airlines’ flights.

Most airlines take the view that they are only obliged to re-route you on their own flights and that, if they reroute you on another airline, it is a commercial gesture rather than a legal obligation. There does not appear to be any authoritative court judgment on this issue so this is a grey area.

In practical terms, the more expensive your ticket and the longer the alternative wait, the more likely it is that BA will agree to put you on an alternative carrier.

Scandinavian traveler

CAA guidelines on re-routing contains the following wording re. re-routing on other carriers (and a few other relevant sections).

"The CAA’s view is that, taking the specific wording of Article 8(1)(b) literally, the obligation to provide passengers with “re-routing under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at the earliest opportunity” means that passengers choosing the option of re-routing under Article 8(1)(b) are entitled to be re-routed on the next available flight to their final destination, in the same class of cabin, regardless of which airline is operating the flight."

stifle

With due respect, I disagree. The underlying journey is IST-MIA. The ruling in Airhelp vs Austrian Airlines C-451/20 states that a flight from one non-EU country to another via an EU airport is not covered by the regulation, even if the carrier is an EU carrier. It would follow that IST-MIA via LHR on BA is not covered by UK261, which despite your objections to the term, is a concise and well understood abbreviation.

The ruling cited does postdate Brexit so UK courts are free to depart from it, but it is likely to be cited persuasively if any court case ensues.

flarmip

UK261 has different language in terms of scope than EU261 though, so I don't think the Airhelp judgment is necessarily dispositive. It seems unlikely that a UK court would depart from a CJEU EU261 judgment on a point of principle - whether postdating Brexit or not - but where the law is substantively different, a different outcome is entirely possible.

corporate-wage-slave

It can't be true since LHR-MIA is also a third country to third country trip.. But in any case, if you look at the wording of the UK's version of EC261, it puts in scope flights to/from the UK in a different way to the original text.

strowger

OP may find BA *automatically* rebook onto VS. I have had this - landed late at LHR and phone pinged with a VS PNR. They certainly could have accommodated me on BA or AA, there was space .

stifle

I don't think you are engaging with my point, which is that a booking from A-B-C, where A and C are outside of the jurisdiction covered by the regulation and B is inside it, is not in scope of the regulation.

I have re-read article 3 (1) and (1A) of the UK version of the regulation, and I am even more convinced that I am correct.

Article 3 (1A) states: "For the purposes of this Regulation, a flight comprised of more than one leg shall be treated - (a) as a whole, if it was booked as a single unit, and (b) as departing from the point of departure if the first leg".

Article 3 (1) states, so far as is relevant: "This regulation shall apply (a) to passengers departing from an airport located in the United Kingdom; (b) to passengers departing from an airport located in a country other than the United Kingdom to an airport situated in (i) the United Kingdom, if the operating air carrier is a Community carrier or a UK air carrier; or (ii) the territory of [an EU] Member State... if the operating air carrier of the flight concerned is a UK air carrier".

Therefore, the journey from IST-LHR-MIA is to be treated as a whole from IST-MIA and as departing from IST. Neither IST nor MIA are in the UK or the EU. It must inevitably follow that this journey is not in scope of the regulation.