30+ people offloaded from LAX-LHR flight

Old Apr 14, 2015, 3:22 pm
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London / Los Angeles
Programs: Hilton Diamond, IHG Diamond Ambassador, Marriott Platinum, Hyatt Globalist, BA Silver
Posts: 1,630
30+ people offloaded from LAX-LHR flight

Pretty ridiculous situation last night where over 30 people including me were prematurely offloaded from a BA flight from LAX last night despite our incoming domestic flight landing with 55mins to connect.

We were flying from LAS-LAX with AA and connecting to BA268 to LHR. The scheduled connection time was fairly tight at about 1 hour 35minutes. Unfortunately the LAS flight was delayed and took off about an hour late. It turned out there were over 30 people on the LAS-LAX flight connecting to BA268. The crew made several inflight announcements for BA passengers to go immediately to gate 44 on landing to take bus to Tom Bradley International Terminal. The crew also requested all other passengers wait for BA passengers to exit plane first.

The LAS flight arrived at gate at about 8.50pm and the BA flight was delayed 15mins and so was not due to depart until 9.45pm. I figured this was plenty of time and was not worried - I assumed for 30+ people they would definitely hold the flight an extra 15-30mins if necessary.

However after getting off the plane we were met by AA representatives who told us that not only could we not get a bus from gate 44 but that they had already decided we were going to miss the BA flight! They handed out boarding passes for the next day's flight and food/accom vouchers. People argued with them but they just directed us to customer service.

Given we had nearly an hour, most of us decided to just follow the cabin crew's advice and go to gate 44. More arguing ensued here about whether we could take the bus which it seems is strictly speaking for Qantas passengers only. In the end different agents there gave different instructions and some us got on the bus and some of us did not.

Those of us who got on the bus made it to the gate for BA 268 at about 9.20pm with boarding still ongoing. Extremely relieved we showed our boarding passes only to be told we had been offloaded by AA and that we would not be allowed fly. This was frankly ridiculous. We had valid boarding passes and we had arrived at the gate on time. Eventually gate agents relented and let us on. Most people's seats had been given away so we had to be reallocated new seats*.

On arriving on London, I was not surprised to find that my bag had not made it and will now have to wait till tomorrow. I spoke to some other LAS passengers whose bags also did not arrive and they said that everyone who made it to the gate had been allowed on but that many people didn't make it to the gate - either they didn't try for the bus or they were not allowed on the bus. (I would guess less than 10 of the 30 people made the flight).

Really what annoys me about this whole situation is that there is no reason why we all should not have made the connection. We had easily enough time. Could AA or BA not have put a special bus on for us to connect? It seems AA made the decision very early on to bump all of us which is weird. Also our allocated seats had been given away which makes me wonder if there were a lot of standby passengers. Very poor form anyway and poor financial decision as they ended up paying for food and hotel rooms when they really didn't need to.

*Full disclosure - I eventually ended up being upgraded to CW (from Y) due to a string of lucky breaks related to seats so I definitely can't write a complaint to BA about this - but it does not change the fact that what happened in this situation was completely un-necessary.

Last edited by Enigma368; Apr 14, 2015 at 3:57 pm
Enigma368 is offline  
Old Apr 14, 2015, 4:00 pm
  #2  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Arizona
Programs: BA (GGL G4L), AA (Gold), HH (Diamond); Marriott (Gold)
Posts: 3,011
In my experience, BA is incredibly conservative and far more proactive in offloading passengers, at least in comparison to the US legacy carriers. While AA really won't start offloading you until you're clearly not there and it's time to get standby passengers on the plane and then depart, BA will basically automatically move you if the computer says you cannot make the connection. BA will almost never hold a plane for a large number of passengers, because Heathrow is so slot constrained, whereas a US-based carrier will typically hold a plane if that many people are going to be a few minutes late.

I'm not really sure why the approaches seem so different, though I know I prefer the approach that attempts to get as many people there on-time as possible.
dylanks is offline  
Old Apr 14, 2015, 4:32 pm
  #3  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brighton. UK
Programs: BA Gold / VS /IHG Diamond & Ambassador
Posts: 14,141
I don't think BA does standby so it's very unlikely they had a queue of people waiting at the gate in case others didn't turn up and they used the late arrival of your connecting flight to board them instead.

Once it had been decided people weren't going to make it (probably based on the MCT) your seat allocations were fair game to be reallocated.
UKtravelbear is offline  
Old Apr 14, 2015, 4:33 pm
  #4  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London / Los Angeles
Programs: Hilton Diamond, IHG Diamond Ambassador, Marriott Platinum, Hyatt Globalist, BA Silver
Posts: 1,630
Originally Posted by dylanks
In my experience, BA is incredibly conservative and far more proactive in offloading passengers, at least in comparison to the US legacy carriers. While AA really won't start offloading you until you're clearly not there and it's time to get standby passengers on the plane and then depart, BA will basically automatically move you if the computer says you cannot make the connection. BA will almost never hold a plane for a large number of passengers, because Heathrow is so slot constrained, whereas a US-based carrier will typically hold a plane if that many people are going to be a few minutes late.

I'm not really sure why the approaches seem so different, though I know I prefer the approach that attempts to get as many people there on-time as possible.
Oh weird. The BA gate agents made a big thing about how AA had offloaded us but maybe AA were just adhering to BA policy or else maybe gate agents were mistaken.

In any case, if you turn up at the gate on time, checked in and with a valid boarding pass, surely saying "sorry we offloaded you cos we thought you wouldn't make it" is not a fair reason to deny boarding?

OTOH, I guess if that happened, EU261 might apply?

Last edited by Enigma368; Apr 14, 2015 at 5:07 pm
Enigma368 is offline  
Old Apr 14, 2015, 7:12 pm
  #5  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: HH Gold, AA Gold
Posts: 10,451
As a former AA employee, I'm absolutely sure the AA agents communicated with BA's agents at LAX. AA would give BA the estimated arrival time of the flight. It seems to me that it would then be at BA's discretion of whether to hold for the connecting passengers. This type of issue can and does happen everyday at LAX and other hubs. It is something that the AA and BA employees handle on a daily basis.

It sure would be nice for an AA or BA agent at LAX to chime in here. I'm sure that there are all sorts of considerations.
formeraa is offline  
Old Apr 14, 2015, 7:13 pm
  #6  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Back to Florida...... bye London
Programs: Hilton, AA,, Delta
Posts: 5,140
Originally Posted by Enigma368
Oh weird. The BA gate agents made a big thing about how AA had offloaded us but maybe AA were just adhering to BA policy or else maybe gate agents were mistaken.

In any case, if you turn up at the gate on time, checked in and with a valid boarding pass, surely saying "sorry we offloaded you cos we thought you wouldn't make it" is not a fair reason to deny boarding?

OTOH, I guess if that happened, EU261 might apply?
Technically your boarding pass wasn't valid anymore because it had been canceled and you were given a new boarding pass for the next days flight.
MoreMilesPlease is offline  
Old Apr 14, 2015, 7:53 pm
  #7  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ORD
Programs: US Air, UA BA LH AI DELTA MARRIOTT CHOICE SGP
Posts: 9,882
Originally Posted by formeraa
As a former AA employee, I'm absolutely sure the AA agents communicated with BA's agents at LAX. AA would give BA the estimated arrival time of the flight. It seems to me that it would then be at BA's discretion of whether to hold for the connecting passengers. This type of issue can and does happen everyday at LAX and other hubs. It is something that the AA and BA employees handle on a daily basis.

It sure would be nice for an AA or BA agent at LAX to chime in here. I'm sure that there are all sorts of considerations.
I was wondering about this so thanks for clarifying.
Who pays ultimately AA or BA ? Was BA oversold on this flight ?
HMPS is offline  
Old Apr 14, 2015, 8:07 pm
  #8  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: US/TYO/LON
Programs: Marriott Titanium; Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 411
Originally Posted by HMPS
I was wondering about this so thanks for clarifying.
Who pays ultimately AA or BA ? Was BA oversold on this flight ?
With the JB, things get a little more murky here as revenue (and presumably some costs) is shared to a large extent.
porphyra is offline  
Old Apr 14, 2015, 10:42 pm
  #9  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 299
I'd be surprised if the flight wasn't oversold - I've been on the LAX-LHR flight on average once every month for the last year (and for the foreseeable future) and it's been jammed in every class
AyeCaramba is offline  
Old Apr 14, 2015, 10:50 pm
  #10  
Moderator, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges, and Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold; Flying Blue Life Platinum; LH Sen.; Hilton Diamond; Kemal Kebabs Prized Customer
Posts: 63,476
I can't see EC/261 applying here since the operating airline that was late here was AA and they are outwith the Regulations in this instance. One exception to this is that the courts have held that where an airline rebooks passengers to a later flight and yet the passenger could have got to the gate in time, then that can be regarded as Involuntary Denied Boarding. If AA did that rather than BA, it's still not going anywhere, and in any case it appears BA did accept those who got to the gate.

The bus service is definitely Qantas only, I believe that is due to a cost sharing agreement between AA and Qantas, so if BA passengers started using it I can see there would be an issue there. More to the point I suspect that the AA agents at gate 44 may not have been fully informed - their main job is to stop BA passengers from getting on that bus! This, incidentally, is a temporary issue, in December 2015 / January 2016 a new airside tunnel / walkway is scheduled to open up between T4 and TBIT for all passengers.

For HBO passengers who were quick on their feet, and assuming TBIT's security was quick, then it would have been possible (just) to go the usual landside route. Getting out of T4 can be done in just a few minutes, the walk to TBIT under 5 minutes. TSA, well that's a variable, but 10 minutes seems right to me, plus 10 minutes to the BA gate. So 30 minutes covers it, BA would want people at the gate no later than 15 minutes before departure, so we are up to 45 minutes.

So add in checked luggage to the mix, some people a bit slow on their feet, most of them unfamiliar with LAX's layout and routes, then when the decision was made, AA arrival was 20:50, BA departure 21:30, different terminals, that's not feasible. The 15 minute delay - which I guess was apparent late in this sequence - was a bit of game changer for some, but as we know, many passengers get very irked if their baggage is delayed. Or indeed if they have been tipped out of their favourite seat!

So in summary, this was a bit unfortunate, as is often the case, but I don't blame BA (or AA) in deciding the connection was infeasible for most. For some it would have been feasible as we saw, and they were accommodated, but in way it was self selecting: those who didn't/couldn't rush were sorted out very efficiently, those that got through were allowed on their flight.

How could it have been handled better? Ideally a special bus could have been laid on from the rear steps of the AA service then going to TBIT, but that breaks all the local rules in LAX, it's not going to happen. Whoever suggested gate 44 may not have had the power to fix the contract issues with Qantas on that one (and it doesn't run that frequently either).

So until the tunnel opens, maybe it would have been best to announce that everyone had been rebooked and to collect their hotel vouchers. Once airborne at LAS the infeasible timetable would have been clear. But then they could add that anyone with boarding passes, HBO/not bothered about luggage, was welcome to try going landside but the chances are they would not make it. That strikes me as more transparent.
corporate-wage-slave is offline  
Old Apr 14, 2015, 10:51 pm
  #11  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SJC, SFO, YYC
Programs: AA-EXP, AA-0.41MM, UA-Gold, Ex UA-1K (2006 thru 2015), PMUA-0.95MM, COUA-1.5MM-lite, AF-Silver
Posts: 13,437
AA has a published policy of protecting pax who are connecting from AA to OW on separate tickets.

(The policy works in the other direction too; AA being the big dog in OW forces its OW partners to protect pax connecting onto AA.)

Yet another example that if booking a "fairly tight" (OP's phrase for a 95 minute connection) domestic -> international connection, it is better to have separate tickets.

With separate tix, in OP's situation, AA wouldn't even know to inform BA that OP might miss the connection.

Last edited by mre5765; Apr 14, 2015 at 11:01 pm
mre5765 is offline  
Old Apr 14, 2015, 10:57 pm
  #12  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 5,380
To be honest this feels quite hard on BA/AA. The connection was tight, AA were late, and you were proactively reprotected. You didn't arrive at the gate until 8.50pm and the BA flight was due to depart from a different terminal at 9.30pm. OK, it was delayed 15 minutes, but was that delay known at the time the decision was made to offload you? And even if it was, is it practical that operational delays of this nature be factored in for compliance-type events such as this? And why comment about your bags not arriving, what did you expect?

On top of all this, you were given a 2 class upgrade to CW from Y for a long overnight flight. All credit for disclosing this yourself, but in context this seems quite harsh.
Flexible preferences is offline  
Old Apr 14, 2015, 11:05 pm
  #13  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Brunei
Programs: Enrich Sapphire. Kris Flyer Silver.Le Club Accorhotels,Starwood.
Posts: 2,201
I don't want to sound like I am picking on you or anything but would it not have been safer to take a flight that say landed 3-4 hours earlier before your BA flight to London rather than one that was only an hour or so from departure upon landing?

Just that I see this happening too often.

Yes, the ground staff could have been a little bit pro-active and BA could have worked to get a bus organized but I think you left it really tight and they did what they could to be fair.

Anyways...

Last edited by wolf72; Apr 15, 2015 at 4:07 am
wolf72 is offline  
Old Apr 14, 2015, 11:24 pm
  #14  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 212
I've had the same situation at Madrid connecting from BA to IB. BA flight landed late, so we ran to the gate which fortunately was nearby. Arrived with 25 mins to spare before departure with the aircraft doors still open to find a large number of also "late not late" people arguing with the gate agent. Turned straight around and went to the IB desk to rebook before there was a queue.
saintby is offline  
Old Apr 15, 2015, 12:36 am
  #15  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,750
The BA flight was oversold, which is why your originally booked seats were not available, and you got an upgrade. The easiest solution for the BA gate attendants was to offload all passengers connecting from the late LAS flight, which is what they did! I guess they were lucky only 10 people actually got to the gate, as they probably had enough seats available.

The ECJ ruled if you get to the gate during boarding, but your seat has been given away then you are due the full compensation.
8420PR is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.