flatlander

Well, I suspect the way that actually worked out was that engineers looked at the aircraft and said "er, we'll have to check it out", and then "we might be able to fix it soon, we'll try", and then "we have found it's more complicated, we're working on it", etc... Pilots do not fix aircraft, they fly them; engineers fix them - and even working out what the problem is can take an uncertain amount of time.

I've been in this situation (in other industries than aviation) and it's not easy to work out at the start how long it will take to fix a problem you have not yet fully understood. Only when you understand it can you make a guess how long it will take - and that may be wrong if things turn out badly for you.

I can still remember watching a critical computer server running self-repairs while my manager called every half an hour, "Er, flatlander, when is this going to be up? All our customers are not able to do any work." and all I could say is "I'm working on it, I don't know how long this is going to take to finish". The engineers fixing your aircraft may well have been in the same situation.

BA would have done better, at the management level, to rebook you all onto alternate carriers when the delay looked to be growing large, but that is not the Commander's decision.

That is unfortunate, I can see how you would have to make a very quick decision for that to be possible.,

flatlander

So am I, when they could just have laughed and pocked the money as an no-show. I am impressed at their actions in the current state of the world.

If this had happened to me I would have taken a deep breath, realised I had made this problem myself, thanked them for their help while handing over my payment card, and assumed the position in Economy - similar to what I did years ago when I had to throw myself on the mercy of ANA when I simply arrived after checkin had closed due to poor planning on my part (ANA charged me a ~£250 fee to change to the next days' flight, I considered this quite merciful).

I still think that OneWorld should protect adjacent itineraries, at least on a best effort/goodwill basis, and that them not doing so and not checking luggage across separate itineraries and so on is missing an opportunity to provide a unique selling point of remaining in the alliance in your travel.

Oneworld presents itself as the best for business travel, and as a more coherent alliance than the sprawling, unevenly transient Star Alliance where status on one airline counts for little with others and any alliance benefits are very unevenly applied.

There is an opportunity for market differentiation among the critically lucrative customer segment (frequent global travellers) without very great extra cost, and they are not taking it.

eponymous_coward

In fact, they are actively going out of their way to remove this market differentiation.

https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/onew...kets-pnrs.html

flatlander

Indeed, that is one thing I was referring to in my previous post.

The contraction to a local maximum of profit and stability is quite evident, as opposed to seeking newer greater maxima of profit and opportuntity. The things they could do are even quite low commercial risk (space-available rebooking on missed adjacent ticket flights would cost little, for example).

The reaction from customers will be to seek lowest cost and most reliable operation rather than greatest service, since there is no greatest service to be sought. Reliable operation and cheapest cost may be found elsewhere than Oneworld, and then Oneworld has partly caused the situation of a pricing war, driving them further into needing to seek lowest cost as soon as possible, and so on.

They make a rod for their own backs.

eponymous_coward

Absolutely. It's unfortunate. But hey, if airlines would prefer I only consider the optimal combination of price and service level for every flight, and ignore considerations of status or extras... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Dave Noble

Most people wanting a ticket from A-B will buy a ticket from A-B and not start buying tickets from other countries in order to save some money. Those seeking the lowest cost from other countries are the ones most likely impacted

flatlander

They will be affected, but so will people on complex itineraries, those who added on additional journeys at short notice, those who could not be ticketed on one reservation for one reason or another - and those people tend to have higher travel spend and be more interested in reliability than cost.

Oneworld is throwing out the frequent global travellers along with the ex-DUB scroungers and I think they are losing out and losing an opportunity for revenue and loyalty. Clearly I am an armchair airline CEO and actual airline CEOs think different, but I maintain my opinion (based on other business experience) that it is short-sighted.

Often1

The minimal convenience of checking across tickets would not have helped OP. Under any alliance or combination of carriers, when flying on separate tickets, one risks cancellation when one no shows. The sole exception to this, was AA. OP is the lucky beneficiary of someone's largesse today, although his EC 261/2004 will go to defray his downgrade tomorrow and presumably his hotel and food as well unless he has trip interruption coverage.

Unless OP has engineering details which he has not posted, there is nothing in the Command Captain's conduct which remotely suggests incompetence. As the engineers work, they report to Operations and thence to the Captain and that assessment is relayed to the passengers. But, nothing is certain until the repairs are complete and there is no way of knowing how long repairs will take until they are complete, tested, retested and signed off by the Captain. This is why commercial aviation is as safe as it is.

This is a good example of exactly the reason why carriers do not offer protection across tickets. BA has sold a ticket on a micro-hop to AMS and would, if it had a rebooking policy, be on the hook for getting OP half-way around the world for something which generates it no revenue. That is not the kind of business anyone wants.

Dave Noble

Those wishing to add on additional parts to a journey can always change their existing booking and pay the relevant amount or book separately ; why should someone who takes the benefits of separate journets expect not to have the drawbacks too

In the recent situation , why should BA - which is getting paid for just LON-AMS be expected to front costs of rebooking the passenger on Qatar when the person wasn't prepared to pay the fare ex LON fare?

sam

I believe it would in this case. The BA crew made a lot of effort to sort me out but were limited in what they could do because they had no access to my Qatar reservation. I have similar experience earlier this year (pre June) where Qatar were late and Malaysia were waiting with new boarding card at the arrival gate (again separate bookings).

Engineer said plane couldn't fly. Pilot disagreed. Pilot escalated. I asked pilot what his contingency was in case engineering manager agreed with engineer. He said none as he was sure that engineer would be over ruled. Guess what happened.....

This is a good example of why they changed policy on through checking bags in June 16 a long time after I made this reservation. When I made this reservation (or more accurately these reservations) I would have been fine as they were both one world. This is the second time I've been caught out by this policy change (the other one was an Amex 2f1). Do they really have the right to change conditions of carriage like this post reservation?

sam

I have 4 trips London to Miri this year (in J). My company booking system will not support booking that trip with Qatar and Malaysian unless I book as two separate fares. On one of the trips pre June Qatar was late but my bags were through checked and I was sorted. Next trip I just have to hope Qatar are on time!

Next time I book I will have to consider other options!

Dave Noble

There was no change to the conditions of carriage - what was previosuly offered was beyond what was required from the ticket conditions

Buy a ticket from A-B and the airline is only responsible from A-B - if you want to travel to C and be protected, then buy a ticket from A-C and the connections are protected

sam

I'm not a contract lawyer but surely it is not reasonable to offer something under a policy they change policy post contract to withdraw that offer.

Dave Noble

If a company provides something for free beyond that which was paid for and then chooses not to continue to do so - I cannot see how it is unreasonable

LTN Phobia

Separate tickets = the risk is ours (or our insurers).
It always has been.

Separate tickets are usually cheaper for a reason.

It doesn't mean we get a certain outcome just because we want it.
Sometimes we want to twist things to give us what we want (often subconsciously) but it doesn't always work.

If it can't be booked as a single ticket, the risk still remains ours (or our insurers).

Sometimes we get burnt. Occasional inconvenience is really a part and parcel of travelling, and learning to accept that and moving on quickly (and learning any lessons to be learnt) would be the best course of action rather than dwelling on it and engaging in a 'find someone to blame' game. Life is too short for it.