Misco60

There are two articles in this weekend's Guardian consumer page in which BA gets blamed, mostly unfairly, for miserable travel experiences.

British Airways ruined our holiday but it won’t pay out
(This followed BA's IT meltdown in May. BA quickly refunded the costs of the flights and paid EC261 compensation without a fuss, but the customer also wants them to pay for the accommodation they had paid for and were unable to use. The customer's insurance company has refused to pay.)

BA debacle sees couple spend wedding night on an airport bench
(Iberia flight goes tech, passengers get rebooked by BA on TK but it goes horribly wrong and they arrive 24 hours late and without luggage).

It appears that British Airways' reputation is now so low that the media is ready to jump on them even when they have, arguably, done everything they are required to do and could have done. It will take years to repair the damage that cost-cutting, penny-pinching and unnecessarily poor attitude to customers has done - in the meantime, BA is the new Ryanair.

simons1

Both cases go to show how difficult it is for less experienced travellers - when things go wrong all the parties involved tend to blame each other.

Unfortunately for BA they make a good target right now, you reap what you sow.

Tobias-UK

It also exposes the inadequacy of certain travel insurance policies offered to the unsuspecting public. You would certainly expect cover for travel disruption and abandonment in a travel policy. This is a timely reminder for all of us to review our insurance policies to ensure they cover what we 'think' they cover.

corporate-wage-slave

The first story - about not getting to Portugal and losing a pre-booked (and quite expensive) villa - seemed similar to a set of posts put here in the FT. It was a bit of an eye opener for me: the fact that airlines treat this as "consequential" is well known here, but what I didn't appreciate is that insurance companies can (and do) also treat consequential losses as non recoverable. The family here used the Post Office's insurance scheme, which I hitherto would have put in the "good guys" section. I hope they pursue this via the Ombudsman process mentioned in the article.

The second story was a mix of airlines messing around with irrops, understandable lack of familiarity as to how on carriage bookings made at airports work (or rather don't work), and dear old Iberia not paying EC261, which will not be a surprise to the regulars here. I've put a comment into that story pointing out that Iberia always refuse EC261 but to continue via MCOL if necessary. It may be good to have a few people Recommend my piece if they get a moment, to ensure the Hogg family see my comment. The article was well researched, but for some reason didn't highlight MCOL.

Flexible preferences

I found this unexpected too. Looking at the Post Office policy, which covers between Ł1000 and Ł10000 of cancellation cover, depending up on the policy chosen, it appears that only the following scenario for flight cancellations are covered:

Industrial action
Adverse weather
Technical failure of aircraft

Unfortunately other circumstances of failure of transportation which result in cancellation of the trip are not included. Seems harsh.

Ldnn1

Good of you to comment, c-w-s. I only have a slight concern that the way you have worded it might give the impression that Money Claim Online is one of these claims management firms (like Air Help) rather than the official direct court process, and that you therefore have ulterior motives for posting - which of course we here know isn't the case!

corporate-wage-slave

This is probably the route I would follow with the Ombudsman: the reason the aircraft could not take off was due to the technical failure of the supporting computers. A bit of a stretch, I know, but in terms of how LHR T5 has to work, the landbased computer systems are a crucial part of the aircraft's infrastructure - and obviously so since no aircraft could take off. The other aspect is that someone buying insurance would reasonably assume it covers circumstances like this, at least that was my hitherto reasonable assumption. Otherwise why bother?

corporate-wage-slave

Yes, a fair point, though hopefully a few seconds with Uncle Google would clear that up. The ulterior motive was to get the Hogg family into this forum!

Flexible preferences

Interesting, the way you put it sounds promising.

FlyerTalker39574

Article 9 of EU reg 261:2004 is clear about airline absolute obligations viz right to care, it's been with us along time now, why aren't they fulfilling their obligations? It's extremely poor indeed.

ukgooner

Its no different to what goes on here but on a larger scale:

Stage 1: convince yourself there is a huge cost cutting agenda damaging the brand
Stage 2: look for stories where customer experience has been poor - particularly human interest
Stage 3: report factually that stage 2 is caused by cuts
Stage 4: Demand change in leadership and big investment, and promise to remove patronage until things improve, but complain a lot on the internet in the meantime

Its a bit like the public sector here in the Uk with "Austerity" (otherwise known as ensuring we have the scale of state infrastructure we can afford):
Stage 1: Believe we should put more money into the state; and that cuts are damaging
Stage 2: Look for evidence where the state has let people down
Stage 3: Connect 2 with 3 and create the perception that cuts are the reason for everything
Stage 4: Demand end of austerity and new leadership. Participate in cilvil protests or strikes until things improve, but complain a lot on the internet and in the Guardian in the meantime

ahmetdouas

no this should all be covered with the airlines conditions or carriage. I don't believe people should buy travel insurance just to cover airlines incompetence

Flexible preferences

If airlines had to pay full consequential losses, in addition to their EU261 obligations, our air fares would be even higher. Would you be prepared to pay higher air fares for this?

Tobias-UK

That's a whole new debate. At present consequential losses are not the responsibility of an airline.

Ldnn1

Why should it? Do you think airlines should have unlimited liability for consequential losses? If not, what limit would you suggest?