FlyerTalk Forums - View Single Post - BA passing the buck on volcano claims
View Single Post
Old Jul 13, 2010 | 3:06 am
  #10  
Shona
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 347
Originally Posted by meester69
Any idea what's up with this?

I flew with BA during the volcanic disruption, LHR-SIN. The journey was ticketed and booked with BA, outbound BA15, returning on BA7371, a QF-operated flight.

The return flight was cancelled, and I was delayed for about three days. My eventual return flight was I think BA12 - there never seemed to be any possibility of getting back on QF's flights (which AIR, were easier to get on), only on BA, as BA was the company with whom I had a contract, and who had a responsibility to get me home.

Anyway, I contacted BA during the events and they told me about the allowances for food and accommodation, which I abided by, and on returning, I sent off my receipts to BA for reimbursement.

I received a response to my letter today, by email:

"I am sorry for the delay in replying to you.

I am concerned that your flight to London Heathrow was cancelled due to the volcanic activity in Iceland. I realise how disappointing it must have been for you and your travel companion. Thank you for contacting us about this.

For the refund of your additional expenses, I have passed a copy of your letter to Qantas. I feel they are better placed than us to deal with your concerns, as they operated the flight. "



I don't see that it has anything to do with Qantas at all.
How do you know it was/is a QF operated flight-what was the flight number on your ticket?

If QF are delivering some form of response to certain passenger grievances- ( why- incidentally?)-and BA and QF are in some form of suspected code share arrangement-as indicated to you by BA (but maybe not evident on your ticket?)-why can't that arrangement not extend to them talking to each other and providing a joint response to you as a client passenger, with whom they issued a ticket and received your money?

If you happened to advance a claim based upon delay-under Article 19 of the Montreal Convention-that claim could be addressed either to the actual or contracting carrier.

Likewise if you had a contractual grievance (or other grievance in law) against BA-then BA would address that grievance rather than any anybody else.

I might also point out that BA didn’t ( presumably) refer you to QF when you wished to contract for air carriage in the first place.
Shona is offline