Originally Posted by
BAHumbug
It was a Land Rover earlier - at this rate it'll be a Lamborghini being substituted with an old skateboard.
Your analogy is flawed. If you want to pursue the analogy it's as though you have been sold a BMW which is claimed to do 50mpg. In reality you end up with a BMW that on some routes does 40mpg and on others 60mpg. The BMW itself is still the same vehicle it ever was.
I doubt, under those circumstances, you'd ever get anywhere with any sort of legal argument.
But as you're so certain and so sure of yourself, why don't you start a suit against BA. I'd love to be a party to the result.
BAH
Thank you BAH, I think the issue that your post most clearly crystallizes is whether the changes that happened could properly be characterized as misrepresentation(whether we use the dictionary definition or English law definition) and if there was misrepresentation, whether it was intentional or negligent or of any other flavor. On this point, I think it is fair to say that there was misrepresentation(by the dictionary definition at least) judging from the company's acknowledgement afterwards of the 97% of routes statement. Given that they proactively refused to "clarify" until after the changes were locked in, it would seem that this was intentional. However, as posters on an internet board without access to additional information, we will probably never know for sure.
However, the merit of the changes and the manner in which it was challenged are not the subject of the OP's post. Rather, it is about the way in which BA communicates those changes. On this point, I would say that BA acted poorly and that it's not reasonable to expect someone who has been the victim of misrepresentation(dictionary definition most probably, possibly legal definition as well) to "get over it." It's also assuredly not the OP's "fault" that BA chooses to communicate in the manner in which it does.
Edit: sorry, I forgot the brand of car. The basic idea is being promised one car of higher value, but getting a lower one instead. Also the car dealership analogy came about because Royscot Trust is a prominent case that deals with Misrepresentation, cars and contractual damages.