Originally Posted by
redtailshark
...
Some key points in the BA response are as follows:
Ticket was cancelled by "BA GDS robot"
Ticket could only be used from Yangon, therefore bona-fide purchaser would have to travel to Yangon, show evidence to prove...
BA not responsible for JL ticket, no liability.
Consumer "had to follow specific instructions available on internet blogs..." to book ticket.
Tarriff 25(H) provides for BA to refuse carriage without payment of "applicable fare"
Consumer possessed "actual knowledge" or "ought to have known" fare was error.
BA regards CTA decisions on LX and 9W "in error" because the agency didn't consider enforceabilty of contracts in law and considered "irrelevant" tarriff provisions.
What this proves to me (and in due course, I hope, to the CTA):
@:-) BA reneged unilaterally on this ticket
@:-) BA attempted and continue to attempt to deflect blame for their acknowledged action onto JL
@:-) BA thumb their noses directly, in writing, at the current CTA ruling on this matter.
...
LX has essentially done the same - disagreeing with the CTA ruling in writing (ie by taking the matter to appeal).
I don't agree with the '
bona fide' purchaser issue - that's a red herring. Plenty of people buy one way fares for all sorts of reasons. And they are entitled to buy one way fares safe in the knowledge they will be honoured.
But the other points go to the essence of the case. The CTA doesn't appear to have considered contract law in reaching its decision.
Did the CTA act correctly? That is ultimately what the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal will have to decide, either by hearing the case or refusing leave to appeal.