Originally Posted by redtailshark

BA responded to me after I filed the informal with CTA and reminded CTA it's been four months since the complaint was registered with no followup other than acknowledgement.

It's taken some time to get there but now we know where we all stand (BA, CTA and I).

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.

So the lines are drawn. I will play no further part in this after filing the formal complaint. There are so many reasons to find this outrageous - all of which are to be expected from BA - but let the CTA determine what follows.

Note to BA: all the exchanges with CTA are not a private conversation. All correspondence on this matter is subject to AIA in accord with Canadian law. Any actions taken in attempted contravention of this principle - such as punitive actions directed at complainant to restrict information access - will be shared with the General Counsel and other Canadian government officials. Make your arguments to them and we'll see what happens.

I hate bully boy tactics and I won't stand for them now any more than I have in the past.