Originally Posted by
hearingdouble
If a plane ticket were solely a contract for transportation, passengers with tickets in WT, WTP, CW and F would have the same contractual rights for the duration of their flight, irrespective of what they were sold. Is that really correct?
Clearly I have more to learn about the Montreal convention, but is it really right that (but for statutory EU-261 downgrade compensation) paid-for cabin benefits are, from a contract law perspective, discretionary? I.e. That if you buy a Club World ticket and one day BA sat you in a 31" pitch 3-4-3 cabin and called it "Club World" that you would have no claim for breach of contract?
I completely agree that compensation (rather than a full refund) is appropriate here. When determining quantum it seems to me that the cost delta between flat-bed products and sit-up products on the same flight is not an unreasonable place to start. Thankfully I've never been in this position, but the main reason I pay the significant premium for premium cabins in long haul is so that I can get some sleep.
I suspect this would largely depend on when this information became known to the air carrier and the passenger.
If a late aircraft swap on a mid-haul route meant that a shorthaul A321 got subbed in for a longhaul A321 after 'embarkation' then the carrier could probably rely on the Convention to defend against a claim for breach of contract. If the notification came before embarkation then I would expect the passenger to be able to rely on the domestic law in their jurisdiction.
In the above example I don't think that EC261 would apply in any event.