Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave

The second approach - well I was about to say it's riskier, but I don't think it is really: If you look at the threads above regarding Mennens v Emirates, there is in paragraph 30 of that ruling a clear method outlined as to how to calculate the downgrade reimbursement. It essentially said you can't use the whole ticket price, if it was a return ticket, instead you have to apply a quotient of the whole ticket price, based on distance. If this was LHR-PHX-LHR then the quotient can only be 50%. My argument would be that 50% can only be applied to the whole ticket price, not 100% of a particular fare basis entirely of BA's choosing. If that was supposed to be true then the Mennens judgement would have been written very differently.

In which case your start point is £2587,
then minus the APD for WT going out £75
minus £20 credit card (actually this is arguable, but let's give IB/Expedia this)
minus £41 departure fee
minus £3, £5, £4, £13, £13, £4, £3 in smaller taxes
Total deductions: £182 rounded up.
Fare only £2405 resultant (£2587-182)
Divide by 50% assuming a LHR-PHX-LHR ticket
£1203 x 0.75 = £902
Subtract £75 first awarded
Subtract CEDR (if BA have paid) £461

Total amount of new claim £365 (rounded down). This figure has to be adjusted upwards if BA have not paid you CEDR, and upwards if the £20 was excluded from £2587.

You should also claim your seat refund fee if you have not done so already, via the online form for this - this would be totally separate from EC261.

Basis of the claim: (a) CEDR did not apply Mennens v Emirates and (b) BA do not know the fare basis and have made assumptions that you, the customer, are unable to test or check (admittedly thanks to Expedia). They have therefore elected the lowest possible refund, contrary to the letter and spirit of the opening words to EC261 "Action by the Community in the field of air transport should aim, among other things, at ensuring a high level
of protection for passengers".

One way you can handle this is to submit MCOL primarily on the basis of Mennens, but add the rider at the end of the claim, "if the above argument does not find the favour of the Court, the second basis of this claim is for the refund of 75% of the air carrier surcharge since this is merely an element of the air ticket cost, entirely at the airline's choosing, and therefore subject to the same remedies as the core ticket price.

I should point out that I am not a lawyer.

If you go this MCOL route then you can't do it half heartedly, you have to do the homework, drill down in the details, and be prepared to turn up in court, even though on the face of it, it could not be economic for BA to turn up in court for £365.

Final point, though it's obvious. This does illustrate the vulnerability of downgrades on OTA tickets: the OTA is responsible for the fare difference refund (e.g. if EC261 did not apply at all), which in the case Expedia would claim from Iberia, who in turn would look to BA to do the calculation. The combination of Expedia, IB and BA is almost unbeatable in terms of being kicked into the long grass.