Originally Posted by
Cofyknsult
I am completely stunned that none of you seems to understand the differences between changes made for personal reason or convenience and those made necessary by a crisis, being health, political, natural (volcano, flood, earthquake..) and others.
Let me reverse the example for you, proponents of the change fees remaining in place: If you back BA maintaining these change fees for tickets booked earlier than a certain date but not after that date (when the booking date has nothing to do with the danger's existence), then you must also accept that passengers of BA flights cancelled to China because of the epidemic claim that they are entitled to compensation under EC 261 (*)... IT MAKES NO SENSE
(*) EC 261 still applicable in 2020 (and probably later) in spite of Brexit,
No, the difference between a flight to somewhere where the authorities have advised against travel is different to changing a contract to a destination where the authorities continue to suggest that travel is relatively safe.
as I say, you can have a different view to the public health experts by all means, I personally think they are well aware of the relative risks to travel to countries and have, in my opinion based the advice on the actual risk and not hysteria.
As for EC261/04, yes we are aware that it continues to apply during the transition period and indeed would also continue to apply from all flights from EC countries after brexit is completed. These circumstances are of course likely to be considered extraordinary and outside the control of any airline for the purposes of the directive.
FT can of course be a good place to rant which your welcome to do, but if you need specific advice, there is also a dedicated thread for that so hopefully the community can help you with your particular circumstances.