Originally Posted by
corporate-wage-slave
Yes and no. You are absolutely right that it will fuel BA's determination not to re-route on another airline, and also to give short shrift to any cash demand for a replacement ticket on another airline. But from an EC261 perspective ithere is no distinction, and nor should there be, redemption tickets are just another payment vehicle with real money tied into the balance sheets. It's just very difficult to get BA staff to see it in those terms. But if he went to CEDR or MCOL, that aspect wouldn't make a difference, his / her rights are the same. Equally if CEDR/MCOL decline to read EC261 to force rerouting on the other airline - which I suspect would only definitely work if BA refused to reroute at all - then it won't be the redemption factor which will cause that. I have seen no senior judgement that says people have an absolute right to their cabin, to the extent of transferrring to another airline to preserve that.
The Regulation is inspired to protect passengers when flying, but there isn't absolute right to a particular product, instead the Regulatiion provides a reimbursement mechanism for when it is isn't provided. The OP's case is seemingly further weakened by wanting a date change too, since that requires seats to be available and BA will simply say "no seats available" - if moving dates then it's best endeavours as things stand.
Thanks for this. Agreed there should be no distinction between a redemption ticket or a cash ticket which the rules make clear.
I would point to the CAA guidance on EC261. They make clear this is their interpretation only, and of course it is for the courts to interpret ultimately EC261, but it would be good to know why an airline, regulated by the CAA, would seek to not use the guidance. In particular, the CAA states that "where possible, passengers should not be downgraded to transport facilities of a lower class compared with the one on the reservation (in the event of downgrading, the compensation provided for in Article 10 applies)". Now if there were no airlines flying in F at all, then I think a downgrade to J would be reasonable. However when there are comparable airlines offering F, then I think it is not reasonable to downgrade. All flights are now indirect too.
CAA also states "We are aware that some airlines have agreements in place with other airlines that facilitate re-routing and allow passengers to be easily transferred onto other airlines. Such arrangements are welcome in that they can minimise both the cost to airlines of re-routing passengers and the inconvenience experienced by passengers in being re-routed. However, where airlines do not have such arrangements in place, we do not accept that this should be a barrier to re-routing passengers on other airlines."
Ultimately like you say, it is a choice between accepting the downgrade (and claiming afterwards) or going for a rebooked ticket on another airline. It has taken a long time (and issuing of MCOL) to even get to a point where rerouting was even offered.