Originally Posted by ScienceTeacher

I really do not follow this "but it was a minimum connection time ticket" so BA are to blame. Yes it was, and, yes they are. But it does not change the fact the OP was travelling halfway across the world without any clue about what to do if things go wrong, after conceding the connection was risky enough as it was.

As a matter of point; it is not unreasonable to to take precautions if things go wrong. Travel Insurance in case of delay? Home Insurance for flooding? Health Insurance for cancer? Mortgage Insurance for unemployment? All of these exist because things, occasionally, do not go to plan and the OP would have been better placed preparing for this than exclaiming BA were racist for not booking him into a hotel.



Looking up hotel booking sites for the transit point. Looking up data plans for the transit point. Knowing when the next flight was, which - since it was next day - checking alternative routes once in Heathrow.



None. They should have been aware of what to do if things go wrong. Rocking up at Heathrow on a risky connection and expecting the airline to fix it there and then is unreasonable with everything going on. Then paying USD 700 for a hotel when cheaper were both available and closer is ridiculous.



Agreed, and I do respect your view! But, the bolding is mine; OP was wrong on this front and is now claiming to be out of pocket. What about their travel insurance? Did they not have any? Why when I - and others - looked for hotels did we see them available - both closer and cheaper?



I fully agree and frankly 65 minutes - whilst legal on BA's point of view - its madness in today's climate. I believe the OP has a valid claim with BA on this; he was ultimately sold a ticket that half little chance of acting out as planned, but, having no sense of how to solve a problem should one arise - likely in 2022 - is on the OP.