FlyerTalk Forums - View Single Post - The 2025 BA compensation thread: Your guide to Regulation EC261 / UK261 / APR
Old Jun 18, 2025 | 5:37 am
  #460  
flarmip
10 Countries Visited
100k
50 Countries Visited
5 Years on Site
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: FL390 or the iron way
Programs: For now: BA GGL, SAS EBG, AF Plat & LH SEN
Posts: 3,330
An update on the CEDR case I raised for my relatives, which in the end turned on whether YQ was subject to downgrade reimbursement.

CEDR ruled in their favour, since BA did not provide any evidence that the YQ was the same for both classes of travel. However, they only awarded reimbursement at a 50% pro-rata rate - since the affected portion of the journey was between 1500 and 3499km. That seems slightly stingy since they were not supposed to be changing planes at all - it was booked to be a direct flight, albeit with an intermediate stop (beyond which the flight was cancelled). However overall I'm happy with this outcome, which has not let BA off the hook.

Complaint: The customer claims that they are entitled to a partial reimbursement of the Carrier Imposed Charges, based on the fact that they were downgraded from business to economy class for part of their journey, and that this charge constitutes part of the ticket price under Article 10 of Regulation 261/2004. The customer has requested a reimbursement of £33.90.

Response: The company says that the customer has been sufficiently reimbursed.

Findings: The company has not provided any evidence to show that Carrier Imposed Charges would have been the same had the customer booked a lower cabin class. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the amount of the charge varies depending on the class of ticket purchased. As such, I find that a proportion of the Carrier Imposed Charge is refundable under Article 10, in the same way as any other fare component when a downgrade occurs.

Outcome: The claim succeeds in part. The company is directed to: • Pay the customer £23.57 in accordance with Article 10
BA historically charged the same YQ for both J and F. If they are able to provide evidence of this, this may mean that others making CEDR downgrade claims may face the YQ element being refused.

BA now charges a higher YR for F than J, but the YQ element is still the same. Being cynically minded, I wonder whether this is an attempt to limit any reimbursement claims to the (currently small) YR element...
flarmip is offline