Exec_Plat

DN-

Can we agree that the OP did have the leverage here...

but let AA off the hook by [it seems like] agreeing to the voluntary downgrade?

RogerD408

If the airline has a tough enough time following the rules when the customer requests, how can they be expected to follow the rules when the customer doesn't want to follow them?

I can see where the OP was interested in making a change in cabin to facilitate getting where they want to be. That's often the first suggestion when there are IRROPS to find what you want and ask for it.

Dave Noble

That would not be my 1st suggestion where there is significant mandatory compensation that is due otherwise. In this situation I would use the full force of the legislation before throwing my rights away

If he has paid 62.5k and has been downgraded from that which he purchased, it is possible that he still may be in position for proper compensation I would suspect.

In the US , consumer protection on flights is a lot worse and what he did may have been perfectly reasonable approach, but even if he has snookered himself out of compensation in this case, would be a useful recommendation for anyone else that suffers a downgrade ex EU to take advantage of the legislation and not let the airline screw them over

MDTyKe

There was no "voluntary downgrade" per se.. As I explained, the flight simply wasn't a 3-class flight anymore. Technically they gave me back more miles than they should have, so Im not complaining too much.

Rather than being on F from LHR-JFK-LAX, Im on J all the way.

As I mentioned, I had already wasted 3-4 hours on the phone, either on hold, attempting to call, or getting transferred all over the place with AA. I was glad to finally get something. I am bummed about being in J on JFK-LAX, as I do prefer to fly transcon F, but the agent told me that if she kept me in F on that leg, the system wouldn't authorize the mileage reinstatement/refund.

Dave Noble

You wouldn't have needed the system to authorize a refund, you would have just put in an EC261 claim in. Unless the airline game you > 75% of miles and > 75% of cash componant back, you didn't get back more than you should have done

If you have now voluntarily rebooked the itinerary and reticketed in the new lower cabin , then may be hard to progress a claim. If you had just stayed in 1st class on the domestic leg , you would still have been ok methunks

T/BE20/G

From the first post in this thread (emphasis added). . .

Whether OP preferred F or J on the original flight at the time of booking, he now prefers J on that flight to F on an alternate routing. If he prefers to travel in J than to travel on a routing that still offers F, it would seem wrong for the airline to be penalized. Your reasoning would seem to put the airline in a position to require the OP to fly an alternate routing in F, rather than his preferred downgrade to J, to avoid EC261 compensation... At that point, nobody benefits!

Dave Noble

It only reads to me that he prefers to fly business class on that flight rather than travel on another flight - not that the OP actually does not want to travel in 1st class

Sorry - That seems to me to be about as precise a defintiion of a downgrade that there is - travelling on the same flight as booked but being forced to travel in a lower cabin.

The airline CHOSE to cease to offer 1st class on that flight. Why on earth should someone who has purchased a 1st class ticket on that flight be penalised if the airline finds it better to stop offering 1st class

The passenger did not need J saver award opened - the airline had the obligation to transport the passenger since the passenger was ticketed

The airline made a commercial decision to take action that impacted customers - EC261 was brought in specifically to deal with airlines negatively impacting passengers for their own commercial benefit

There is nothing that would require the OP to travel on another flight.

Unlike the USA where the airlines are allowed to get away with garbage like claiming a ticket was not a 1st class ticket but an economy ticket with an upgrade, flights covered by EC261 have a very simple and clearly defined regulation on the penalty applicable should an airline downgrade a passenger on a sector

T/BE20/G

Perhaps my understanding of EC261 is wrong so feel free to correct this line of thinking, but...

Is it the case that a schedule change many months in advance like this would not require compensation under EC261?

If that is true, and if, the airline would have to pay compensation as you posit in the event of a passenger choosing to downgrade rather than reschedule to a flight with F in an event such as this, then wouldn't the incentive be for the airline to require the passenger to fly on a different flight with F, therefore constituting a schedule change in advance, which would not be covered, rather than a downgrade?

If a schedule change this far out would also require compensation, then I stand corrected.

Dave Noble

If a flight is cancelled and > 2 weeks notice is given - no compensation is due

In this case there was no cancellation of the flight - just that the flight has 2 cabins rather than 3

The passenger was booked on the flight in the cabin no longer being offered

In this situation, the airline is still obligated to the passenger for transportation and for compensation

There is no 2 week get-out for compensation other than for cancellations. requiring a passenger in 1st class to travel in a lower cabin due to removing 1st class is about as clear a case of a downgrade as it is possible to get

The airline cannot involuntarily deny boarding to the passenger and force him to take another flight

warakorn

Yes, your understanding of EC261/2004 is wrong. The 14 day rule does not apply here.

LHR-JFK is covered by EC261/2004. AA is obliged to refund 75% of the total ticket costs if the passenger is downgraded.
Moreover, the passenger is free to request an F-seat on another airline.

Erasmus

If this is truly the correct interpretation, then it seems AA should just cancel the flight, and then schedule another one at the same time to avoid this stupid loophole in the regulation.

There is ample (> 2 weeks) notification of this change. Yes, the OP should be accommodated, but no compensation seems due if he either elects to travel in F on another routing of his choice, or voluntarily downgrade to J to stay on his selected routing and receives a refund for the fare difference.

FTers never cease to amaze me in their quest for "compensation" when no harm has occurred.

T/BE20/G

I agree completely. This would really cross the line from "consumer protection" to "impeding business". It's one thing to protect customers from abuse by the big bad airlines, but it's another thing altogether to penalize airlines for making prudent business decisions with ample notice to customers.

Dave Noble

No it doesn't. The airline is not forced to sell someone tickets in 1st class but once the airline does make a commercial choice that it wants to not operate 1st class, then it needs to take into account that it will need to compensate those that will be impacted


There is no good reason that a customer should be impacted by the airline choosing to try and make larger profits by not offering the service that the person has already paid for

it doesn't matter whether there is > 2 weeks notification or not, the airline cannot unilaterally decide to not provide the paid for service without coughing up compensation for doing so

Erasmus

Actually, it can. As you point out, the airline is free to cancel the entire damn flight if it wants to as long as it provides sufficient notice. That it cannot similarly remove a cabin seems absurd. If this reading is correct (which I am not entirely sure it is), it sure sounds like a loophole to me, and if I were running AA, I would just cancel the flight, and then immediately schedule a replacement with the two cabins to avoid this nonsense.

Dave Noble

It is not a loophole - why on earth would it be?

If it tried such actions, then can be pretty sure that the ECJ would simply rule against it as it has with other previous attempts by airlines to circumvent the legislation

I find it bizarre that some people think it is fine for an airline to just downgrade a passenger and not be liable for its actions.

If the airline wants to change its operations planned in advance it may be able to do it with only a few passengers impacted - but the impact caused on these passengers needs to be considered and allowed for if choosing to make changes and be held accountable for its actions

Regardless, AA has not cancelled the flight and the legislation is remarkably clear on passengers' entitlements when downgraded