BA = Pinnacle of pointless communication and annoying spin
Jan 9, 2012, 11:13 am
#61
Join Date: Jan 2010
Programs: BA Gold, Hilton honors Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 203
The organisation I work for also has a lot of commercially sensitive information. If we are asked to divulge this, we simply say no.
Jan 9, 2012, 12:21 pm
#62
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 632
I think it would be helpful to see the original email to BA. Its content or tone may have led the company to respond in the way that it did.
I am not saying that I defend the formulaic response that was given; but if, for example, there was really nothing BA could say to placate the OP, then I can see why someone might simply just decide to take the easy route and send a pre-scripted letter.
I am not saying that I defend the formulaic response that was given; but if, for example, there was really nothing BA could say to placate the OP, then I can see why someone might simply just decide to take the easy route and send a pre-scripted letter.
Jan 9, 2012, 12:25 pm
#63
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SE1, London
Posts: 23,503
Jan 9, 2012, 12:38 pm
#64
Join Date: Dec 2009
Programs: BA GGL, Hilton Diamond, Hertz PC
Posts: 1,314
I have to agree with the OP. A letter that has been escalated for a full response should contain just that. It should not ignore all the points and just contain the standard "thanks for the feedback". This should be the case for anyone enquiring but even more so for a premium customer.
The OP might not like the answers or BA might not be able to answer all the points but they should at least try. To send what is clearly cut and paste text when someone has asked for a detailed response is poor form for any organisation.
The OP might not like the answers or BA might not be able to answer all the points but they should at least try. To send what is clearly cut and paste text when someone has asked for a detailed response is poor form for any organisation.
Jan 9, 2012, 1:19 pm
#65
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 487
Have to agree with this. There's no point in raising your blood pressure unnecessarily.
I know the OP won't believe me (I'm an apologist after all!) but BA have a number of discussion groups who continually listen to customer feedback. Passengers may not always receive information about what decisions are reached in those discussion groups, but I can assure you passengers are very much listened to.
You really do seem extremely unhappy with BA at present and much as we would love for all our customers to stay and be happy, it's an unfortunate fact of life that you can't please all the people all the time. If the new Avios requirements make you so unhappy and angry then perhaps it might be time to move on.
I know the OP won't believe me (I'm an apologist after all!) but BA have a number of discussion groups who continually listen to customer feedback. Passengers may not always receive information about what decisions are reached in those discussion groups, but I can assure you passengers are very much listened to.
You really do seem extremely unhappy with BA at present and much as we would love for all our customers to stay and be happy, it's an unfortunate fact of life that you can't please all the people all the time. If the new Avios requirements make you so unhappy and angry then perhaps it might be time to move on.
This is not the response that one would give for a car dealer that was advertising a BMW, sold you a BMW(at a bulk discount through a middleman), accepted payment for a BMW, but delivered a Kia instead - and when you complained about their communication, its devotees(some with an economic interest in the dealership) told you to forget about it and move on. If this happened, how many people would move on? or would feel that it was reasonable to be told to do so?
If this had happened to me, I'd be on the phone with my UK solicitor asking him to read up on the Misrepresentation Act 1967, and Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson [1991] 2 QB 297. I'd also ask him to read up on cases relevant to Section 12 of the Fraud Act 2006.
"12 Liability of company officers for offences by company
(1)Subsection (2) applies if an offence under this Act is committed by a body corporate.
(2)If the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of
(a)a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or
(b)a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity,he (as well as the body corporate) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(3)If the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (2) applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate."
However, an entity as large as IAG has surely considered these matters? I wonder if the term of the frequent flyer agreement saying program rules can change at any time could properly be regarded as an exclusion clause(meant to limit liability) and therefore subject to the limits of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999?
Jan 9, 2012, 1:24 pm
#66
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Argentina
Posts: 40,233
Jan 9, 2012, 1:28 pm
#67
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: NYC
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 567
Are we really getting this far? We're talking about a rant based on an email that nobody in this thread ever read!
The OP wrote an email to complain about the avios changes (as a few thousands people probably did) and he received a normal reply from the customer services while he wanted a personalized reply regarding his personal thoughts on the changes.
What's the problem? Legal matters??? Come on....
PS By the way I still can't understand how a CCR holder can be bothered by a few thousand miles more or less on some trips... To get a CCR card he must be traveling every week, probably on premium cabins.
Does he really have the time to call, write, re-write to complain about the new mileage chart for long haul reward flights? He must be sitting on quite a few hundred thousands avios anyway...
And if you travel that much you are usually in a social position where a few hundred euros more in taxes or fuel surcharges are not really going to bother your leisure traveling plans...
The OP wrote an email to complain about the avios changes (as a few thousands people probably did) and he received a normal reply from the customer services while he wanted a personalized reply regarding his personal thoughts on the changes.
What's the problem? Legal matters??? Come on....
PS By the way I still can't understand how a CCR holder can be bothered by a few thousand miles more or less on some trips... To get a CCR card he must be traveling every week, probably on premium cabins.
Does he really have the time to call, write, re-write to complain about the new mileage chart for long haul reward flights? He must be sitting on quite a few hundred thousands avios anyway...
And if you travel that much you are usually in a social position where a few hundred euros more in taxes or fuel surcharges are not really going to bother your leisure traveling plans...
Last edited by ale.penazzi; Jan 9, 2012 at 1:33 pm
Jan 9, 2012, 1:28 pm
#68
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Near Edinburgh
Programs: BA Silver
Posts: 9,034
Unless the OP is willing to be more transparent about both sides of the discussion, we're cannot realisticly determine to what extent this is (another) example of bad communication etiquette from BA.
Jan 9, 2012, 1:29 pm
#69
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Programs: BAEC (Gold), Hilton (Gold)
Posts: 4,168
I would disagree with this sentiment.
This is not the response that one would give for a car dealer that was advertising a BMW, sold you a BMW(at a bulk discount through a middleman), accepted payment for a BMW, but delivered a Kia instead - and when you complained about their communication, its devotees(some with an economic interest in the dealership) told you to forget about it and move on. If this happened, how many people would move on? or would feel that it was reasonable to be told to do so?
This is not the response that one would give for a car dealer that was advertising a BMW, sold you a BMW(at a bulk discount through a middleman), accepted payment for a BMW, but delivered a Kia instead - and when you complained about their communication, its devotees(some with an economic interest in the dealership) told you to forget about it and move on. If this happened, how many people would move on? or would feel that it was reasonable to be told to do so?
Your analogy is flawed. If you want to pursue the analogy it's as though you have been sold a BMW which is claimed to do 50mpg. In reality you end up with a BMW that on some routes does 40mpg and on others 60mpg. The BMW itself is still the same vehicle it ever was.
I doubt, under those circumstances, you'd ever get anywhere with any sort of legal argument.
But as you're so certain and so sure of yourself, why don't you start a suit against BA. I'd love to be a party to the result.
BAH
Jan 9, 2012, 1:33 pm
#70
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Argentina
Posts: 40,233
And quite frankly BA seem to have wasted far too many resources on the OP's questions already.
Jan 9, 2012, 1:33 pm
#71
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Near Edinburgh
Programs: BA Silver
Posts: 9,034
I would disagree with this sentiment.
<snip psuedo-legal babble>
However, an entity as large as IAG has surely considered these matters? I wonder if the term of the frequent flyer agreement saying program rules can change at any time could properly be regarded as an exclusion clause(meant to limit liability) and therefore subject to the limits of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999?
<snip psuedo-legal babble>
However, an entity as large as IAG has surely considered these matters? I wonder if the term of the frequent flyer agreement saying program rules can change at any time could properly be regarded as an exclusion clause(meant to limit liability) and therefore subject to the limits of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999?
Jan 9, 2012, 1:37 pm
#72
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 487
It was a Land Rover earlier - at this rate it'll be a Lamborghini being substituted with an old skateboard.
Your analogy is flawed. If you want to pursue the analogy it's as though you have been sold a BMW which is claimed to do 50mpg. In reality you end up with a BMW that on some routes does 40mpg and on others 60mpg. The BMW itself is still the same vehicle it ever was.
I doubt, under those circumstances, you'd ever get anywhere with any sort of legal argument.
But as you're so certain and so sure of yourself, why don't you start a suit against BA. I'd love to be a party to the result.
BAH
Your analogy is flawed. If you want to pursue the analogy it's as though you have been sold a BMW which is claimed to do 50mpg. In reality you end up with a BMW that on some routes does 40mpg and on others 60mpg. The BMW itself is still the same vehicle it ever was.
I doubt, under those circumstances, you'd ever get anywhere with any sort of legal argument.
But as you're so certain and so sure of yourself, why don't you start a suit against BA. I'd love to be a party to the result.
BAH
However, the merit of the changes and the manner in which it was challenged are not the subject of the OP's post. Rather, it is about the way in which BA communicates those changes. On this point, I would say that BA acted poorly and that it's not reasonable to expect someone who has been the victim of misrepresentation(dictionary definition most probably, possibly legal definition as well) to "get over it." It's also assuredly not the OP's "fault" that BA chooses to communicate in the manner in which it does.
Edit: sorry, I forgot the brand of car. The basic idea is being promised one car of higher value, but getting a lower one instead. Also the car dealership analogy came about because Royscot Trust is a prominent case that deals with Misrepresentation, cars and contractual damages.
Last edited by OxonCantab; Jan 9, 2012 at 1:43 pm Reason: Additional Information about Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson
Jan 9, 2012, 1:39 pm
#73
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Argentina
Posts: 40,233
Jan 9, 2012, 1:41 pm
#74
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mostly AUS or rural England
Programs: BAEC redundant Bronze, AAdvantage Lifetime PLT, CO, WN, B6
Posts: 6,526
However, an entity as large as IAG has surely considered these matters? I wonder if the term of the frequent flyer agreement saying program rules can change at any time could properly be regarded as an exclusion clause(meant to limit liability) and therefore subject to the limits of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999?
24.1. British Airways may modify, withdraw, amend or add to any Services or other offers or arrangements or impose any requirements or restrictions relating to the use of Services or Rewards. British Airways will give as much advance notice as practicable of such action to Members.
Jan 9, 2012, 1:42 pm
#75
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: London
Posts: 3,459
If this had happened to me, I'd be on the phone with my UK solicitor asking him to read up on the Misrepresentation Act 1967, and Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson [1991] 2 QB 297. I'd also ask him to read up on cases relevant to Section 12 of the Fraud Act 2006.
"12 Liability of company officers for offences by company
(1)Subsection (2) applies if an offence under this Act is committed by a body corporate.
(2)If the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of
(a)a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or
(b)a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity,he (as well as the body corporate) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(3)If the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (2) applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate."
However, an entity as large as IAG has surely considered these matters? I wonder if the term of the frequent flyer agreement saying program rules can change at any time could properly be regarded as an exclusion clause(meant to limit liability) and therefore subject to the limits of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999?