Globaliser

The fact that the contract with BA expressly excludes any obligation on BA's part to get you to AMS at any particular time.What I was asking was whether you would hold BA responsible for the failure to get you to AMS on time to check-in for a flight with another airline on a separate ticket. BA would equally be the sole reason that you're late for check-in with (say) KLM there.

flieduk

(1) Although, BA/insurance might compensate you for any additionals if that happened?
(2) I was just thinking that but it might raise some eyebrows...

KARFA

May do, but you could try it. It has worked for some. I would suggest a plan B though in case they say no - i.e. left luggage on ground floor near arrivals and enough time to retrieve it and check it after you get back to LHR.

Magic01273

The contract with BA is not "law". Its a contract. And courts can and do disregard contracts all the time.

If BA failed to carry me on time to meet another airline's departure then yes, I probably would feel that BA were responsible for me missing my flight depending on the circumstances. But if you are asking if I'd expect BA to carry me to my final destination? No, I wouldn't - I would expect that carrier to handle it. The same way as I expect the "next" carrier to handle it in the scenario being discussed here. It just happens that the next carrier in this case is BA too.

NickB

That is not correct or rather it is incomplete and, because of that, liable to give a misleading impression of the duties of carrier. The Montreal Convention would apply under which a carrier is liable for delay in transportation (Article 19). The airline cannot dispense itself of the application of the Montreal Convention so that even if the contract purported not to guarantee any arrival time, it would not result in the airline escaping liability for damages resulting from a delay in transportation.

The real issue here is whether the delay is attributable to the airline or not as the carrier is not liable where it can show that "it and its servants and agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for it or them to take such measures"

callum9999

I don't think even that's an issue. BA could easily take measures to avoid the damage - simply let the person skip the LON-AMS-LON flight and get straight onto the long haul.

As luck would have it I can't remember any specifics whatsoever (so anyone can feel free to take this with a large pinch of salt!) but I've read about numerous consumer cases in the small court where people have won despite a clause in the contract backing up the relevant companies. While people claim that judges simply follow the law, there seems to be far more discretion in the small claims court, with the judge seemingly able to put emphasis on what a fair outcome would be. Presumably allowable as BA ticket rules aren't the law - courts strike out "unfair" contract conditions all the time.

Not that it's guaranteed of course. Though as someone else said, I've yet to see a single post on this board by someone who was denied free transfers etc. due to a BA misconnect caused by a BA delay, same ticket or not. Often1 has seen these threads though so maybe they can find them?

h15t0r1an

My observation in similar cases to magic01273 has been that judges in lower courts and tribunals do try to do what is fair and reasonable. But the law must provide the ability for them to do that. I saw a case that was heard before mine fail spectacularly to obtain what was fair and reasonable. The complainant had simply not taken the time to read the text of the regulations that applied and argue accordingly. The judge stated that whilst having the greatest sympathy with the complainant, the information given by the complainant gave him no choice under the law other than to decide against the complainant. Sadly those very same facts could have been presented differently and in a way that would have won the case. But by then it was too late.

Just also to confirm that I've checked in myself and my baggage at LHR at 0600am for longhaul flight, and then proceeded immediately to my flight on another ticket to a meeting in Paris. Returned from Paris later that day after my meeting and took the longhaul flight. IIRC Golds can check in luggage at anytime on the day of the flight?

Globaliser

The meaning and effect of a contract, and the obligations under which it puts the parties, are prescribed by law. If your second sentence is intended to mean that courts do whatever they like, irrespective of what the law says that the contract provides, then dream on.And if the other airline told you that it wasn't interested in why you were late for check-in, you were late and you've now missed your flight, would you take it to court?

It seems to me that your approach is close to saying "It wasn't my fault that I was late, so everyone else must make it right for me." The world doesn't work like that, as I'm sure you'd be the first to acknowledge.Yes, of course - I'm not going to start writing a treatise on an IBB on all the ins and outs. But it is the basic position from which all the other variations (including notably the overlaid statutory EU protection) are based.As I said, I believe that BA has policies in place about this. I've benefited from them myself. That goes a long way to explaining why the issue rarely arises - and, it seems, is even more rarely not resolved satisfactorily - in practice.

irishguy28

I don't see how this would mitigate anything.

If that plane got cancelled (and it could so easily with all the fog at the moment!), then you have cancellations on TWO separate tickets, and a requirement on the second one, anyway, to start from AMS. Meanwhile, in the background, you will be rebooked in any of many other ways [and in ways which do not take into account your need to have two different tickets booked together logically] possibly including a transfer to the direct CX service from AMS!!!

simons1

Just because something is in a BA contract it doesn't make it law. There are such things as unfair contracts, plus of course new legal precedents are continually bing set.

For example I seem to recall some time ago one of the airlines tried to weasel out of paying EU compensation on grounds that the flight was delayed due to a maintenance/safety issue. All the judge did was join the dots - airline delayed the flight due to safety issues, however the airline was responsible for maintaining the equipment, therefore one way or another it was within their control and their problem. Judgement for the plaintiff, compensation payable.

I could see a very similar situation here regardless of the 'contract' or small print. Passenger misses BA flight from AMS due to being unable to check in due to positioning flight on same airline cancelled. BA would have known this from their systems.

Of course the fact that BA invariably mitigates the situation by allowing passenger to join in London indicates they have a policy for dealing with it, in turn this could be treated as custom and practice if they subsequently refused this approach.

KARFA

I would caution anyone on thinking there was such a policy until we actually see one in black & white. Don't assume there is one just because goodwill has been shown on a few occasions in the past.

dera

There was a case in the Finnish small claims court some time ago, when customer had two bookings, one with Finnair one with Norwegian. Finnair inbound was late and he missed the Norwegian flight. The small claims court ordered Finnair to pay for the new ticket. I think this was based on the Montreal Convention clause about being responsible for costs caused by the delay.

Andriyko

AA made its own rule to re-book passengers coming from/onto other OW carriers. That a particular LHR agent thought that it was a OW rule and 'reminded' the QR agent about it does not make it true. The matter of the fact is that it is a purely AA's policy. BA's official policy is to treat even BA-BA separate tickets as separate.


That is all very good but would you take responsibility to advise someone to book travel on separate tickets and not worry for any misconnections because they will be for sure taken care of? I would not. What if these people happen to be the first ones who will be refused re-accommodation because the official policy does not allow it?
I never rely on word-of-mouth when planning my trips as in the event if something goes wrong you can only insist on getting something that was promised to you not something that other people were allowed to have.

shorthauldad

Look at the first post in that thread. I don't read that as being one random agent making up policy on the hoof, I read it as close as dammit to an official statement on OW policy (the reply comes from "VP Membership and Customer Experience") ?

Of course if it is OW policy, it certainly suits many OW airlines - BA included - not to publish it, which is probably why they haven't.

justin_krusty

Hi, this happened to a friend of mine a few years back. He was doing an ex-EU out of ARN to SYD in J. The LHR-ARN-LHR sectors were scheduled for the day before the long haul flight, and due to weather it was canx. It was not a back to back flight unfortunately, so he was going to no show. He went to the service desk and plead his case, the girl had to get a supervisor, but they sorted it out and he was able to start his LHR-SIN the next day with no issues from missing the first segment.

They even asked why he was flying that pattern and he said because it's cheaper - they liked it and thought it was smart!