Globaliser

< bangs head against wall and retreats to the relative safety of real work >

HarryHolden68

Going the day before is not an absolute either. I thought I was ok going to Milan the evening before, even returning on the same aircraft the following day. As it transpired, an accident on the M25 meant I arrived at Heathrow with only 50 minutes to spare. Then, thunderstorms over LHR led to many cancellations. Fortunately, although I left 3 hours late, and got to my Milan hotel at 2am, I did make the 7am return back to LHR. Had the evening flight been cancelled, it would have been a real ball ache negotiating the rest of my trip as the OP had.

My advice for going the previous day would be not to travel on the last flight of the day.

Don't get me started on the flight back to Milan at the end of the trip where I had also left a 3 hour gap in Milan for a break only to find that the thunderstorms were still causing delays and the flight from LHR 3 hours after mine (and hence my return) actually left LHR 45 minutes before I did. Although the Purser tried talking to the ground staff in Milan, I still had to catch the bus, go through immigration, back through security, back through passport check and onto the gate. Fortunately, the captain had informed his colleague to wait and having a bus to myself, the door closed behind me.

Back to backs for me from now on.

HarryHolden68

Popcorn at the ready!

Andriyko

So, there is an alliance-wide policy to "through check-in passengers on separate tickets". All OW airlines adhere to that policy. There is nothing in the reply to the effect that it is a OW policy to re-book in the event of a disruption.

NickB

With due respect, Globaliser, when you suggest that there is no obligation on BA to carry you to your destination on time, it seems to me that you are very far from stating "the basic position" and your statement would be just about as accurate as stating that Khartoum is the capital of the USA. There is a very clear obligation on BA to carry you to destination on time under the Montreal Convention and a very clear obligation on BA to make good the damage resulting from its failure to do so unless it can demonstrate that it was out of its control to do anything about it.

The "basic position", as you put it, is exactly the reverse of what you suggest: the basic position is that a carrier is in principle under a duty to carry you to your destination on time.

... and could it be, perish the thought!, that those policies could conceivably be adopted with consideration to the potential legal liability of BA were those policies not in place...

shorthauldad

Err... did you see the penultimate sentence?

"Once a passenger is through-checked, that passenger is provided protection in the event of a flight disruption, even if the passenger has chosen to purchase separate tickets"

Andriyko

Yes, I did... I don't read it as a OW policy (such as the one specifically outlined in the beginning of the answer with regard to through check-in). As I mentioned before, there is nothing in that sentence to suggest that it is a OW policy. AA may think that once a passenger is through checked in he or she is protected but a different OW member may think differently (that through check-in is for convenience of getting the bags tags etc.).

I am not saying that I think that this policy (of not re-booking passengers) makes sense, especially within same alliance, but I would rather rely on something that I know is an official policy and plan accordingly.

shorthauldad

If one writes to OW to ask about their policy, and those are the words they use in their response, one could be forgiven for assuming it is a statement of their policy!

The OP in that thread contacted OW directly, not AA. What's AA got to do with that quote?

On this we agree completely ^

oyster

So in order of risk, what options do people have?

If I leave 2 days I guess it would have to be pretty catastrophic events to get in the way?

Andriyko

It is hard for me to imagine that BA or another OW airline will leave a passenger stranded in the event of a delay/cancellation. This is also unofficially confirmed by agents. The only problem I would have is that when travelling on the same ticket the airline will be required by law to reroute the passenger as soon as possible, while travelling on 2 separate tickets leaves one in the mercy of the airline in terms of a potential waiting time, class of service, etc.

angatol

.....

Blueboys999

That's what I've started doing and we've had some very enjoyable short breaks in European cities we wouldn't otherwise have visited. Had a couple of nights in Dusseldorf earlier this month and was pleasantly surprised by it. Of course, you need to have the time to do it but I find that I'm more ready for the long haul than when I used to do short overnights or same-day connections.

As you say, the likelihood of connection problems is more or less totally eliminated.

Andriyko

The thing is if I am ever in a situation where I have to purchase 2 separate tickets I will rely upon information I receive from those who will eventually provide the service. AA has an official policy of looking after passengers who get misconnected from/to other OW flights. BA has no such policy (at least they neither publish nor advise of it when asked). As much as I believe that someone from OW stated that such a policy existed alliance-wide, I would still be inclined to act on the basis of what BA tells me. And what BA says is that separate tickets are separate contracts and they owe nothing, but they can't imagine (nor can I) that I won't get help. This "we can't imagine that you won't get help" just does not sound like a promise to me. But this may just be the way I am.
It is similar to lounge access when OW says one thing but then the airline says that it is a third party lounge or whatever and access is denied.

angatol

.....

Andriyko

Well, it was not a statement but rather my reading of the answer.
I see 2 policies here - 1) through check-in on separate tickets, 2) treating pax on separate tickets as if they were travelling on a single ticket. The answer does state that there is a policy that passengers should be checked-in through to the destination, however I read the next part as an interpretation of one of the benefits of such a policy (that pax are protected). I admit that someone else may read it differently, but I read it this way.