Views on compensation offered [problem seat in F]
Sep 1, 2015, 3:52 am
#16
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Programs: BA
Posts: 2,368
(Edited point 1 to account for new posts while I was drafting this originally)
Thanks all for the responses. I think I will write back to BA and see where it gets me.
1) IDB - I wasn't offered a seat in any other class. I was offered a seat on the last service of the day whilst standing at the aircraft (that my wife and son took) door. 10 minutes later, I was offered an F seat on the 21.50 service. No suggestion of a J, W or Y seat at any stage and hence no refusal from me.
2) No vegetarian food in the CCR. The server couldn't care less. She said "We've run out" and then stared at my wife. Nothing else offered. (I didn't think about the CW buffet upstairs)
Thanks again
Thanks all for the responses. I think I will write back to BA and see where it gets me.
1) IDB - I wasn't offered a seat in any other class. I was offered a seat on the last service of the day whilst standing at the aircraft (that my wife and son took) door. 10 minutes later, I was offered an F seat on the 21.50 service. No suggestion of a J, W or Y seat at any stage and hence no refusal from me.
2) No vegetarian food in the CCR. The server couldn't care less. She said "We've run out" and then stared at my wife. Nothing else offered. (I didn't think about the CW buffet upstairs)
Thanks again
Sep 1, 2015, 4:05 am
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK and Southern France
Posts: 18,367
If the flight falls within the scope of the Reg, compensation is always applicable in case of IDB. What can vary is the amount of compensation (i.e. it can be reduced by 50% below a certain delay threshold).
Sep 1, 2015, 4:05 am
#18
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Hague, NL
Programs: GMLFL, Life 2.0 - Mucci Premiere Classe & des Chevaliers Toulousiens
Posts: 22,911
This is all getting rather silly... Please can posters read the messages before replying, or thinking about what they're going to say? I don't mind reading the 1,000 messages you've written in the last 2 months, but it is a waste of everyone's time if we all just reply for the sake of bumping post counts.
(j) "denied boarding" means a refusal to carry passengers on a flight, although they have presented themselves for boarding under the conditions laid down in Article 3(2), except where there are reasonable grounds to deny them boarding, such as reasons of health, safety or security, or inadequate travel documentation;
Further the Captain was unhappy with the position it was in so it was now out of use.
Sep 1, 2015, 4:05 am
#19
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brighton. UK
Programs: BA Gold / VS /IHG Diamond & Ambassador
Posts: 14,203
Sep 1, 2015, 4:23 am
#20
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Posts: 3,500
No, not if boarding was refused because of safety (or a few other reasons) - and as the OP said the Captain wasn't happy with him flying in the wonky seat, presumably as it wasn't safe in the event of an accident, the airline has a decent defence.
Sep 1, 2015, 4:25 am
#21
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Provincie Antwerpen, Vlaanderen, België
Programs: MUCCI Gold
Posts: 2,512
I think you're interpreting it wrongly.
These conditions relate to the *passenger*, and a safety consideration would be where they are reasonable grounds to believe that carrying the passenger would pose a risk to the safe operation of the aircraft.
It does not mean that an airline can weasel out of compensation when they are unable to provide adequate seating.
These conditions relate to the *passenger*, and a safety consideration would be where they are reasonable grounds to believe that carrying the passenger would pose a risk to the safe operation of the aircraft.
It does not mean that an airline can weasel out of compensation when they are unable to provide adequate seating.
Sep 1, 2015, 4:26 am
#22
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Programs: BA
Posts: 2,368
That is what the CSD told me at the aircraft door
Sep 1, 2015, 4:27 am
#23
Moderator, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges, and Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold; Flying Blue Life Platinum; LH Sen.; Hilton Diamond; Kemal Kebabs Prized Customer
Posts: 63,853
That line of argument is going nowhere. This is a technical failure (which may have safety implications) and there's now substantial jurisprudence to say that almost all of these are not covered by that get-out clause. I agree IDB is almost black and white here.
Sep 1, 2015, 11:13 am
#26
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Programs: BA
Posts: 2,368
Sep 1, 2015, 11:33 am
#27
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: scotland/EDI
Programs: BAEC , M&M , VIRGIN FC , FLYING BLUE
Posts: 1,438
a very reasoned explanation of the situation you experienced
taking all circumstances ( in particular the upset and inconvenience of not travelling with your family ) the compensation offered is too low
personally I do not think 40,000 avios to be unreasonable
but a good decision by the captain to not allow the seat to be used
taking all circumstances ( in particular the upset and inconvenience of not travelling with your family ) the compensation offered is too low
personally I do not think 40,000 avios to be unreasonable
but a good decision by the captain to not allow the seat to be used
Sep 1, 2015, 11:36 am
#28
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK and Southern France
Posts: 18,367
That line of argument is going nowhere. This is a technical failure (which may have safety implications) and there's now substantial jurisprudence to say that almost all of these are not covered by that get-out clause. I agree IDB is almost black and white here.
Sep 1, 2015, 2:49 pm
#29
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Posts: 3,500
That line of argument is going nowhere. This is a technical failure (which may have safety implications) and there's now substantial jurisprudence to say that almost all of these are not covered by that get-out clause. I agree IDB is almost black and white here.
To be clear, I'm not (and have not said) that this wasn't a case that entitles the OP to EU compensation, just that there is a decent argument that can be used in the airline's defence.
However, to make sure I don't start sounding like one of the posters on the EU thread who likes to focus on each point without context to the point of absurdity, I shall quietly wait and see if BA does actually try and defend itself or just pays up the necessary cash quickly and easily (as it should do for messing around an F passenger regardless). If you have an example of a case that involves the safety argument though, please do share and I will happily change my mind!
Sep 1, 2015, 3:41 pm
#30
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: MAN and LON
Programs: Mucci, BAEC LT Gold, HH Dia, MR LT Plat, IHG Diamond Amb, Amex Plat
Posts: 13,773
I had 100k points or £500 credit for a F seat which wouldn't fully recline (I had it to about 160-170 degrees) on a LAS-LHR. I took the credit, but I did have to push at the time for more than 50k Avios.