RoarAhead

I was in a CW seat that could not be reclined on an overnight LHR - HKG flight earlier in the year (brand new A380 too). The CSD said he had put a claim into "the system" on my behalf but I never heard anything. How do I go about pursuing this? Is there an email or web form I can use. I am BA Gold if that makes a difference.

Interestingly, the CSD said the seat had already been out of operation for three days and maintenance knew about it, so that it should not have been sold. Even worse, when going back on exactly the same plane one week later, the seat was still broken, but was at least not sold. Makes you wonder...

fiona

To be honest, if you get a non reclining seat they should reimburse you as if you had had flown in wt+.

Can I help you

So a non reclining seat in CW is the same as a WT plus seat...... I don't think so?

MPH1980

Genuinely ... what'd the difference? You have a seat neighbour and no direct aisle access.

The WTP main meal is the same as CW.

The club kitchen is non existant.

The seat width is similar (a touch wider in club).

The IFE screen size is similar.

You can stech you legs out the same non reclined (or at least I can at 5 foot 10.)

Seriously ... what's the difference?

technical_bob

> To be honest, if you get a non reclining seat they should reimburse you as if you had had flown in wt+.

Completely agree: the lie flat seat is 99% of why anyone pays thousands for CW. I would be appalled if I paid for a CW seat and couldn't lie flat, and a few avios would definitely not satisfy me.

Put differently, broken CW seats simply shouldn't be used, and if that means downgrading pax to WTP then so be it, at least that way I have an entitlement to partial refund. I would rather be in WTP and get some money back then be in a broken CW seat and get a trivial number of avios.

simons1

If it wasn't for the flat bed I suspect there are many people would go WT+ instead.

As other people have said it isn't as if the food, seat width or general ambiance of coffin class are that mind blowing.

To me 10,000 Avios seems poor compensation but YMMV clearly.

Can I help you

I do not disagree that you should not be offered more compensation, but sitting in a CW seat and a WT plus seat is completely different it terms of comfort and also what you receive.

simons1

With respect that isn't really the point.

In many cases people buy CW for a flat bed to sleep. That is the core service BA offers and the customer pays for.

If the customer wants a seated service then the choice is different and the customer may choose a different cabin. If I purchased a flat bed and received a seat, I would be very irritated by the attitude of 'well it's a nice seat so we are only going to give you minimal compensation'.

Things like this that explain just why IAG had to admit last week that satisfaction levels have fallen well below target levels.

Can I help you

As I said I am not arguing about how much compensation you are offered, it should be returned to the orginal amount that we offered, your point around what being seated in CW is valid to you only, others will have their own opinion.

fiona

As has been said , the main reason anyone spends a fortune on CW is for the recline and flat bed. It is appalling that you are offered a paltry sum of miles. They have not given you their product as advertised. Surely it's an involuntary downgrade?

Can I help you

Who says it's for a flatbed, not everyone will choose this product for this reason?

fiona

For people who pay for CW themselves you are right- there is a difference- about a thousand pounds.

HarryKUK

Yet another fascinating read of how polarised the fliers on the BAEC forum are!

If I book CW and get a seat that doesn't lie flat, of course that's a major problem and of course 10,000 Avios is not appropriate. I can't even begin to understand how anyone is trying to justify otherwise.

This current stance from BA shows a total lack of respect for their customers and would also explain why they let it happen - it costs them less in Avios than it would do to fix it! If I was BA I would never fix anything on board ever again: much easier to let things break, have exceptionally long call times if anyone wants to complain, send infuriating stock replies from an office in India if anyone emails and if anyone does have the audacity to complain again, just throw a handful of Avios around when needed - much cheaper than dealing with the problem. Why bother fixing anything at all, when this is the flow chart of how to handle customer complaints?

BA have a great model of how to deal with customer service which works perfectly in their eyes.

Can I help you

Not one person on this thread has said the amount of compensation is justified.

HarryKUK

The amount is moot, the point was about what the process shows about BA and their customer service policy.

In an ideal world BA should be offering a free upgrade to CW on a subsequent flight, maybe even with some Avios on top. In an ideal world they should know which seats are broken and tell the pax at check in so they have a choice, just like VS knew my seat was broken (blocked, required a quick call to someone to find out why) at check in and asked me if I wanted to stay on the flight or move to an alternative (there were several that day).

At least by doing this they can later argue 'well we did ask you if you wanted a broken CW seat, or to move to WT+ with x amount of Avios or to move to a later flight with a CW seat with y amount of Avios and you chose...'

By waiting until the pax are on board to find out what awaits them is not acceptable, but it makes sense from BAs point of view as it limits the passengers options. Who at that stage would ask to be offloaded? Would they even know it was broken until the flight was in the air? They have to like it or lump it, and then BA can argue 'well you did still have a CW seat and meal and service and..'