Feeling p1ssed at KUL
May 26, 2016, 1:26 am
#61
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
Very poor. Someone has dropped a serious wotsit here.
It always leaves a bad taste when the story you are given doesn't stack up. Although seeing how the aftermath of MH370 was managed locally (advising people of their relatives passing by SMS etc) it doesn't surprise me.
It always leaves a bad taste when the story you are given doesn't stack up. Although seeing how the aftermath of MH370 was managed locally (advising people of their relatives passing by SMS etc) it doesn't surprise me.
May 26, 2016, 1:43 am
#62
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GGL+GfL, ALL Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 30,541
I agree this is a very poor show and would request 75% of the Avios and fees paid back plus you could try some gesture of good will (effectively increasing the Avios refund). Sure it's possible those left in were Prems, ministers, the U.K. Ambassador or whatever but it's not your problem, it's ba's.
May 26, 2016, 2:06 am
#63
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Programs: BA GGL, BA LTG/GFL, Honors Diamond, Accor Platinum, Bonvoy Silver
Posts: 718
A similar situation involving a downgraded redemption occurred to SaraJH and is set out in this thread http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/briti...d-what-do.html. No further updates were provided so maybe a settlement was agreed with an NDA or the dispute is ongoing.
As always, absent litigation BA will argue that they should pay a "fare difference" (wrong - Z class to J will be a negative number. It's possible that there were business redemption seats but a Z to U fare difference is still wrong), "compensation" of an amount (usually anecdotally £500) (still wrong), or "reimbursement" of 75% of something (correct, but BA will say 75% of the cost of the affected sector, whilst EC261 says 75% of the cost of ticket and no airline has allowed binding case law to be created yet to settle that interpretation either way).
The current fees and taxes per person for LHR KUL LHR in F are £508.25 comprised of:
United Kingdom Passenger Service Charge -£41.65
United Kingdom Air Passengers Duty -£146
BA YQ surcharge -£309
Malaysia Passenger Service And Security Charge - £10.90
Malaysia Goods and Services Tax -£0.70
So in total £1,016.50 in fees and charges for the 2 tickets.
For the affected sector it's 2x(£0.70 + £10.90 + £154.50 (being YQ/2 - no basis for that assumption but what BA sticks to, absent litigation)) = £332.20.
There's just as good a reason to say it's £1,016.50 divided by 2 or £508.25 as the fees and taxes are for a return ticket, but no law on that either. One way KUL LHR taxes and fees are £192.30 each so £384.60, but the ticket wasn't sold as 2 1 ways.
As the tickets were award tickets, in addition to the above fees, if a 241 was used the consideration for the tickets was:
238,000 avios off peak return plus 0 avios plus a 241voucher
280,00 avios peak return plus 0 avios plus a 241 voucher.
If no 241 was used the consideration for the tickets was:
476,000 avios off peak return
560,000 avios peak return
So, once you push past the "fare difference" and the "compensation", you are due a "reimbursement" of 75% of £332.20 without any question. If you want to push for 75% of £1,016.50 that will require litigation to be commenced.
Assuming a 241 was used and off peak, you are entitled to 75% of 119,000 avios (ie affected sector) without any question. If you want to push for 75% of 238,000 (ticket) that will require litigation. If in addition you want to push for 75% reimbursement of a 241 voucher either at its equivalent of 119,000 avios (affected sector) or 238,000 (ticket) that will require litigation. In terms of how to "value" a 241 (whether by affected sector or by ticket) there's no binding case law so using a £ value required to purchase the number of miles claimed is the most sensible, as BA can't "reimburse" 75% of half (sector) or 75% of all (ticket) a 241 voucher.
Assuming no 241 used and off peak, you are entitled to 75% of 238,000 avios (ie affected sector) without any question. If you want to push for 75% of 476,000 (ticket) that will require litigation.
After the "fare difference" and "compensation" offers have been headed off, assuming 241 and off peak, BA will likely offer you £249.15 and 89,250 avios.
I would personally not settle for less than £249.15 plus 178,500 avios or their cash equivalent (75% of affected sector cash, affected sector avios and affected sector 241 avios equivalent). If I felt in the mood for some entertainment, I'd push for £762.37 and 357,000 avios or their cash equivalent (75% of ticket cash and 75% of ticket avios and 241 avios equivalent).
Note that the "compensation" offered may exceed the 261 basic 75% "sector" claim so you may wish to take it rather than push for "ticket" reimbursement if you don't want the hassle of litigation.
As always, absent litigation BA will argue that they should pay a "fare difference" (wrong - Z class to J will be a negative number. It's possible that there were business redemption seats but a Z to U fare difference is still wrong), "compensation" of an amount (usually anecdotally £500) (still wrong), or "reimbursement" of 75% of something (correct, but BA will say 75% of the cost of the affected sector, whilst EC261 says 75% of the cost of ticket and no airline has allowed binding case law to be created yet to settle that interpretation either way).
The current fees and taxes per person for LHR KUL LHR in F are £508.25 comprised of:
United Kingdom Passenger Service Charge -£41.65
United Kingdom Air Passengers Duty -£146
BA YQ surcharge -£309
Malaysia Passenger Service And Security Charge - £10.90
Malaysia Goods and Services Tax -£0.70
So in total £1,016.50 in fees and charges for the 2 tickets.
For the affected sector it's 2x(£0.70 + £10.90 + £154.50 (being YQ/2 - no basis for that assumption but what BA sticks to, absent litigation)) = £332.20.
There's just as good a reason to say it's £1,016.50 divided by 2 or £508.25 as the fees and taxes are for a return ticket, but no law on that either. One way KUL LHR taxes and fees are £192.30 each so £384.60, but the ticket wasn't sold as 2 1 ways.
As the tickets were award tickets, in addition to the above fees, if a 241 was used the consideration for the tickets was:
238,000 avios off peak return plus 0 avios plus a 241voucher
280,00 avios peak return plus 0 avios plus a 241 voucher.
If no 241 was used the consideration for the tickets was:
476,000 avios off peak return
560,000 avios peak return
So, once you push past the "fare difference" and the "compensation", you are due a "reimbursement" of 75% of £332.20 without any question. If you want to push for 75% of £1,016.50 that will require litigation to be commenced.
Assuming a 241 was used and off peak, you are entitled to 75% of 119,000 avios (ie affected sector) without any question. If you want to push for 75% of 238,000 (ticket) that will require litigation. If in addition you want to push for 75% reimbursement of a 241 voucher either at its equivalent of 119,000 avios (affected sector) or 238,000 (ticket) that will require litigation. In terms of how to "value" a 241 (whether by affected sector or by ticket) there's no binding case law so using a £ value required to purchase the number of miles claimed is the most sensible, as BA can't "reimburse" 75% of half (sector) or 75% of all (ticket) a 241 voucher.
Assuming no 241 used and off peak, you are entitled to 75% of 238,000 avios (ie affected sector) without any question. If you want to push for 75% of 476,000 (ticket) that will require litigation.
After the "fare difference" and "compensation" offers have been headed off, assuming 241 and off peak, BA will likely offer you £249.15 and 89,250 avios.
I would personally not settle for less than £249.15 plus 178,500 avios or their cash equivalent (75% of affected sector cash, affected sector avios and affected sector 241 avios equivalent). If I felt in the mood for some entertainment, I'd push for £762.37 and 357,000 avios or their cash equivalent (75% of ticket cash and 75% of ticket avios and 241 avios equivalent).
Note that the "compensation" offered may exceed the 261 basic 75% "sector" claim so you may wish to take it rather than push for "ticket" reimbursement if you don't want the hassle of litigation.
Last edited by rjn21; May 26, 2016 at 2:38 am
May 26, 2016, 2:11 am
#64
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Southampton, UK
Programs: BAEC GFL, GGL, Hilton Diamond, EuroBonus Gold for Life, SPG Plat Elite
Posts: 217
KUL being a new destination for BA, I would not be surprised if they simply have not mastered the local culture yet.
I think that all people who this happened to should definitely complain to BA and point out the possible pattern, perhaps by referring to this thread. Normally it takes a customer service department a long time to discover patterns, and until then complaints are seen as 'exceptions'.
I think that all people who this happened to should definitely complain to BA and point out the possible pattern, perhaps by referring to this thread. Normally it takes a customer service department a long time to discover patterns, and until then complaints are seen as 'exceptions'.
This is an important point. The original OP and then the subsequent stories coming from KUL would certainly seem to show a pattern, maybe a small one but we do not know how many others it may have happened to who are not on FT.
Certain people have considerable influence, two weeks ago the BA flight back from Nairobi was delayed to accommodate some UN high dignitary (I know he was UN as his minder had a UN Security badge prominent) and his entourage in F. Would BA hold the plane for a GGL; I very much doubt it. But was it BA or the local BA manager who needed to keep the UN sweet?
I trust whoever is tracking FT for BA takes note and reports what is happening in KUL.
May 26, 2016, 2:14 am
#65
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,417
A similar situation involving a downgraded redemption occurred to SaraJH and is set out in this thread http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/briti...d-what-do.html. No further updates were provided so maybe a settlement was agreed with an NDA or the dispute is ongoing.
As always, absent litigation BA will argue that they should pay a "fare difference" (wrong - Z class to J will be a negative number. It's possible that there were business redemption seats but a Z to U fare difference is still wrong), "compensation" of an amount (usually anecdotally £500) (still wrong), or "reimbursement" of 75% of something (correct, but BA will say 75% of the cost of the affected sector, whilst EC261 says 75% of the cost of ticket and no airline has allowed binding case law to be created yet to settle that interpretation either way).
The current fees and taxes per person for LHR KUL LHR in F are £508.25 comprised of:
United Kingdom Passenger Service Charge -£41.65
United Kingdom Air Passengers Duty -£146
BA YQ surcharge -£309
Malaysia Passenger Service And Security Charge - £10.90
Malaysia Goods and Services Tax -£0.70
So in total £1,016.50 in fees and charges for the 2 tickets.
For the affected sector it's 2x(£0.70 + £10.90 + £154.50 (being YQ/2 - no basis for that assumption but what BA sticks to, absent litigation)) = £332.20.
There's just as good a reason to say it's £1,016.50 divided by 2 or £508.25 as the fees and taxes are for a return ticket, but no law on that either. One way KUL LHR taxes and fees are £192.30 each so £384.60, but the ticket wasn't sold as 2 1 ways.
As the tickets were award tickets, in addition to the above fees, if a 241 was used the consideration for the tickets was:
238,000 avios off peak return plus 0 avios plus a 241voucher
2800,00 avios peak return plus 0 avios plus a 241 voucher.
If no 241 was used the consideration for the tickets was:
476,000 avios off peak return
540,000 avios peak return
So, once you push past the "fare difference" and the "compensation", you are due a "reimbursement" of 75% of £332.20 without any question. If you want to push for 75% of £1,016.50 that will require litigation to be commenced.
Assuming a 241 was used and off peak, you are entitled to 75% of 119,000 avios (ie affected sector) without any question. If you want to push for 75% of 238,000 (ticket) that will require litigation. If in addition you want to push for 75% reimbursement of a 241 voucher either at its equivalent of 119,000 avios (affected sector) or 238,000 (ticket) that will require litigation. In terms of how to "value" a 241 (whether by affected sector or by ticket) there's no binding case law so using a £ value required to purchase the number of miles claimed is the most sensible, as BA can't "reimburse" 75% of half (sector) or 75% of all (ticket) a 241 voucher.
Assuming no 241 used and off peak, you are entitled to 75% of 238,000 avios (ie affected sector) without any question. If you want to push for 75% of 476,000 (ticket) that will require litigation.
After the "fare difference" and "compensation" offers have been headed off, assuming 241 and off peak, BA will likely offer you £249.15 and 89,250 avios.
I would personally not settle for less than £249.15 plus 178,500 avios or their cash equivalent (75% of affected sector cash, affected sector avios and affected sector 241 avios equivalent). If I felt in the mood for some entertainment, I'd push for £762.37 and 357,000 avios or their cash equivalent (75% of ticket cash and 75% of ticket avios and 241 avios equivalent).
Note that the "compensation" offered may exceed the 261 basic 75% "sector" claim so you may wish to take it rather than push for "ticket" reimbursement if you don't want the hassle of litigation.
As always, absent litigation BA will argue that they should pay a "fare difference" (wrong - Z class to J will be a negative number. It's possible that there were business redemption seats but a Z to U fare difference is still wrong), "compensation" of an amount (usually anecdotally £500) (still wrong), or "reimbursement" of 75% of something (correct, but BA will say 75% of the cost of the affected sector, whilst EC261 says 75% of the cost of ticket and no airline has allowed binding case law to be created yet to settle that interpretation either way).
The current fees and taxes per person for LHR KUL LHR in F are £508.25 comprised of:
United Kingdom Passenger Service Charge -£41.65
United Kingdom Air Passengers Duty -£146
BA YQ surcharge -£309
Malaysia Passenger Service And Security Charge - £10.90
Malaysia Goods and Services Tax -£0.70
So in total £1,016.50 in fees and charges for the 2 tickets.
For the affected sector it's 2x(£0.70 + £10.90 + £154.50 (being YQ/2 - no basis for that assumption but what BA sticks to, absent litigation)) = £332.20.
There's just as good a reason to say it's £1,016.50 divided by 2 or £508.25 as the fees and taxes are for a return ticket, but no law on that either. One way KUL LHR taxes and fees are £192.30 each so £384.60, but the ticket wasn't sold as 2 1 ways.
As the tickets were award tickets, in addition to the above fees, if a 241 was used the consideration for the tickets was:
238,000 avios off peak return plus 0 avios plus a 241voucher
2800,00 avios peak return plus 0 avios plus a 241 voucher.
If no 241 was used the consideration for the tickets was:
476,000 avios off peak return
540,000 avios peak return
So, once you push past the "fare difference" and the "compensation", you are due a "reimbursement" of 75% of £332.20 without any question. If you want to push for 75% of £1,016.50 that will require litigation to be commenced.
Assuming a 241 was used and off peak, you are entitled to 75% of 119,000 avios (ie affected sector) without any question. If you want to push for 75% of 238,000 (ticket) that will require litigation. If in addition you want to push for 75% reimbursement of a 241 voucher either at its equivalent of 119,000 avios (affected sector) or 238,000 (ticket) that will require litigation. In terms of how to "value" a 241 (whether by affected sector or by ticket) there's no binding case law so using a £ value required to purchase the number of miles claimed is the most sensible, as BA can't "reimburse" 75% of half (sector) or 75% of all (ticket) a 241 voucher.
Assuming no 241 used and off peak, you are entitled to 75% of 238,000 avios (ie affected sector) without any question. If you want to push for 75% of 476,000 (ticket) that will require litigation.
After the "fare difference" and "compensation" offers have been headed off, assuming 241 and off peak, BA will likely offer you £249.15 and 89,250 avios.
I would personally not settle for less than £249.15 plus 178,500 avios or their cash equivalent (75% of affected sector cash, affected sector avios and affected sector 241 avios equivalent). If I felt in the mood for some entertainment, I'd push for £762.37 and 357,000 avios or their cash equivalent (75% of ticket cash and 75% of ticket avios and 241 avios equivalent).
Note that the "compensation" offered may exceed the 261 basic 75% "sector" claim so you may wish to take it rather than push for "ticket" reimbursement if you don't want the hassle of litigation.
May 26, 2016, 2:25 am
#66
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Programs: BA GGL, BA LTG/GFL, Honors Diamond, Accor Platinum, Bonvoy Silver
Posts: 718
May 26, 2016, 3:00 am
#69
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Europe & Indonesia
Programs: BAEC Gold, LH SEN, EK ex-Gold, IHG Plat
Posts: 11,571
They really need to inject some British culture into the new station and eliminate this sort of corruption ASAP.
May 26, 2016, 3:05 am
#70
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Egham, Surrey, UK
Programs: Mucci Champion des Champions, BAG4L, *A Gold, HH DIA, Hyatt Explorist, Hertz Gold, Avis President
Posts: 3,416
Sorry for the delay am now back at my office in London after a long flight in J. To add a bit of meat to my tale and also to thank BA crew who were wonderful.
The GGL line were adamant that we shouldn't have been bumped but she said that as KUL was a new route the staff may not be familiar with the rules - I said that as a new station they should be very well trained.
The piece of paper we were given at KUL was apparently for compensation but was a piece of paper with tipex all over asking for personal details. My wife is head of cyber crime for a retail bank and she would not give those details to someone she didn't know in a country where data protection laws are less rigorous in the UK.
The crew knew exactly what happened and the CSD (JS) was waiting for us at the door. The BA duty manager had promised us the best Club seats but according to seatguru and from my experience they are the worst as there are next to the lavs so lots of disturbance and lots of noise from the galley. The story that the BA duty manager told the crew put us in a very poor light. When my wife explained what we had encountered JS said she would submit a complaint as well. Her view was we were selected to be bumped because we were a couple on holiday not business people - not sure what difference that makes?
Apparently we were flying the newest 787 - shame seats are already broken! She made sure that all of the crew knew we were to be well treated and even one of the captains came down to apologise. We had First wash bags and First champagne but that doesn't really make it right.
I found the 787 J bed too short for me and also too narrow. The bed was also very hard. I had booked F as I had been in London at 9AM this morning and wanted to sleep which I didn't achieve last night.
My biggest problem is that I don't like being lied to. The duty manager kept changing his story, ignored us when we asked questions and in effect played chicken with us for 1/2 hour by walking away and leaving us.
The GGL lady who was very helpful, but helpless really, promised to raise a complaint. I am not going to wait for BA to come back to me so will compose a suitable complaint when I get home tonight.
The GGL line were adamant that we shouldn't have been bumped but she said that as KUL was a new route the staff may not be familiar with the rules - I said that as a new station they should be very well trained.
The piece of paper we were given at KUL was apparently for compensation but was a piece of paper with tipex all over asking for personal details. My wife is head of cyber crime for a retail bank and she would not give those details to someone she didn't know in a country where data protection laws are less rigorous in the UK.
The crew knew exactly what happened and the CSD (JS) was waiting for us at the door. The BA duty manager had promised us the best Club seats but according to seatguru and from my experience they are the worst as there are next to the lavs so lots of disturbance and lots of noise from the galley. The story that the BA duty manager told the crew put us in a very poor light. When my wife explained what we had encountered JS said she would submit a complaint as well. Her view was we were selected to be bumped because we were a couple on holiday not business people - not sure what difference that makes?
Apparently we were flying the newest 787 - shame seats are already broken! She made sure that all of the crew knew we were to be well treated and even one of the captains came down to apologise. We had First wash bags and First champagne but that doesn't really make it right.
I found the 787 J bed too short for me and also too narrow. The bed was also very hard. I had booked F as I had been in London at 9AM this morning and wanted to sleep which I didn't achieve last night.
My biggest problem is that I don't like being lied to. The duty manager kept changing his story, ignored us when we asked questions and in effect played chicken with us for 1/2 hour by walking away and leaving us.
The GGL lady who was very helpful, but helpless really, promised to raise a complaint. I am not going to wait for BA to come back to me so will compose a suitable complaint when I get home tonight.
May 26, 2016, 3:15 am
#71
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chelsea
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 1,227
May 26, 2016, 3:31 am
#72
Join Date: Aug 2004
Programs: Meh
Posts: 2,598
For reference CX offered to bump me from J to WT+. The compensation offered was fare difference between fully flex J and W, which amounted to just over £4000. I accepted and this was in process when offer was withdrawn later, which was fine with me, as I got what I paid for anyway, but would have happily taken the 4k!
BA are completely in the wrong here, and I hope they make it up to the OP with a couple of F return tickets to be used at their discretion!
BA are completely in the wrong here, and I hope they make it up to the OP with a couple of F return tickets to be used at their discretion!
May 26, 2016, 3:50 am
#73
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 17,007
I agree this is a very poor show and would request 75% of the Avios and fees paid back plus you could try some gesture of good will (effectively increasing the Avios refund). Sure it's possible those left in were Prems, ministers, the U.K. Ambassador or whatever but it's not your problem, it's ba's.
May 26, 2016, 3:52 am
#74
Join Date: Apr 2015
Programs: BA GGL
Posts: 223
This sort of thing is the reason I've finally been broken of my BA habit. A GGL really shouldn't ever hear the word "no" unless they are asking for something far out of the realm of reason. They certainly should not be downgraded under any but the most extreme circumstances, in which case the proactive offer should be a 100% refund plus a large goodwill gesture. BA cannot hype a tier as super-exclusive and then treat members the same as everyone else.
On my latest F trip, concluded last week, I experienced A10, a clumsy and argumentative crew on the outbound, a total scrum at IAD security on the inbound, (almost an hour wait during which I watched two fights almost break out as everyone was herded together regardless of cabin class,) and then a surly gate agent who barked at me for presenting a mobile BP as apparently the system was down and I "should have got a paper one from the lounge." At which point I finally broke down and pulled a semi-DYKWIA replying that his attitude and the service at IAD were unacceptable, and he could board me or retrieve a paper BP for me himself, (which he did.)
Sadly, I was not surprised by any of these things, as they have become par for the course in BA F regardless of status. My complaint to BAEC was answered with a copy/paste apology and no goodwill gesture, (I recall getting 75,000 Avios a couple years back for a very minor gripe about food in F......so even their service recovery department has been clearly "enhanced.") The lack of any gesture was the nail in the coffin, and I've now booked my next three trips in AF P for roughly double what BA would have cost using Avios or GUF's to upgrade a J ticket. Moreover, I think I will be donating the rest of my Avios and GUF's to family, and spending my money where the passenger experience is the airline's driving focus.
Grrr.....I feel so bad for the OP. I would have insisted on being accommodated on another carrier in F.
On my latest F trip, concluded last week, I experienced A10, a clumsy and argumentative crew on the outbound, a total scrum at IAD security on the inbound, (almost an hour wait during which I watched two fights almost break out as everyone was herded together regardless of cabin class,) and then a surly gate agent who barked at me for presenting a mobile BP as apparently the system was down and I "should have got a paper one from the lounge." At which point I finally broke down and pulled a semi-DYKWIA replying that his attitude and the service at IAD were unacceptable, and he could board me or retrieve a paper BP for me himself, (which he did.)
Sadly, I was not surprised by any of these things, as they have become par for the course in BA F regardless of status. My complaint to BAEC was answered with a copy/paste apology and no goodwill gesture, (I recall getting 75,000 Avios a couple years back for a very minor gripe about food in F......so even their service recovery department has been clearly "enhanced.") The lack of any gesture was the nail in the coffin, and I've now booked my next three trips in AF P for roughly double what BA would have cost using Avios or GUF's to upgrade a J ticket. Moreover, I think I will be donating the rest of my Avios and GUF's to family, and spending my money where the passenger experience is the airline's driving focus.
Grrr.....I feel so bad for the OP. I would have insisted on being accommodated on another carrier in F.