So is the guidance is possibly referring to situations such as the routine complimentary upgrading of a higher-tier frequent flyer simply because of the higher-tier membership? For example, an EXP who is on a complimentary upgrade list and their upgrade clears, but there is a late commercial sale and the EXP is downgraded back into the cabin they paid for?

If that is right, then it would seem to make obvious sense for that situation to attract no 261/2004 compensation, but for the frequent flyer award ticket which was always a purchased First ticket, even if paid for using Avios, to get 261/2004 compensation if downgraded to Club on the day.

That is exactly how I would interpret and how I would argue the guidance before a court. Avios is a de facto currency, a valid consideration for the sale and supply of goods and services including the purchase of airline tickets.

... which, frankly, is IMO the only sensible interpretation that there can be. I thought that Often1 referred to something else than the Commission Communication as it would not have occurred to me that one could possibly read it to exclude FF awards from the scope of the Reg, contrary to the explicit inclusion of those in the text of the Regulation itself.

The European Central Bank agrees with you (page 15):

Virtual Currency Schemes (from 2012)

which might be a useful citation before a court or regulator.

Indeed, hence my question asking why he thought 261 didn't apply here.

I would say F->J is the easiest of downgrades! (all though it is all in the 'eye/back/buttocks of the beholder')

I agree. The difference between J and F is between a comfortable flight and a more comfortable flight whereas the difference between a J flight and a Y+/Y flight is the difference between a comfortable flight and a markedly more spartan experience.

So? OP got a flight that is obtainable with miles. Are you saying OP can get another flight in the future with Avios? Oh, wait, except there might not be availability.

A flight that is booked with miles is worth more than just the miles. Because there isn't always availability with miles. OP went from using restricted currency to having unrestricted currency, I would argue, and as such should be compensated in unrestricted currency.

Good luck with that! The value of the loss is only relevant to the price paid.

Quite. The claim under reg 261/2004 in case in downgrade is for (partial) refund, i.e. essentially a restitution claim. The "value" of the flight, however defined, is irrelevant to that claim. I have difficulty in following s0ssos's reasoning unless what (s)he is angling at is perhaps a damages claim based on breach of contract rather than a 261/2004 claim? In that case, however, I would have thought that the route to a successful claim would be more arduous.

I would use the analogy of coal. Avios are like lumps of goal. Pretty worthless in and of themselves. Coal you can sell for something, like how you can redeem Avios for 0.01 dollars. However, if you work at it, get some positioning flights, spend hours finding availability, are flexible in your travel plans, you may be able to get some value out of it (like redeeming for a first-class flight). Like how coals can become diamonds, and become worth magnitudes more.

I don't know why people here think getting Avios back is any compensation. It isn't.

Because EU261 states 'reimbursement' for downgrades.

It does not mention compensation. The wording is quite specific.

because entitlement to compensation will not be based on what you, or anybody else, subjectively thinks an avios may or may not be worth but rather on what the law provides. And what the law provides in this instance is that one is entitled to a (partial) refund of the price paid, not what a future flight might cost. If one were to follow your logic that avios are worthless, then one would be entitled to nothing since, having paid for the flight in avios, one would have paid nothing for it. :)

Exactly. It seems there have been a few of these cases recently where emotion appears to have overtaken the legal basis of the claim.

Of course in most sectors of business, disadvanting the customer in the same type of context as F to J on a plane would result in some form of goodwill gesture as well as the appropriate refund. However remember we are talking BA here and they don't do customer service.

+1. Besides the 'avios should be compensated in cash because there may not be availability' is pretty weak Imho if only because if the passenger was on a super cheap cash deal and about to experience F for the first time on, say, that £600 F to Cancun that popped up last year, the cash paid back may not enable them to find a ticket in F either but as it happens it isn't the point.

If the op had pointed out 'isn't it strange that downgrade is the only part of EC261 compensation on award tickets will be paid in miles and not cash unlike delays and cancellation?' I would have had some sympathy but it simply reflects that this is the only part of the compensation schedule where the legislator considered that the prejudice that is being compensated somehow varies with the price of the ticket. One could of course say 'oh but all downgrades are different' but while I agree, I don't think that difference pertains to the original price paid but rather to the nature of the downgrade (F-> J and F->Y are compensated the exact same). One could also say that a fixed price could exceed the ticket price for a pax or look tiny in view of the price paid by another but it's exactly the same for delay and cancellations (in fact that's been the FR argument from the start). However, as mentioned above, the legislator thought of this in terms reimbursement, presumably for the service bought not being fully delivered and therefore more as a way to ascribe a price to the part of the service that is missing than as compensation per se but I may well be wrong.

Either way, regardless of that moot point on one of the singularities of downgrade vs cancellations and delays, the fact is that there is a reg and that reg is very clear about the currency of compensation. When the airline offers a cash voucher on a miles ticket downgrade, you can of course accept it if it feels suitable, but that is by no means their obligation, which is a strict proportion of what was paid in whatever currency it was paid.