gordon0808

You should contact the Daily Mail. I'm surprised they haven't picked up this story already.

CKBA

This seems a pathetic amount of compensation - although years ago, I got 10k avios for having to wait 45 minutes to be deplaned.

I would write a strong, matter-of-fact letter to CR stating that their current offer is totally unacceptable given the gravity of your complaint. You shouldn't need to do it, but push and shove! (Years ago BA insisted that one of their flights arrived 3:56 late so would only pay 300 compensation - insisting (correctly) it was over 4:00 I finally got the full 600 - but only until I was blue in the face!). Check websites like Which? which usually has some standard complaint letters/advice.

sxc

They would have if there was a photo to publish.

NWIFlyer

Just when you thought BA really couldn't sink any lower in recognising genuine cases where a very serious and meaningful service recovery is needed, they somehow manage it. They know the cost of everything and the value of nothing and I'm afraid they are, to all intents and purposes, sticking two virtual fingers up at the OP at the end of what seems now to have been a total smoke and mirrors exercise.

I'm absolutely astonished, given how diligently, professionally and patiently the OP has pursued this so far, that they could possibly even consider for one second that they could get away with doing this.

At this stage, I'd be all over the CAA for the safety breach, and in court for the appropriate compensation. I'd want to make BA squirm and have to explain to the regulatory authority as much as I possibly could. Take them down with all the tools at your disposal, OP - never could the outcome be more deserved.

AirNurse

Again, thank you all for following along and offering your advice, wisdom, and support.

The response was certainly crafted using the BA "script" and absolutely 100% does not take any responsibility for what happened -- they don't even acknowledge what my complaint was, though the agent on the phone clarified the issue with me at length.

Given that you all have such a vast amount of knowledge and experience, is there any way that there could possibly NOT be engineering records to support my complaint??? I'm just aghast that BA would treat me this way if there were evidence that supported my claim, which there certainly should be if BA is as rigorous in keeping those records as they should be. Is it appropriate to tell CR that I would very much like to know the detailed results of their investigation?

I don't like operating on the level of making nasty threats, but I would like to politely inform them that I will be drafting a complaint to the CAA, since their own internal investigation seemed to be inadequate.

As for whether or not we would use a voucher, I honestly don't know! We have another UK trip in the works for July, so obviously we would have an opportunity to use a voucher -- I just don't know that I want to take the chance of something of this magnitude happening again, or want to give my business to an airline that has treated us so poorly. Virgin may not have the same prestige as BA, but I've always been provided with a seat cushion

This is the email I received this morning:

wanderingjock

please send a short, factual, email to the CAA here: https://www.caa.co.uk/Our-work/Make-...afety-concern/

It will take some b*lls for them to bend the engineering facts for the CAA questions, so it should prompt some better responses to you.

Please dont give up .

subject2load

Hello again AirNurse, and once more my sympathies are with you for all that you've been through.

Many thanks for posting the final written response sent to you by BA.

Their email leaves no doubt whatever that BA have no wish to a) either acknowledge their primary duty of care to you as a passenger, or b) now to do anything that would remotely compensate for the shameful way in which you have been treated.

The saga of events is quite incredible : from the very first moment of the reaction onboard by the CSD, who could not be bothered to offer even a single word of apology ; followed by the many weeks of prevarication in handling your grievance ; the seemingly-useless involvement of somebody whose BA job title actually includes the word 'Director' (Director ) ; and then the ultimate insult of this letter.

As others have urged, please please do not be fobbed off. You owe it to yourself to secure meaningful redress for the fact that a global airline put you in danger in this way. If such practice is deemed worth no more than 5,000 Avios points, then who can say how many other passengers might in the future be put at similar risk, and then treated just as badly ......?

I'm left wondering whether you, and members of your household, would actually feel safe in stepping onboard another BA aircraft .....?? If you do, then be aware the Avios will of course buy very little indeed in terms of travel (whether with BA or any other permitted carrier). As for non-travel spend within the Avios programme ..... maybe a couple of bottles of average quality wine if that is of interest.

To put the 'gesture of goodwill' into even clearer perspective : I am about to receive 10,000 Avios merely for the act of opening a new investment account with a (British) organisation that has no connection to BA. And there are currently 13,500 Avios on offer to anyone who chooses to take out a subscription with The Economist magazine.

I have been impressed, AirNurse, by your reserves of patience during this prolonged episode (one of the most worrying I have read about here on FT) ; and, in all honesty, I am also somewhat surprised by your tolerance factor !

It's quite possible that an early approach to the media might have yielded a far more effective, more appropriate - and indeed, more timely - resolution ; although, as mentioned by another poster, the (published) media are big fans of accompanying photos.

This shocking episode - and by that I mean not so much the original defect (as serious as it was), but the various delays & hassle that you then subsequently endured, and ultimately in vain - speaks volumes for the culture that now pervades BA and its customer relationship ethic.

Do try to keep us updated if you can ; and the very best of luck with your next course of action, whatever that might be.

corporate-wage-slave

That bit may be at the heart of the problem, in that BA appear to have checked this area, and on their side of the house found no evidence to back up your story, or presumably they would have said more than the note did say. Crew members deal with hundreds of passengers every day and particularly in the rush to get airborne may have not fully registered one passenger with a missing cushion and then forgot about it when asked several weeks later. And of course it could have been unhelpful to their careers if they did have a full recollection of the incident. If the crew member saw the silver metallic base of the seat, then that should have set off an alarm bell to my mind. If they saw something else, or didn't properly look, then I can imagine it getting forgotten.

For the cushion itself, my understanding is that every so often a cleaner or crew member will remove the cushion from the cover as part of the cleaning or tidying process, that's fairly routine and they do go out of shape over time, get damaged or soiled. It is supposed to be replaced immediately from the stocks, but I don't think this would have warranted being logged on its own (though I'm hoping I'll be corrected if I have got that wrong). So when it got to LHR, sans cushion, then there would perhaps be the assumption that it had just been dealt with by another person, replaced and that would be the matter dealt with. Perhaps the seat wasn't used during the previous flight, for example.

So in terms of answering your question, it wouldn't surprise me if the record keeping didn't get anyone very far: it's almost a disposable piece of equipment.

I see three lines for you to take:
- media
- small claims
- regulatory

Regulatory: Now I don't know enough about the FAA / DOT process in the USA to be sure how it works, but my impression is that they are more effective in customer terms than the CAA. From what I know about the CAA, they will doubtless communicate with BA, BA will say "yes we know about the complaint but we've found no evidence internally that backs up her complaint". What can the CAA do then?

Media: every so often that may get a bit of traction, but without photos or some cute angle it boils down to "passenger travelled some time ago on a seat without a cushion, no we don't have a video, and was offered a bit of compensation". BA issue statement saying "we are disappointed by the passengers experience, we offered compensation and we're sorry". I'm not convince it would work, there again one of our FT colleagues recently had the international media camped out on his virtual lawn for lack of a tea bag, so I could be wrong.

Hence I suspect Small Claims may be the way to start, after all if you won there you then have stronger argument certainly on the regulatory side if you wanted to take that further. I should also have mentioned the CEDR process as well: you mentioned you wanted to see the reports, and the way CEDR works is that is probably the fastest way and cheapest way to continue to dialogue with BA, but with a third-party invigilating the process. If you want to do this route, you would need to write back to Customer Relations, say that you are unhappy with the outcome for reasons x, y and z, and ask for a deadlock letter so you can go to CEDR.

I also agree with the subject2load that probably it's time to stop being tolerant with BA, assuming you do want to take the matter further. That's for you to decide, but a bit of firmness / assertion now may be useful.

FlyerTalker39574

Please get the legal process moving by issuing a Notice Before Action asap.

13901

Cabin maintenance is not a cleaners'/crew function, but an Engineering one - I can't for the life of me find the relevant EASA rule, but it's out there somewhere, if anyone can help... I'm not an expert with BA Engineering, but changing seat covers, carpets, curtains and so on it's an Engineering task as they are required to prove that all materials are safety compliant (fire resistant and so on).

This is solely my opinion and experience and not British Airway's position.

corporate-wage-slave

Thanks for that, but do you know what they would log? For example: if a cushion was (say) routinely replaced due to slight damage, what documentation would/should happen? And would it make a difference if an aircraft arrived into LHR without a cushion?

13901

Well c-w-s, bear in mind that my experience is not the one of an Engineer, but of an Ops guy. The experience I have has been gathered prior to joining BA (I'm office based these days) and it was gathered working as a contracted provider to several airlines (I was working for a ground services provider). All these airlines are European, or anyway working under EASA or EASA-like rules.

All cabin furnishings, if damaged, need to be logged in the Tech Log or AML as it's usually called. A seat cover has been vomited upon? Log it. You get the gist. Cabin crew log the defects and the engineers, when they engage the plane, will get a de-brief from the crew - the captain, usually - on what's going on.

The log can be electronic or paper, my experience has been on paper mostly, but it's not that different. When the engineer engages the plane he'll take the log, grab his copy of the defect entry and work it. If he can solve it, he'll then fill in the paperwork and store it, when he can't work it he'll log it as an ADD - if the plane can't fly with that defect, then you've got a problem and lo and behold you're grounded.

From my 'upstairs' view, in 5 years of doing that job I've seen tens and tens of seats going unserviceable. The engineer, especially on short turnaround or at outstations, will work on the most important thing - ensuring the airplane is safe - and hence he'll concentrate on the structure, engine, avionics and command surfaces. In the cabin he'll work on everything that is on the Minimum Equipment List, so seats are always the unwanted sons. I've worked at an outstation, and you always seem to be getting the same planes; the amount of times I've seen the same plane returning with the same unserviceable seat for 2 or 3 rotation is very common. There are airlines where this doesn't happen - JAL, or KAL for instance - but other do. Cabin ADD normally have a pretty long life, so they can last a while.

A case that happened to me which sounds similar to AirNurse's was of a seat that would not recline in Business. Passenger found out on boarding and - rightfully, in my opinion - asked to be offloaded and rebooked, which we had to do. The log didn't say anything, we didn't know the seat was broken, and as the lead Engineer said, "if it ain't in the AML I don't know about it and I ain't got the spares to fix it".

All the above is obviously only my experience. It's not BA's or my previous employer's opinion.

Ldnn1

Thanks for this very informative post 13900.

What I can't quite tell from your above two paragraphs is whether you're saying there must indeed be a log about this cushion.

I think what you're saying is the issue might not have been logged immediately on the turnaround - in fact the plane could've flown for several rotations with the issue unlogged.

However it would eventually have been logged, and that's what would result in its replacement. And therefore there should be a record of said cushion on said aircraft being missing/replaced. Is that correct?

corporate-wage-slave

Thanks very much for that, I think it clarifies many aspects here. My reading of this is that it should have been (a) logged in LAX for the original defect; (b) logged in LHR for arriving missing, and/or for the subsequent trip that aircraft took. Now it's possible, as you indicate, that it didn't happen in LAX (e.g. time pressure but that's poor prioritisation, the aircraft should never have left the gate), but it seems implausible it didn't also happen in LHR as well, at least once.

OP: if this line of argument is important to you, CEDR would be more useful in terms of seeing the information. If it's more about refunding a service you paid for and didn't get, Small Claims in CA seems to me a better approach.

[Incidentally, what it also highlights is that if any of us come across a seat (etc) not working well, it's important to get the cabin crew to get it on to the AML - and we all now know what to ask them to do!]

fransknorge

Personally I would rather pursue the media route, considering the safety implications here, exposure is needed for BA to think a bit more about this incident.