Lgwfan

This morning's Daily Mail, carries a nonsense article with the headline :

" Father of three wins legal fight against British Airways as the airline puts back date for ending free food and drink on short Haul Flights "

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...h-Airways.html

corporate-wage-slave

So to summarise: A family group of eight, flying LCY to PMI in August, have taken MCOL action against BA for the switch to BOB which was announced after buying their tickets. They were pursuing £318, based on the BOB menu, on a £2,000 EuroTraveller ticket spend, for the loss of refreshments, after BA offered £40 instead (which some FTers were offered when they complained). From what I make out, the action was terminated when BA told either the passengers or the court that LCY will now not be going BOB in August, the switch will happen in September or October.

The Mail is suggesting - with some prevarication - that this delay is due to the court case, which for £318 on a large group is highly unlikely in my view. Even if there were a lot of MCOL cases this wouldn't stop the rollout, and there won't be a flood of them. My understanding was that Tourvest have to modify the offering for Embraers and their staffing, including hardware and software changes, and they won't be ready until after the summer.

Incidentally, the £20 figure per flight (and this is one of LCY's longest flights) is interesting for anyone else who booked LHR/LGW services before the announcement about BOB - they are still at liberty to pursue this.

It is useful to learn that LCY will have a longer period on the legacy offering.

:D!

I didn't think you could take someone to court if you hadn't actually lost anything yet.

Does this mean they have wasted their MCOL fee of £35? I presume they won't get the £40 compensation from BA now that they will actually be getting what was advertised.

£2.50 per pax won't get you much...

Dan72

Agree. The whole story, ie that the legal claim prompted BA to delay the rollout, seems to hang on the chap saying:

‘I suspect the only reason they changed the cut-off date is because they did not want to go through a court case and open the door to lots of other claims.'

The cynic in me suspects that this quote was ventriloquised by the journalist to create a story.

I see that the article includes a picture of a widebody plane. I know this prompts much guffawing in these quarters. Must say I don't see the issue myself. If it was story about Marks & Spencer or RBS, I can't see people getting excited if they used a picture of another branch to illustrate the story.

corporate-wage-slave

I can see how they could claim at this point: BA made an offer of £2.50, which the passengers rejected, made a counter claim and then escalated to MCOL. It's possible that BA's defence would include the fact that the loss hasn't yet materialised. I suspect, however, that BA rejected the letter before action (or didn't reply), MCOL started on the expectation of BOB, but BA then filed the defence that BOB was delayed. The passengers would have had online evidence that BOB was coming, until that happened. Depending how it was done the passengers may have lost their court fee, or BA may have offered to stop the action in return for paying the court fee, since partial settlements are allowed with MCOL.

paul4040

Imagine taking legal action over some mediocre sandwiches and a GnT. Pathetic.

rapidex

Young rapidex will be pleased.He is on the lunchtime LCY-IBZ on his 18th birthday in june along with some friends post "A"levels.Should be a good party flight.

Quarky Quark

I applaud them. It's a cliche but so for a reason - it's about the principle. You can't just go and change the offering of what people have purchased and expect that this is ok. It's not.

It's no different in concept than if BA said selling class J was now economy seating, and all flights from x date would be altered accordingly. Except BA came up with mealy-mouthed nonsense about how food was 'complimentary', which was widely derided here at the time,

I've no problem with them altering service standards, as long as it's done in a fair and transparent manner, so an informed choice can be made.

IAMORGAN

I agree. You sometimes have to stand up for what is right. It's important to be a thorn in the side from time to time. Large companies do take reputational protection seriously and litigation like this, even where unsuccessful / speculative does have a nuisance value. Good PR and customer relations can reduce the incidence of such claims. BA take a commercial decision on that type of policy.

simons1

Indeed, where would you draw the line. Clearly some passengers have bought tickets in the expectation of catering being provided as part of the ticket.

Companies always try it on in the expectation that most of the time they will get away with it. Exactly the same reason BA deny EC261 claims, they hope people will put up with it.

subject2load

Indeed.

And I would say that such unpleasant tactics by BA are reflective of a deeper malaise within the airline, one which now characterises virtually every aspect of its current-day management culture.

Almost on a weekly basis we see reports of aggrieved passengers seeking perfectly legitimate redress for all manner of service failures, only to be met by a paltry offer (if any at all) ; which is then often adjusted when legal action is threatened or taken.

The most recent example was detailed by new FT-er gastroinn who received a dramatically increased offer from BA - BUT only after going down the CEDR route.

On reporting the increased settlement here on the BA forum, gastroinn commented :

"CEDR worked well and easier than County Court process. Why does BA have to be threatened before they do the right thing..??"

This brought the following succinct (and very accurate) response from fellow FT-er louie-m :

"Because they lost their moral compass a long time ago"

It genuinely saddens me that this is we have come to expect from the national carrier of my home country.

Raffles

If it hadn't been for Mr Huzar pursuing Jet2 for not paying EU261, most FTer claims would be struck out because there was some technical issue involved.

(The court sided with Huzar and said that mechanical issues could not be an excuse for non payment.)

Jet2 and the rest of the U.K. aviation industry must rue the day they refused to settle that out of court.

trains

I have great respect for them. If they had booked a flight on the expectation that they would receive a free snack and a drink, then that's what they should get. I'm not sure I could ever call someone pathetic because they pursued the matter, any more than I'd want to be abusive about someone who decided it wasn't an important matter to them.

Purim

Generally, I would agree. But in light of some of BA's pathetic customer service behavior, one can see why this stuff happens.

tgsh2006

An anticipatory breach of contract can give rise to a cause of action.