Daily Mail claims they have pushed back BOB at LCY
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Brighton, England
Programs: BA Silver, VS, Costa Coffee, My Waitrose
Posts: 153
Daily Mail claims they have pushed back BOB at LCY
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
" 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
#2
Moderator, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges, and Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold; Flying Blue Life Platinum; LH Sen.; Hilton Diamond; Kemal Kebabs Prized Customer
Posts: 63,774
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.
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.
#3
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NW London and NW Sydney
Programs: BA Diamond, Hilton Bronze, A3 Diamond, IHG *G
Posts: 6,344
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...
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...
#4
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DEL
Programs: Mucci du Miel d'Or
Posts: 2,374
‘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.
#5
Moderator, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges, and Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold; Flying Blue Life Platinum; LH Sen.; Hilton Diamond; Kemal Kebabs Prized Customer
Posts: 63,774
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.
Last edited by corporate-wage-slave; Apr 29, 2017 at 3:29 am
#8
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: London
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 561
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.
#9
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Programs: BA Blue, IC Spire Ambassador
Posts: 5,227
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.
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.
#10
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
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.
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.
#11
Join Date: Sep 2013
Programs: BAEC Gold, EK Skywards (enhanced Blue !), Oman Air Sindbad Gold
Posts: 6,399
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.
#12
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Programs: BA, VS, HH, IHG, MB, MR
Posts: 26,871
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.
(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.
#13
Join Date: May 2016
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 50
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.
#14
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Pasadena, CA
Programs: BAEC Gold, Hyatt Plat, Amex Plat.
Posts: 651
#15
Join Date: Oct 2006
Programs: Priority Club Platinum, Skywards Gold, BAEC Silver, SAA Voyager
Posts: 245
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...
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...