philthegreek

I have to agree. Never had a problem with BA who have paid up without a problem. However, Qatar are terrible.

subject2load

That's good to hear.

If BA have always "paid up without a problem", then I'm sure they'll have no problem or concerns with the proposal put forward by Which ? - given that its sole purpose is to ensure that airlines properly meet their legal obligations in full, and in a timely, honest manner by treating ALL legitimate claims in the way you report that BA have always treated your own.

windowontheAside

I don't understand this type of comment. Are you implying others don't have problems? Or shouldn't have?

I've had claims processed without fuss AND had to push my case repeatedly so I've seen both sides of this. BA certainly should do better to fulfill their legal obligations.

Just because things haven't happened to everyone every time, doesn't mean they don't happen.

MPH1980

No - Which's proposal is very different.

Which's proposal asks that BA goes BEYOND it's legal obligations and pays out automatically without someone needing to claim. Nowhere in the regs does it require airlines to do this.

That's the bone of contention here as far as I can see.

V10

Indeed. That said, I seem to remember a figure of only 2% of eligible cases successfully claiming compensation. The scenario that the other 98% don't think it was enough of a problem to warrant claiming it is probably unlikely. It's more likely that a large number of people affected don't know what it is that they are entitled to - and here airlines are at fault as they DO have the obligation to advise passengers of their rights. Some may also be accepting the first refusal they get when they do approach airlines with a claim.

The Which campaign is unfair to BA in that it does single out BA over other airlines that are also engaging in similar practices, however this does to some extent come with the territory when you're a dominant UK carrier. I suppose the Which guys would consider the campaign a success if it results in greater awareness within the general public of what their rights are in these situations and fewer shenanigans on the part of the airlines, rather than resulting in material changes to the existing regulations.

subject2load

@MPH1980 - oh sure, I'm well aware just what the bone of contention is. It revolves around the fact that some (including BA themselves of course !) would be happier to see money that is rightly due to passengers under EC261 provisions retained by the airline. This could happen where passengers might be unaware of their rights and hence fail to lodge a claim.

My own view is that the airlines know who is entitled to compensation and should simply take the initiative themselves to make the appropriate settlement.

As for the matter of Which? 'singling out' BA ..... well, as a consumer organisation it reacts very much to feedback received, and it's perfectly possible that they have received more complaints about BA's handling of EC261 than in respect of other carriers.

Worth remembering also that it was Which? who wrote that open letter to Alex Cruz at the time of the IT debacle, when it felt that the initial reaction by BA staff to the impact on passengers was highly unsatisfactory. In that sense, I suppose they feel that BA 'has form' (as they used to say in The Sweeney ...) and hence is very much in their sights.

MPH1980

OK - so are you going to edit out your previous statement that Which's proposal is only about making BA perform it's legal obligations? Because it's not - and you're agreeing that it's not.

I have no problem with discussions over these kind of points - but I have problems where people make statements that are simply false and don't correct them.

I, personally, do not believe that compensation should be automatic. Taking advantage of your rights is an optional thing and always has been.

Now could BA do a much better job of informing people of their rights? Sure! A small notice by check in saying you might have rights isn't good enough in my book.

TabTraveller

Lets not forget that we are discussing tightening an already onerous regulation still further. In what other industry are liquidated damages payable for what can often amount to little more than a minor inconvenience? Delayed bus journey? Nope. Delayed train? Perhaps a partial refund. Delayed ferry? Nope. Taxi late? No. Consumers already are heavily protected when flying by air versus any other means of transport. For those too lazy to claim compensation, I'm sorrry but they only have themselves to blame. The rest of us shouldn't have to pay more for their incompetence or laziness.

Sharratt4

The other day I travelled by Virgin Trains on a service which arrived late. It was delayed enroute so, in fact, I didn't even clock that we had arrived especially late (as I was just heading home). Within 15 minutes of me arriving at Euston I had an email telling me I was entitled to a partial refund which would be paid automatically back onto my card.

The next day the refund was pending on my credit card.

If virgin trains can do it, I don't see why BA can't.

I accept that BA's operations are complicated, but so are Virgin Train's (with the many different ways that delays can be outside of their direct control). Even if BA only automatically compensated people in 100% black and white circumstances it would probably still see a greater proportion of those entitled to it receiving what they are legally entitled to - as was indeed the case with my rail journey above.

But then, that would require a customer focussed mindset at BA that says "how can we delight customers" rather than "how can we do as little as possible to satisfy them". You'll note I am not holding my breath...

windowontheAside

I got a full refund on my train ticket for a service that ran a few hours late - due to a line closure which was outside their control. And that was the full ticket price, not just the affected leg. It was handled proactively and quickly.

simons1

The reality here is a high proportion of travellers are relatively inexperienced and not aware of their rights when airlines let them down. There is also a clear financial incentive to the airlines to be less than transparent on passenger rights and/or to deny legitimate claims and/or generally game the system by requiring some application process when they already know who was affected.

Yes this applies to all airlines, but this is the BA board and we are discussing implications for BA. And as we all know BA are as good at gaming the system as anyone else. After all it took a complaint from the insurance bodies to stop BA trying to unload part of its liabilities from the recent debacle on the insurers. Plus whilst some people were paid quickly a perusal of the thread shows there were others given inaccurate info by Twitter team or who initially had claims denied when BA tried unsuccessfully to find an 'exceptional' get out (power surge wasn't it?)

The only way this will be addressed is a tightening of legislation even further. In the same way that if airlines had treated customers fairly there would have been no need for EC261 in the first place. So I understand fully where Which is coming from.

In this context I find the comments above about expecting people to employ no win no fee type as to chase claims a bit silly, as is the suggestion that people are too lazy to claim. I know the drill on FT, however stop and pause for a minute and appreciate that this really doesn't help those who are not aware of their rights.

This is not unique to airlines though. I believe for Delay Repay on the railways the train companies automatically receive money from government when there is network disruption but only pay out to specific claims at around 20% of journeys to the point where the rail companies actually benefit.

TabTraveller

This has not been my experience on any other UK train company. I wonder how fast virgin would be if they had to offer €600 compensation plus duty of care rather than simply a ticket refund...

Ldnn1

But with the trains it's strict liability, so whether it's outside Virgin's control is irrelevant - if your train is late, you're entitled to a refund, end of story.

With the airlines it's different for two principal reasons:

- the extraordinary circumstances exception, which applies in a lot of delay events (though obviously fewer than the airlines would like)

- the refund amount can be far greater than the ticket price, whereas with the trains it's limited to the ticket price

windowontheAside

It wasn't Virgin.

Kgmm77

So people who don't claim fall into only two buckets, lazy or incompetent?!

Your expectation therefore is that every traveller has a working knowledge of the Regulations, how they apply and the MCOL procedure in the event it is rejected?

Ridiculous. Just another Flyertalk case of "pull the ladder up behind me" aka "I'm alright Jack".....