DYKWIA

Your normal argument is that the passenger is just buying a ticket from A to B. Why should BA pay any anything, as they are still getting the passenger to the destination?

Andriyko

I think it does matter for the purposes of compensation (which I believe is not due in this case).

You can't expect an airline to operate a loss-making route or cabin, can you? All companies withdraw certain products or services from the market, why should airlines be any different? I believe you can give a very short notice to your employer and stop working for them for commercial or other reasons, right?

I do believe that passengers need protection in the event of a cancellation regardless how far in advance they are advised of one. However, I am not utterly concerned about withdrawal of a cabin. What's worse is when a flight is canceled and passengers are offered full refund and asked to buy a new ticket (which can be much more expensive).

I agree that it's very funny, however, I fail to see where I made that argument... You quoted my post where I said that the passenger was due the difference in fare but went on saying that I put forward an argument that BA did not owe the passenger anything... Talk about putting words into someone else's mouth. But I am very happy you liked your joke^

simpletastes

Happy to discuss calmly.

My employment contract does not contain and end date but an airline ticket has a specific date where service is provided. If I am contracted to work for X number of years then yes would not be able to exit without a huge penalty.

My argument is that the compensation shouldn't differ as the effect to the passenger is the same regardless of what the airline does or chooses to call it when these changes are made for commercial (exclusive weather etc) reasons.

And in fact whilst I care about many things the profitability of an airline is not one of them. I expect them to fulfil their end of the contract which is to transport me in the cabin I paid for. They can buy me out of my ticket just like when airlines overlook but it should be at the price where both parties agree.

Before someone tells me that fliers who book non refundabke tickets know that it is one way: that airlines can cancel providing a refund but not compensation and this is priced in the fare like a financial option, I'd argue no traveller is trying to engage in financial derivatives engineering when they buy an airline ticket and so regulation is called for. I'm saying this as someone who believes in free markets.

orbitmic

I totally agree with NickB here. The wording of the downgrade part of the regulation is very straightforward and the OP is, in my view fully covered by it. His point about the duty of information is also crucial.

In my view, the argument made elsewhere in the thread that the OP is due difference in fare does not hold water. Either one wishes to make the (in my view untenable) argument that the new contract invalidated the old one, in which case the OP is due nothing at all, or that the regulatory protection pertaining to the original itinerary remains applicable in which case downgrade compensation based on a proportion of the original fare is due. Either way, the difference in fare, which BA dishonestly refers to over and again in such cases is neither here nor there and I think anyone offered that would have a very strong legal l eg to stand on.

Andriyko

There is a difference when a downgrade happens on the day because the airline oversold the flight but the cabin still exists, and when the airline stops offering the product from a future date. Being notified in advance that the airline will not be able to deliver the product leaves room to negotiate an alternative, where a downgrade on the day often does not (unless you wait a day or two for a flight in the booked cabin). Quite why any compensation should be given when a product is withdrawn in advance is something I personally don't understand. Of course, anyone is free to pursue anything they want and there are legal avenues available to them to do that. Of course, one can also negotiate with an airline in advance what compensation will be paid if the route is stopped or a cabin is withdrawn, and see what quote the airline will provide for that.

What strikes me as bizarre is that when a flight is canceled more than 2 weeks in advance a passenger is not due any compensation, but when a cabin is withdrawn a passenger expects compensation even though they can still reach their destination albeit in a different cabin (and with a refund of the difference). I'd be more worried about not being able to get to my destination at all or having to pay twice/three times the price of the original ticket. It would seem strange that the law would seek to compensate those who suffered a lesser injury (flying in a different cabin) rather than those who may potentially suffer a substantial loss (where one needs to buy a new ticket).

orbitmic

Makes a difference from what point of view? From the point of view of the passenger and how he/she is able to react, absolutely, but from the point of view of the regulation, it doesn't. It is important to differentiate between the two: in terms of reactions, sympathy, etc we can discuss things ad libitum and all have opinions, but the legal situation is clear.

Again, if your point is a 'moral' one then sure, maybe it's bizarre, etc. But from a legal point of view, that is just what the regulation says. The passenger does not really 'expect' something different, they are just entitled to something different. From that point of view, note that with the downgrade, the passenger is only entitled to the compensation. By contrast, the early cancellation, whilst it does not entitle the passenger to financial compensation, entitles them to many other things, including the full refund but also the right to be rerouted on the nearest alternative (which many argue seems to include, in the spirit of the regulation, on other airlines including non-partner ones, in the same travel class), on a large range of other dates, etc. From that point of view, your worry (in bold) is not realistic here: unless we are talking about a route where there genuinely does not exist any alternative, the regulation will enable the passenger to fly to their destination on the nearest schedule and at no extra cost, almost certainly on the most convenient airline (to my knowledge, where passengers have had to fight for that and threaten court proceedings, the airline always gave in or settled).

simpletastes

I'm enjoying this interesting conversation.

By the way, I don't know what the current regulations and conditions of carriage are, so I'm not expressing a view on those; I am merely giving a subjective opinion of what should be the case.

Yes, there is a difference in what the airline does but there is no difference in terms of how the passenger is affected, except the possibility of being able to make alternative arrangements in advance (which may or may not exist and may or may not be more costly). My argument is that it should be irrelevant what the airline does or calls it, as these are all commercial decisions in the end of the day.

Yes, and if the passenger and airline cannot come to an agreement on the alternative or on compensation, then the airline should be obliged to adhere to the terms of service and provide the contracted service, however commercially inconvenient. Wishful thinking, I know.


I'm not sure if I agree that people can just break contracts that they agreed upon in advance for provision of services in the future when it becomes inconvenient to do so, even with advanced notice. For example, if airlines buy planes from Boeing for delivery in 2025, do you think Boeing can just decide, say in 2020, 5 years in advance, to cancel the contract and return the original amount paid if they decide to exit the aircraft manufacturing business? The contract will have specified the VERY significant penalties Boeing needs to pay the airline, in addition to returning any sums already paid.

Now, it may be argued that regulations and conditions of carriage permit the airline to cancel services and refund the customer the amount paid and does not then have to pay any further compensation, but I'm arguing that this is not what passengers want (i.e. they want to be rebooked on the same date/time in the same class of service on another airline, for example; they don't want to be refunded and then left to book a new ticket with another airline a probably higher price now), and regulation needs to step in to protect consumer (even at the cost of higher fares) because obviously passengers are too insignificant in size vs airlines to negotiate the terms of the contract (conditions of carriage, etc). Big corporates might negotiate customized contracts with airlines.

Often1

The entire issue of whether the time change is a schedule change or a cancellation is a red herrring and is wholly irrelevant to whether OP is due an EC 261/2004 downgrade refund (not compensation, but refund).

Under the circumstances, OP is due a refund of 75% of the base ticket segment price. That is because he has been downgraded and that is meaningful because BA sells F as a cabin separate from CW. Whether the hot towels in F have a higher thread count than in CW is not the measure of cabin class here.

The schedule change more than 14 days out means that OP is entitled to a refund, rerouting, or rerouting at a later date of his choosing. There is no compensation because of the advance notice.

Thus, OP may ask to be rebooked at a later date in F, but I understand that this is not practically feasible for most travelers.

Thus,

1. Downgrade refund = Yes
2. Cancel / rebook now / rebook later = Yes
3. Compensation for cancellation/change = No

This should be put into a simple, clear & concise request to BA. Ignore the legal flourishes and policy arguments as they are irrelevant. OP may need to pursue this further, but given the 75% of fare paid (not fare difference) this might be a significant amount of money.

simpletastes

Often1, I recognise that may indeed be the case under the regulations or BA policy or conditions of carriage but my subjective view is that a downgrade refund itself is still not good enough because it means airlines can simply downgrade passengers when for some reason they find it no longer economical to provide the class of service they booked. For some travellers (aged travellers, persons of size, persons with disabilities, persons who just had medical treatment, certain downgrades in particular (say business to economy) may mean they cannot fly. Therefore, when a passenger books a business class seat for £4,000, he wants or needs a business class seat, he doesn't want an economy class seat plus £3000; these are not the same. The airline wouldn't permit me to self-downgrade and then refund me £3000 at my choosing, I assume....

simpletastes

The current Ryanair cancellations illustrate why the refund-money-paid method is a raw deal for passengers:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41291483

Andriyko

It seems to be clear to you but I read it differently. The flight is canceled. A full refund is given. An alternative is offered, which happens to be in a different cabin for a lower price. One can either accept the full refund and buy a new cheaper ticket or simply get re-booked automatically and get the difference as a refund. I guess it is this technicality that we disagree about. I treat this as a cancellation where a product no longer exists while you think that it is a downgrade regardless whether the airline actually cancels the flight rather than places the passenger into a lower cabin while the higher one still exists.

And everything you mentioned was/should have been available to the OP because of the cancellation. That it was not offered is the real issue here.

I view the EU mandated compensation as a streamlined method to offer the passenger the difference between what they paid for and what they flew in. When it happens on the day of the flight. It does not leave room for back and forth between the passenger and the airline about what that amount should be. When I was downgraded by AA from LAX to HNL I got a little over USD100 as compensation - had it happened in Europe I would have gotten much more. And, in general, what is the injury when a passenger is notified months in advance that the cabin is withdrawn? If the passenger is not forced to pay for the higher cabin but fly in a lower one I see no injury. I mean, the cabin is not offered anymore, what can you do? Should one be compensated for the withdrawal of a cabin? Or should one be made whole by an offer of a refund?

My question is how do you get the airline to provide the contracted service if the flight is canceled and the cabin is no longer offered on the route? Does an airline have to offer a particular cabin on the route if it sold one ticket for a particular flight? The only way to get the desired effect is to legislate that airlines are not allowed to cancel routes/withdraw cabins after they offered them to the public. I would support that but this is not how things are now.


You make a very good and a fair point about contracts. However, an airline and Boeing would write penalties into the contract. When you buy an airline ticket uniform rules apply, and these uniform rules are rather vague when it comes to the withdrawal of a cabin from a route. If you were to enter into a contract with an airline that would specifically say that should the airline stop offering the cabin you bought the ticket for you'll be entitled to a specific remedy you'll be within your rights to ask for compensation. But this is not a contract you enter into when you buy a ticket. I don't know how much a ticket would cost if you ask for specific remedies to be written into a contract.

simpletastes

Basically, don't cancel it. The airline sold tickets on the flight for an agreed price; they need to suck it up and deliver the service.


Yes, agreed that the situation now may not be ideal, and I suppose I am giving my thoughts on how regulation really needs to step in to help passengers. It is the same thing like when we go and sign a contract with a bank; it is 100 pages, technically we have consented and we willingly agreed to it, but the regulator would still frown on 'unfair' contracts. Consumers individually are not on a level playing field with the airlines. Again, I'm saying this as someone who believes in free markets.

I would be open to something less drastic like they would have to buy back the seats they sold from the passengers at a mutually agreed price. Or they would have to put passengers on a a competing airline in the same date/time/class of service (as close as possible) and still provide compensation.

Often1

You are entitled to your opinion, but it is not the law. To the contrary, the law and the contract which OP agreed to expressly contemplate that OP may not be seated in his ticketed cabin.

Your argument that you could not self-downgrade and expect a refund is dependent on the contract you choose to sign with your air carrier. You most certainly may do this. Just purchase a fully refundable and flexible F ticket and then, if you wish to sit in CW, call BA and ask to have your F ticket cancelled and refunded and a new one issued in CW. Administrative processing aside, you most certainly may have what you want.

You should recognize that but for EC 261/2004, all OP would be entitled to is a refund between what he paid and CW. That might be and often is, a pittance.

Arguing about what you are "open to" is pointless and does nothing to help OP. If you hold a majority of the votes on the EC in your pocket, I withdraw my comment.

simpletastes

Sure, we can agree on that. I have stated so myself: "By the way, I don't know what the current regulations and conditions of carriage are, so I'm not expressing a view on those; I am merely giving a subjective opinion of what should be the case."

That might indeed be the case.

It may not be directly relevant to the OP in this case (and therefore slightly off topic?), but if all we are allowed to talk about is what is the current law and don't make any attempt as citizens to influence things (e.g. complaining loudly or publicly, or arguing that it is unfair in the courts -- there are many cases where courts have torn up unfair or one-sided contracts -- lobbying and influencing future regulations, etc.), then (1) Flyertalk will be a very boring place and (2) by definition there will be no progress in society.

DrFlyerT

Hey FT Guys, OP here. Thanks for your feedback its been a very interesting debate. I have decided to pursue this matter and seek the 70% refund I believe I am entitled to. Not going into the moral reasoning behind this (for fear it will distract from the post) but I have my reasons. One of them being how BA have handled the matter thus far.

Before I pen the letter I would really appreciate if someone could clarify whether BAs actions have been unequivocally incorrect or not. I don’t want to start my formal (potentially litigious) complaint off on incorrect aspersions.

When they ‘cancelled’ my flight (switched equipment) should this have automatically entailed me to rerouting on F? I ask this as they declined my request, even when I put it in writing and spoke with a line manager. It wasn’t as though they simply failed to inform me of my rights under EC but repeatedly denied me when I asked. Which makes me worry I have got the wrong end the stick.

(Also I have found my exact flight in Club Class on sale at *several* hundred pounds less than I paid for my F seat, yet, at one point I was informed by BA over the (recorded) phone that my seat in CW would now be retailing at a higher price then initially paid and therefore NO compensation would be offered at all) Thank goodness I did not just take their word for it.

Any tips on how I should, proceed- very much welcomed and appreciated.

Finally, I promise to inform you on the outcome of this ‘case’ - be it in my favour or not.