Andriyko

Are you sure you were quoting the correct post? I don't know anything about cars but nowhere in my post did I say that an airline can sell you one thing and then deliver something else to you and not pay the difference in price. When a cabin is withdrawn and the flight is canceled, the passenger is due a full refund if they don't want to travel on that flight anymore or the difference in price between the cabin they purchased and the cabin they agreed to be re-booked into. There is no compensation for cancelations that the passenger was advised of more than 2 weeks in advance.

orbitmic

I side with those who interpret the terms of EC261 as entitling the OP to downgrade compensation.

You just can't have it both ways:

- Either BA cancels the flight completely and reinstate a new flight with a new flight number. In that case, they are due to offer refund or rerouting under similar conditions. In my view, this should then include rerouting in the originally booked class of travel on other airlines including non partners, and I'm sure that people will be delighted to be reaccommodated on AF P or LH F.

- Or it is a change of plane which BA is welcome to argue in court constitutes a cancellation for the purposes of EC261. Not only do I think that they would most likely lose their case in Court, but it should then be noted that BA admit that any change of aircraft constitutes a de facto cancellation of their flight which should then entitle any passenger booked on a flight suffering such an aircraft type substitution (including those in booking classes unaffected) the rights of those affected by cancellations such as a penalty free refund for instance. Given that virtually 90% of my short haul flights get some sort of aircraft substitution at one point or another, I look forward to permanent flexibilization of my HBO O class tickets courtesy of BA's nomenclature!

There is no such thing as a "cancellation of a class of travel" in the regulation so if this goes to Court, BA should be careful about the potential enormous cost of a Pyrrhic victory.

In my view, however, the bottom line is simply that BA have consistently behaved dishonestly with customers when it comes to downgrades, typically offering a 'difference in fares' which is neither here nor there, is calculated opaquely and in some likelihood unfairly, and I would urge anyone affected to keep fighting those cases till the end if they have the courage to do so as I think that a case that would ideally be appealed in order to be tried in a Court of sufficient importance to create precedent would be most beneficial to the travelling community almost regardless of its verdict.

corporate-wage-slave

That would also be my understanding too. BA tends to view a withdrawal of a particular cabin (typically First, but in your case WTP) as not giving the right to the 75% (in your case) reimbursement, so long as 2 weeks notice was given. Instead they calculate an "involuntary fare refund". Now as it happens this is often higher than the 75% reimbursement calculation, depending on the precise fares used - and I rather suspect the accuracy of the person doing the calculation since it is a manual process. But I agree the 2 weeks notice is purely for the Article 7 compensation, not the Article 10 reimbursement, which uses very simple language about placing a passenger in a lower cabin, which is what happened to you. However since the Mennens case the Reimbursement calculation, particularly between WT and WTP, is likely to be fairly modest. Full details on that case here, and the main EC261 thread in the Dashboard has further background.

sch7458

Are you sure you understand your own sentence? Can I rephrase it this way: If the new price in lower class, i.e. economy cabin is higher than the purchase price in business / premium economy, then the passenger have to pay the difference after being downgraded, right?

pauldb

Andriyko

What? The refund will be the difference between what the passenger paid and what the seat in the lower class would have cost on the day the original ticket was purchased. The passenger would not be asked to pay more.

sch7458

Are you confused now? Well a side story: When I phoned BA to rebook me on QR-Y, they told me the craziest BS I have ever heard: Due to higher fare in new booking class (QR-Y, booking class: M), I should have paid for the downgrade. However as a gesture of courtesy, they allow me to do booking cancellation free of charge and rebook from "cheap BA-WTP" to "expensive QR-Y".

If I were BA, I would love to have "good clients" like you...

And BTW if I apply your creative logic, all airlines can just make an early cancellation and swap to another all-eco aircraft (e.g. leased from Cebu Pacific) in order to avoid 50% - 75% refund according to EC261.
F,CW, and WTP are not offered anymore - I see no injury if BA still transport them to the destination, right?

itsmeitisss

Andriyko

If you opted for a refund then you would have had to purchase a new ticket at the then current prices. However, if you accepted travelling in the lower cabin then the agent was wrong to ask you to pay more.



There is nothing creative about my thinking. A flight is canceled or a cabin is removed from the route. No compensation is due for cancelation. If you think you were downgraded by all means pursue your case and seek compensation. I know I would not have but we do not have to see things in the same way.

Apparently that is what you believe. I never said that.

sch7458

If you carefully read my post before, you'll understand that seeking compensation due to Paragraph 7 EC261 was never my intention from the beginning.

I think that's what I said in post #60 and I'll post the result in about 2 weeks.

Are you sure? Let me cite what you wrote couple months ago:

sch7458

Well, that's BA. Of course they're trained that way. The agent just did according to customer's guideline. I'd rather cockpunch the person who's responsible for creating the customer's guideline.

Often1

This strikes me as simple and best handled through MCOL. By the clear language of the Regulation, if one holds a ticket in F and BA, for whatever reason and at whatever point in time, rebooks the passenger into a lower class of service, the passenger is entitled to a refund of 75% of the base fare for the segment.

Compensation, on the other hand, looks to: 1. Time prior to flight that notice is given, 2. Presence of an "extraordinary circumstance", and 3. Whether BA is able to get one to one's final ticketed destination (in any class of service) within the time parameters specified.

Don't overthink these matters and do not fall into the trap of letting BA set the narrative.

Andriyko

Yes, I wrote that I saw no injury if the passenger was not forced to pay the price for the higher cabin and yet fly in a lower one (so that the passenger is not forced to accept travel in the lower cabin on the existing ticket without receiving the difference in price back). So, if you have a business class ticket but then the airline withdraws the business class cabin from the route it won't be okay for the airline to just offer a seat in premium economy/economy without issuing a refund of the difference in price.

Again, if you view a situation like is as a straightforward downgrade rather than a cancellation seek whatever compensation you think you are entitled to. I view situations like this differently but we don't need to agree on this.

cupsandsaucers

Pretty shady is BA are trying to say F is the same as J because of their own ticket bucket system. Don't they realise that to 99% of customers have no idea what "fare" they are booked on. Only that they are Economy/Business/First.

Dave Noble

Can you find anything in the regulation that supports that view point? All I can see is a regulation that defines that reimbursement is up to 75% refund , not a fare difference -If an operating air carrier places a passenger in a class lower than that for which the ticket was purchased