GaxxyFlyer

Fair enough, end of the day I didn't disagree with it in the wider sense but it would have been nice to have another glass. Someone in First offered to buy some from the Highlife shop for the cabin but was refused.

No big deal though.

710 77345

Yes, that's clear - but I think this should be a price BA are prepared to pay, considering these are First passengers and the rest of the delay cost is huge. Had the fault been spotted earlier, these passengers would have been drinking duty paid alcohol in the first class lounge for 6 hours instead - it's just a bit cheap.

Often1

Fascinating that the story, as usual, is only half told until someone comes along who does not provide selected facts. The new aircraft was catered, BA and its crew did what could be done and with the sole exception of leaving some who can't manage without a drink for a few hours in the lurch, things went as well as can be expected.

It's not a question of whether BA is prepared to pay the duty and other taxes, it is that BA obtains the duty-free stock from a bonded vendor and warehouse. That stock is not taxed based on a representation that the seals may not be broken until airborne. BA can't simply stuff a new notes in an envelope and send it along to HMG without breaking the agreement which makes the entire system function efficiently and effectively.

In theory, given the length of the delay, BA could have whistled up a restock of the unbonded supply. But, I consider that a very minor issue given the logistics involved in what ocurred. It all seems easy, but is not.

Sounds as though everyone gets their EUR 600 and those who need it, may use those funds to address the alcohol issue.

710 77345

Eh? The two stories are completely consistent, the issue was that the passengers on the ground were told that they could not eat on the new plane due to extended crew rest, and they couldn't drink on the old plane due to BA not paying duty on bonded alcohol. Suggesting otherwise does the OP a major disservice.

With a single F crewmember working, the 'on the ground' warning was completely correct - there's no way they can serve a whole cabin and cook the food. Of course, if everyone goes to sleep and you're looking after only a couple of passengers then things can be cobbled together.

As ever, it's easy to work out what to do with hindsight. But if I ever find myself with a few hours delay and having to eat on the ground, I'm temporarily leaving the plane and picking up some bottles of wine from the lounge for us as it seems BA aren't prepared to bring on a couple of duty paid bottles in these instances.

Nuster

There are 2 issues here: drink on ground and compensation.

There is no doubt that BA fulfilled its legal obligations.But it is a reasonable question in its own right as to whether compensation should relate to the outlay. As it Is there are those who receive 100% of the cost of the flight back and others receiving 10%. A fair question that goes beyond the current legal obligations,I think.

Secondly is the alcohol question. There is no "legal" issue here, just reluctance to pay full duty. It is only illegal if the duty is not paid. Poor show.

Nuster

Presumably they could come up with a system that would allow the electronic notes to be forwarded to HMG? I.e. "If we open the bar we pay X". I have had similar with CX and SQ and nether had an issue finding an envelope to stuff some notes in to their respective tax raising authorities.

simons1

Well I have re-read both the posts from people who were actually there. Neither seems to be saying they were told there would be no catering on the replacement flight. Only that food was served when on the ground so that the crew could take their rest after take off. Surely better that the crew extended their hours rather than cancelling the flight.

If food hadn't been served on the ground then you would have got the moans and groans in reverse so it's a no win really.

I do agree on the alcohol front though. We both know that in life where there is a will there is a way, however I suppose they were also trying to avoid people sat there drinking for hours when they may have needed to move planes at short notice.

Re-reading the OP's complaint again it says:

To my knowledge the mechanical problems and severe delay are already covered by the EC261 payment. If the meal really was ruined by lack of alcohol then that seems a fairly minor issue and I would have thought 10,000 Avios was fair recompense.

Globaliser

Especially (as we now know) as the OP could have had the meal all over again, with alcohol the second time round!

Can I help you

Exactly!

EsherFlyer

That still seems to be a little unclear. With reduced crew not everyone could have, and without being able to serve everyone it seems they were dissuading everyone. It would seem sensible to have a contingency for limited bar to make on-ground meal more enjoyable without having to pay for breaking the seals on everything. I think that would settle the question of whether the expected First experience was substantially delivered.

lordgaino

Really? Who is actually going to eat two dinners back to back!!?

For me it’s just about balancing the tangible v intangible benefits of paying to travel in a premium cabin and how the airline handles that when it goes wrong. I don’t think it unreasonable to expect a drinks service during a SIX hour delay at an airlines home base with the plane sitting at the gate.

Otherwise what’s the point of paying up. Everyone arrives at the destination at the same time after all.

By the way Gaxxyflyer, thanks for the input, I hope you had a great time in Vegas in the end!

corporate-wage-slave

This looks like a case where BA have done almost everything reasonable here, the possible exception being the HMRC clearance (and allowing the aircraft to go tech in the first place). I know we get some daft things out of Customer Relations sometimes, this just isn't one of them.

simons1

I don't get that impression. F is dine on demand, there is always someone attending to the cabin even during rest periods.

Presumably soon you will be claiming that alcohol is the only benefit of travelling F. I am sure there will be many people sat for 6 hours in Y who would have been delighted to have had the room available in F. In any case BA clearly agrees with you as they have offered you 10,000 Avios in recognition.

If it was a choice between missing out on a glass of alcohol while I waited or the crew playing hard ball and you all going to a hotel then I know what I would choose. Of course it's annoying but these things happen unfortunately.

lordgaino

I have twice praised the crew in my previous posts. They were awesome.

Maybe 10k miles is the right price.. asking that question was the entire point of my starting this thread!

Lastly, in terms of soft product, I’m sorry to say that alcohol almost is the only benefit left when travelling in first!

Globaliser

And you got a chunk of Avios to compensate you for the fact that you didn't get a drinks service with the meal that you were served on the ground.

But then, after you were airborne, you could have had another meal with drinks. Or you could then have had the drinks that you would have preferred to have had with your first meal. Or you could have asked to defer another main meal until closer to the end of the flight, so that it would have been a proper dinner after a sufficient interval from your first meal - and you could have had your desired drinks with it - with other food of course available during the flight as and when you wished.

That, I think, is the perspective that we gain from now knowing that the second aircraft was fully catered.