Enhanced compensation as First passenger?
#61
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: LCY
Programs: Mucci des Ancients Matelots
Posts: 769
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.
No big deal though.
#62
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Posts: 3,500
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.
#63
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
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.
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.
#64
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Posts: 3,500
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.
#65
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Sin, HKG
Programs: SQ, BA CCR GGL
Posts: 626
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.
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.
#66
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Sin, HKG
Programs: SQ, BA CCR GGL
Posts: 626
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.
In theory, given the length of the delay, BA could have whistled up a restock of the unbonded supply.
#67
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
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.
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.
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:
I requested my EUR600 compensation (granted) and asked for additional compensation as a F passenger given the mechanical problems, the severe delay and in my opinion a real reduction of the quality of the experience. I view First dining as one of the nicest parts of the experience and this was completely ruined by their refusal to serve any booze at all.
#68
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,644
#70
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: SW London
Programs: BAEC Silver; Hilton Diamond;a miscellany of other hotel non-statuses
Posts: 3,607
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.
#71
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6
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!
#72
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: 63,827
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.
#73
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
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.
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.
Otherwise what’s the point of paying up. Everyone arrives at the destination at the same time after all.
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.
#74
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6
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.
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.
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!
#75
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,644
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.
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.