caj2310

DYKWIA

A hypothetical question...

If I had booked a flight in J (£1000) and upgraded using Avios to F (40k avios), what would be due if the flight changed from 4 class to 3 class and I ended up back in J? A one-way single sector to keep it simple...

My assumption would be that I'd be due 75% of the J ticket = £750, plus 75% of the points to upgrade = 30k Avios.

Does that sound reasonable?

Thanks

corporate-wage-slave

In essence yes, however this would be a hypothetical fare without taxes. Assuming there were taxes and fees these need to be taken off the fare before applying the 75%. Carrier surcharges are not removed, so three quarters of that would be also claimable. That would be my reading of the situation - and more details of the calculation are up thread - but I know BA tends to come up with its own calculation, which amounts to all the Avios back instead, and possibly some of the cash. The other factor here is that if it went to MCOL (as opposed to CEDR) the claim can only be in cash and therefore you need to assign a reasonable value to the 30k Avios.

DYKWIA

Thanks! Yes, I'd missed the tax part.

Alex261

I'm a newbie to flyertalk, so this may be the wrong place for posting. (I started a thread elsewhere but come across this one which may be more applicable).

Anyway, I'm looking for advice about a way to proceed. It's a bit of a saga so I apologise up front. Having said that, it may be an interesting/ unusual experience.

BA0547 from FCO to LHR on Weds 18 July 2018. The day of the Fire Evacuation at ATC in LHR, followed by Amadeus IT problems.
We had a connecting flight LHR to ABZ (BA1316). The interval between arrival (LHR) and dev (to ABZ) was one hour and five minutes (tight but do-able).

During the flight, the Captain said we were being diverted to LGW (it would become apparent that this was due to the fire evacuation at LHR's ATC). Soon after he said we were back to landing at LHR.

We landed at LHR and quickly got through passport control at flight connections but our boarding passes would not allow us through the electronic gates.
We were directed back up to zone 3 of LHR Term 5 to BA customer desk. Around this time the computers also died on BA. We were near the front of the queue, which soon turned into hundreds of passengers.

We got a letter from BA, along with verbal advice that BA couldn't help us, but to keep receipts and invoice BA, then had to find our own way regarding transport, accommodation, sustenance, and so on.
We did not have our bags (the bags arrived home on Sat evening), so we got basics at Boots (LHR), got a hotel in London (they were going thick and fast), then got the train into London.
In the morning BA said the earliest we could get transport home was in three days time. This was no use to us (I had work) so we made alternative arrangements (i.e. train to Aberdeen and taxi home).

We believed we were entitled to refunds and compensation, so I went through Resolver.
BA were quick to refund hotel and refreshments, along with cost of missed flight (i.e. LHR to ABZ). They said we were not entitled to cost of travel home as we had made these arrangements off our own bat.

Using Resolver, I went through the process of negotiation with BA for the 8 weeks to no agreement.
They argued extraordinary circumstances for the delay (but in the mean time I made a freedom of information request of the CAA - they informed me that the FCO - LHR plane gates opened at 1630, and the LHR - ABZ closed 1730 - therefore there should have been enough time to make the connection - i.e. one hour). My argument was that the delay caused by the fire evacuation also affected the other flights in the same way, so the extraordinary circumstances did not apply. BA held their stance.

I took the case to CEDR for adjudication. BA soon made an offer to refund our train fare back to Aberdeen, which I rejected, as I believed I was also due compensation according to EC 261 (and more for the lack of support). BA's main argument was that the flight was diverted to LGW, landing there at 1628. They provided logs which they interpreted as such, to the adjudicator. I tried to make the case that I had evidence (e.g. CAA freedom of information letter, receipts at LHR, as well as being there) to show that my arrival was actually at LHR. I expected CEDR to investigate the actual arrival destination and come to the correct conclusion that BA0547 did actually land at LHR. After a further 8 weeks, CEDR have come back to say that BA have proved that the plane landed at LGW, therefore I missed the connection. They have said I am partially successful and offering the same as BA (i.e. train fare home).

So now I'd like to get advice:
Should I accept and leave it at that (in the knowledge that I landed at LHR and BA are getting off the EC261/2004 compensation hook by 'proving' I landed at LGW)?
Should I accept and then try to take the compensation to small claims (Scotland).
Should I reject and then try to get the refund and compensation to small claims.
Was anyone else on the FCO to LHR flight BA0547 that day and missed their connection? Have they fared any better?
[I was with my wife and daughter, along with another couple and their daughter]
Should I go to the press (it should be at least embarrassing to BA that they don't know where their planes land - as well as CEDR not following this up)?
Has anyone gone through the small claims process after adjudication has gone against them?

It seems crazy to me but I'd love to hear from anyone.

Dave Noble

The situation seems to be one that would provide an exemption for BA

You have been offered reimbursement for the costs incurred , which seems to be in line with what would be expected under EC261

You aren't entitled to a refund and for the travel - entitlement is to reimbursement or rerouting. Which is cheaper , the train ticket or the air fare

simons1

Personally I would give it up.

If you go to MCOL you may demonstrate that the plane landed at LHR but I imagine the airline could prove that regardless the cause of you missing a tight connection was the disruption from ATC issues.

If BA has refunded your cancelled flight and paid the hotel etc then I would consider the additional reimbursement of your train tickets as a fair settlement.

As far as the media is concerned I doubt it has legs really.

Alex261

The train fare reimbursement had the refund for the flight subtracted (which was a cheap booking well in advance of the travel) so there would be no real 'additional reimbursement'.
There is no recompense in that in the spirit of EC 261/2004.

We had a connecting flight all the way through using BA (i.e. from FCO to LHR to ABZ). So they knew that we would be trying to get on the connecting flight.
Although tight, there appeared to be plenty of time between arrival at the gate at LHR and the departure of the connecting flight (according to the FOI response from the CAA).
According to my timings, I would have been to the gate (had I been allowed through the electronic barriers) more than the stipulated twenty minutes before the doors to the plane closed.

simons1

Alex261

Thanks for the reality check simons1. Grateful for the advice. It looks like the balance of doubt/ easy route will fall in the airline's favour and be against me.

corporate-wage-slave

It's a complex case even for this forum, and doubtless there are even more details in there. At this point there seems to be two issues
- CEDR have incorrectly come up with a ruling based on a LGW landing which simply didn't happen.
- The nuts and bolts of extraordinary circumstances, and from a quick reading you probably have a good case here.
The two overlay in that if LGW had been true, then the extraordinary circumstances pendulum swings against you.

The spirit of EC261 does in my view exist, but you best see it happen in MCOL. If there is a 50 / 50 judgement call, then the underlying need for consumer protection should land on your side of the argument. I'm not sure CEDR would do that, but MCOL generally would, though a non specialist district judge could always bring their own prejudices to bear on this judgement call. However their prejudices are highly unlikely to go against the fundamental law in place.

So I think you have two options. One is to complain to CEDR management that the judgement is obviously fundamentally flawed. The other is to go to MCOL, and use the LGW issue to explain why the adjudicator got the judgement wrong. Or rather, you run the case on conventional lines, but if BA pushes back with "we resolved this via CEDR", you have a valid line to use. It's not certain that MCOL will go in your favour, you would need to spend time on framing it correctly, but it seems the best way forward if you feel strongly about it, and a prepared to risk the £50 at stake. BA will almost certainly apply for extended costs if they win (or you don't turn up in court or something) due to CEDR and will doubtless threaten it along they way, but so long as you are diligent and have strong arguments, this is bound to fail in my mind. Should you decide to go this route then of course after the event you can communicate back to CEDR for their further investigation. My hunch is that their staff are overworked and may be having to make arbitrary calls rather than probing the information correctly. Also bear in mind BA feeds CEDR information in a format they instantly understand, whereas customer letters (etc) tend to remove focus somewhat. Which will be a learning point for MCOL: do the research and put in a great Skeleton. And if you are asking "what is or why a Skeleton" then you haven't done the research!

Welcome to Flyertalk Alex261, welcome to the BA Board and thanks for taking us through your case. I hope that we will see more of you, however you will have a potential one-off hold in that FT only allows 5 posts in the first 24 hours. Welcome on board.

SK AAR

My advice to you is to let it go. You don't have a clear cut case and you are going to use a lot of time on this and the outcome is unpredictable. You already got reimbursement of expenses so I believe it is time to move on (despite the annoying fact that CEDR based their decision on erroneous facts). In my view BA would be able to play the extraordinary circumstances card here; the ordeal at LHR that particular day was out of hands of BA.

steve170461

Maybe have a look at Flight radar 24 and use that with CEDR. I used evidence from that to win a case recently.

Clareym66

BIt of help requested please.... I was on BA475 on 27th October BCN - LHR

Flight landed at LHR 3hr 5 mins late so i have put in a claim for compentsation. The pilot said the delay was caused by damage to the original aircraft and BA have just replied (as expected) saying its not their fault and no compensation due. I thought that this wasnt classed as 'extraordinary' as its part and parcel of the running of the airline? Should i get them to tell me exactly what happened?

I wrote a thread on the delay at the time, and someone commented the following:

simon79

Thought I'd add a data point on my successful claim which was confirmed today, 2.5 weeks after I submitted. Also a thanks to this forum without which I wouldn't have really been aware of my right to claim, given nothing was mentioned at all during the delay or on arrival.