konagirl2

This is interesting. The last time I travelled long haul with BA in economy as a Silver I could select preferred seats, in line with the dynamic seat pricing, but I couldn't pick extra legroom seats (exit row or bulkhead) for free. That was back in September 2017, and I think it has been the case since at least 2016. Was your economy journey recent? And classed as long-haul?

windowontheAside

I'd be surprised if silvers can nab exit row seats on long haul. I often book at very short notice and am thankful that there are usually exit row window seats still available to choose. I can't imagine that'd be the case if they were available to silvers, but maybe I'm wrong.

Saltire74

Silvers can only select exit row seats on long haul for free at OLCI otherwise they have to be paid for. I’ve even had it asking for payment at OLCI on a couple of occasions in the last year which I put down to BA IT.

S

BertieBadger

That could be quite an illuminating analogy, it's worth following.

No-one (I hope!) would say you should accept the wobbly wheel just because you bought cruise control. But equally, you would not go back to the dealer and say "the wheel is wobbly, I want a refund of what I paid for the cruise control". The wobbly wheel would be part of the contract to buy the car, cruise control or not. And in the case of a physical good like a car, you would obviously have rights to have that corrected. So when you say:

BA could well take the same view, in that recline is part of the basic ticket, not the seat selection fee. After all, you could legitimately make the same complaint if you'd ended up in a non-reclining seat that they allocated, they advertise it as part of the basic package. Now, unlike a car, there is no opportunity to fix it afterwards, the flight has been taken - it benefits the poor passenger nothing to know it was fixed later. And so the CRA makes provisions that the the customer may be due a refund of some of the fee paid.

As I understand it, the two specific difficulties here are:
1) It is necessary to come up with a realistic value for what that failure represents as part of the overall package, and as NWIFlyer points out, it may be so low as to be not worthwhile
2) As TabTraveller points out, we don't seem to know yet if the Montreal Convention will trump the CRA. (I understand they are a lawyer, I am certainly not)

So it's not about saying that BA should "get away with it" but rather about exploring what avenues - if any - might be successful and if they are worth pursuing. If the OP follows the MCOL route, I do hope they report back in the future.

mrkjd

Well thanks again for all your opinions. There is nothing sinister in my believing I was gold the first trip and it was the SECOND round trip ticket that this seat issue occurred. I think as someone has mentioned there may have been some funky corporate rate available as this contract I am still currently on is poverty-spec in ALL respects (including my day rate)! It was a recent flight - Oct 2017 (a poster asked this question).

I did mean the Consumer Rights Act 2015 as Bertie Badger points out.

There's quite a lot of focus on leg room but as I have said, my receipt wasn't for extra leg room but for seat selection. Someone else pointed out that I got that seat, yes, but the seat was not as described ie reclines. "Seat" in economy BA 787 means something (as described in the product literature), something else in rival airlines, and something else again in an African Kombi. Surely if paying extra for an specific seat actually also meant a seat which did not have a main function as the "normal" seats then BA are required to point that out? Maybe BA could have some sort of small print disclaimer saying that "seat" does not infer any specific or selection of amenities but AFAIK they do not. So in my view that brings us around again as to whether BA took "sufficient" care as outlined previously.

I still think the weakest aspect of my claim is the ticket purchase being made by an agency which is why I claimed against what I did pay for (the selection). I'm unsure if a claim based on ticket price is required anyway. What matters is that I suffered a tort possibly due to their negligence. I don't see why that has to align with a ticket price precisely. If I paid £200 or £1000 for the seat the harm aspect of the tort is the same. It doesn't seem excessive or disproportional to qualitatively assess the price of that harm in terms of discomfort to be £50-£100 for a 7 hour flight. Of course BA or the courts might have a different estimate. I am always open to reasonable offers!

Hard to find a consensus from the variety of answers to date. That's not a criticism, it adds to the interest. The chances of success may be lowish but there is uncertainty also for B (and possibly greater consequence). I am not really bothered about the money or the victory being pyrrhic. My motivation doesn't even come from the uncomfortable flight (sh*t happens) but I do take exception to being treated poorly time and time again. If an organisation decides to adopt an intransigent attitude and hide behind frankly garbage unconsidered replies (the seat does not recline by design) rather than treat a claim fairly then it seems the only recourse I have (since they also would not escalate the issue internally) is to push the envelope. Or let the matter drop. I can withdraw at any point anyhow even within the small claims process so I might as well ride this matter a bit further. I work 4wk rotations so get plenty of time off to go to court.

As to voting with your feet as pointed out - agree 100%. I have got all my 2018 flights pencilled in Etihad. Not convinced they are a better product on paper but worth a punt as I just don't get on with those 787 seats at all (even when they do recline!) But I guess that's another thread. After 30 years flying all classes long haul to all corners of the world my greatest regret is the continuous squeezing of product for share-holder profit to the point it is getting truly terrible. Again - that is another thread!

Can I help you

All customers are entitled to compensation if their seat doesn’t recline, the SCCM can offer this onboard using their iPad.
They would only be given this is there isn’t another seat available, were you given any options?

bakera

I think BA made it quite clear last year that things provided for 'free' do not have any value and BA won't provide any compensation - if they did then we should raise a class action suit for removal of 'free' food in short haul Y.

Having said that, my personal experience with a malfunctioning seat is totally different....
Back in 2006 flying from NAS > LHR my CW seat would not fully recline (it went back about 135 degrees rather than the full 180 degrees). I had three or four members of the crew jumping on it and trying to push it into position before they finally gave up telling me that they could not disturb the other passengers any more. I was handed a form to fill in to raise my complaint - about 4 weeks later I received a voucher for a free return trip (in CW) to anywhere that BA flies - which I then used for a trip to SFO.
How things have changed.

mrkjd

Yes bakera, how things have changed. I was surprised with how this has been handled. Not sure if it is "policy" or a particularly nasty CS. I was offered £20 in vouchers by BA on board. No offer of a complaint form etc, indeed that was part of my original complaint as I don't see why they could not let me fill in a form there then process their end (especially since I couldn't get any sleep! The purser on this flight struck me as particularly disinterested and passive aggressive - and I have met quite a few. Think he found it much more preferable that I would have to do all the chasing around making a complaint in preference to him having to do extra paperwork or post an envelope!

The recline function is not provided for "free" it is a facility they advertise in an overall package they consider to be competitive with their competitors and tout as such. Is safety a freebie? If they have another concorde-gate no compensation as free = no value? Can of worms that argument!

Flexible preferences

deleted, cross post

PAL62V

mrkjd

Thought I'd re-hash this thread now I have received a Defence from BA. As many predicted their main thrust is that the matter falls under the Montreal Convention as a "service issue in flight" and so the Consumer Rights Act does not apply. I am not fully convinced by this line and can't find case law to support it. In my claim I have not claimed for having no seat recline, I have claimed for the fact they issued a contract for a "seat" (as per the receipt "seat booking" and that seat under BA in this class includes a recline function that I did not receive. A subtle difference but one that in my view IS covered by the CRA. I suppose there is also an argument that Parliament clearly intended the CRA to address consumer contract issues in the Air and Rail Industries and this should not be blocked by a wider interpretation of the Montreal Convention than case law would seem to set precedence for just because airlines prefer it! I know there are many on this forum who know much more about these things than I - I am just pursuing this out of interest and because the CS efforts previously discussed were so plainly incorrect (bulkhead seats do not recline). At least they have admitted that was a "factual error". Should I opt for arbitration? Given the lack of case law on this I wonder if this is not a matter that should be heard in the court. BA are asking that my claim for costs is subject to "strict liability". My view is that they can "ask" for it but it is not a requirement of the Small Claims Court. If a reasonable explanation for a cost (£30 for a registered post Letter Before Action) can be made then the court / arbitration can award. As an aside I am now flying Etihad A380 which I find much more comfortable though I do miss the BA hand baggage allowance - Etihad are a meagre 7kg (and they check on Abu Dhabi flights!

Mike P

I'd mark this down to experience and forget about it to be honest; the amount of hassle for a potentially very small return simply isn't worth it. As you said, you are now flying with Etihad and prefer that so have no need to worry about BA further.

stewardo

I don't believe that Small Claims can award any costs apart from the issuance fee and in some cases expenses around travelling to the hearing.

Also, registered post within the UK costs under £5, not £30.

corporate-wage-slave

Well you find much case law because it's new and the claims management companies aren't yet willing to take a punt on this area. I agree with your logic, the key point being that this did NOT happen inflight, BA didn't provide the service as offered, and as you say Parliament must have meant CRA applied to some area of aviation life or why bother (ok it's a statutory instrument, but let's roll with that for the moment). "It's not what I paid for" seems very different to "I didn't get the service I wanted". Now if you go arbitration I suspect BA will offer something, they must be in the dark about this given the lack of precedent. I'm not quite sure what costs you are referring too, but if it is for registered letter (which don't cost £30) then that is OK. However it would be very interesting for this to go to a court hearing to see how the judge would handle the case and the points of law involved. From a financial point of view however I have to point out that arbitration is quicker/sooner and may do the same outcome, even if it is a bit boring from my point of view.

Can I ask how much you are claiming and how you got to that figure?

mrkjd

Hi CWS, I'm claiming back my £58 extra legroom seat fee plus £60 costs (registered letter and 6 emails). Sio you can probably see itt's not about the money! My company bought the airfare so my thinking was that there's no contract between me and BA for the actual ticket but there is for the £58 so I limited my case to that. In respect to costs the cost is greater than just the mail - getting to & from the post office, envelope, stamp, printer ink, use of computer, printer, time, electricity, etc. I feel £30 is extremely reasonable if a bank can fire out an auto generated letter and charge £60 and solicitors charge hundreds! I understand i can't claim solicitor costs etc. Frankly I don't care if they only award a fiver but I don't see why I shouldn't make clear that there are costs involved due to BA not replying to my original complaint and then obstructing a fair and quick settlement with obviously incorrect statements (bulk head seats don't recline) which they have admitted to. I also told them that I felt £30 was a reasonable cost for the letter and £10 for each email and they never challenged this over the dozen or so exchanges (and I've not charged for every email cos I'm a nice guy!)

I also don't think Arbitration is the correct avenue given lack of precedence but I'm wondering if I refuse arbitration it may impact my hearing. I am genuinely interested in how the court views application of CRA / MC and my view is that if big corporations like BA wish to hide behind a wall of corporate obstruction then, as I consumer, my only recourse is to take them as far through the consumer rights process as I possibly can to remind them that a proactive stance at the beginning of a complaint can avoid protracted scrutiny .... and ..... who'd a thunk it ..... retain customers!