Involuntary denial of boarding, please help
May 1, 2018, 1:20 pm
#271
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: SW London
Programs: BAEC Silver; Hilton Diamond;a miscellany of other hotel non-statuses
Posts: 3,607
I'd have thought they would always do a search to find public info that might weaken a case. For example complainant innocently mentions a fact that they are advised by the FT massive to downplay.
May 1, 2018, 1:32 pm
#272
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Argentina
Posts: 40,212
So, a wheel chair passenger travelling alone is expected to pay for a porter at T5 to handle their baggage. That I would describe as disabled discrimination. Absolutely poor show by BA throughout this sorry tale. If this had been me, the bad press for BA would have beebpn spread far and wide. BA managements failure to respond to all of this is just disgusting.
Luggage Assistance can be arranged for you free of charge for reasonable amounts of luggage.
May 1, 2018, 1:37 pm
#273
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brighton. UK
Programs: BA Gold / VS /IHG Diamond & Ambassador
Posts: 14,204
BA is responding directly with the OP. They have no obligation to come and post on flyer talk (or any internet blog)
At present the OP appears happy with the way BA are now dealing with her issues and that is all that matters.
At present the OP appears happy with the way BA are now dealing with her issues and that is all that matters.
May 1, 2018, 2:32 pm
#274
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 123
It was £5,000 for breaches before 13 March 2015, but it is now unlimited. I am not sure I can recall it ever being imposed. Anybody could advance a case, but in reality I suspect it would need the backing of the CAA or a disability NGO to make it happen, at least at this stage of development.
May 1, 2018, 10:56 pm
#275
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Programs: Hilton, IHG - BA, GA, LH, QR, SV, TK
Posts: 17,008
So, a wheel chair passenger travelling alone is expected to pay for a porter at T5 to handle their baggage. That I would describe as disabled discrimination. Absolutely poor show by BA throughout this sorry tale. If this had been me, the bad press for BA would have beebpn spread far and wide. BA managements failure to respond to all of this is just disgusting.
There's been something of a smoke-screen shielding BA from criticism in not ensuring the OP received the assistance she had requested and to which she was fully entitled. While it is crystal clear the the airport is the sole entity responsible for providing the service, BA's hand are not tied. The airline can monitor service provision and assist where the airport is delinquent.
It would be difficult for BA to give this level of attention to the thousands of PRM requests it receives each day: but In a case such as the OP's, where the airline has already made her life a misery at the start of her trip, it is baffling that more consideration was not given to her welfare on arrival.
May 1, 2018, 11:03 pm
#276
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club, easyJet and Ryanair
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 15,930
Well, no they aren't expected to make their own way. Heathrow has an obligation to assist the traveller. Sadly the Heathrow obligation is discharged only fitfully. BA is aware of this. CAA, other airlines, the press and Uncle Tom Cobley are all aware of it
There's been something of a smoke-screen shielding BA from criticism in not ensuring the OP received the assistance she had requested and to which she was fully entitled. While it is crystal clear the the airport is the sole entity responsible for providing the service, BA's hand are not tied. The airline can monitor service provision and assist where the airport is delinquent.
It would be difficult for BA to give this level of attention to the thousands of PRM requests it receives each day: but In a case such as the OP's, where the airline has already made her life a misery at the start of her trip, it is baffling that more consideration was not given to her welfare on arrival.
There's been something of a smoke-screen shielding BA from criticism in not ensuring the OP received the assistance she had requested and to which she was fully entitled. While it is crystal clear the the airport is the sole entity responsible for providing the service, BA's hand are not tied. The airline can monitor service provision and assist where the airport is delinquent.
It would be difficult for BA to give this level of attention to the thousands of PRM requests it receives each day: but In a case such as the OP's, where the airline has already made her life a misery at the start of her trip, it is baffling that more consideration was not given to her welfare on arrival.
May 1, 2018, 11:15 pm
#277
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Programs: Hilton, IHG - BA, GA, LH, QR, SV, TK
Posts: 17,008
My personal take is that BA very much has a responsibility here and that the airline failed on some crucial obligations. In my view, the issue and the uncertainty is the case we are in (what happens if because of a case that fully engages the responsibility of the airline under EC261, a passenger is asked to accept a downgrade or reroute but then refuses) is not one which leads to a clearly specified 'automatic' payment level (as with denied boarding or an accepted downgrade) and we are thus in a territory where actual compensation is most probably due but its level is not set by existing regulations so that it would need to be set by a judge. As you point out, I don't think people are right to suggest that IDB compensation automatically applies as the OP was actually offered a possibility to fly on the same flight, and I similarly do not think that downgrade payment is automatically due either as it effectively puts a value on the loss of comfort relating to the actual downgrade which did not take place here.
At the same time, it seems to me that based on the OP's account, BA has breached its EC261 obligations in at least two ways:
1) It did not inform the OP of her rights under EC261 (not surprising because we know for other threads and the direct experience of many of us including mine that BA routinely fails to inform passengers of their EC261 entitlements in the ways specified by the regulation);
2) It failed to enforce any semblance of priority handling of the OP due to her stated disabilities as required by the regulation.
Unless the staff blatantly lie about the incident in court, I have no doubt that a judge would find that the airline has behaved wrongly on both counts, but this would be more likely to lead to some fine than to a civil payment (compensation).
Additionally, I am personally of the opinion that a judge would most likely consider that the OP is entitled to some sort of compensation for the travel incident itself. The airline could not provide the OP with the service that she had purchased for reasons within their control. I would be very surprised if a judge considered that BA was not liable to some compensation even if a significantly delayed departure was a more tolerable alternative to the OP's original plans than either an involuntary downgrade or an involuntary rerouting, none of which she was obliged to accept (and there is certainly nothing in EC261 that suggests that should a passenger refuse those alternatives they lose right to compensation in any way). It is also fairly clear from the OP's profile that her disability would probably give her prima facie credibility where she says that she worried that either the downgrade or the rushed additional journey to a different airport would potentially jeopardise her health and well-being. I suspect that many judges would be all the more willing to accept this argument as a given in view of BA's blatant failure to consider its obligations towards the OP in view of her declared disability in the first place.
.
^ ^
Perhaps there's been too much focus on the mechanisms of EC261 and the intricacies of interpretation of these.
British Airways has behaved crassly - perhaps down to inexperienced and unsupervised contract staff at an out-station, but that's an internal matter for the airline. I'd hope a judge/arbitrator would take a wider, more enlightened view on the way the carrier discharged its obligation to the traveller.
Sadly, I'm guessing burning coals and hauling rigs are out of the question for punitive damages
May 1, 2018, 11:17 pm
#278
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Programs: Hilton, IHG - BA, GA, LH, QR, SV, TK
Posts: 17,008
May 1, 2018, 11:22 pm
#279
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club, easyJet and Ryanair
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 15,930
Firstly the airlines do not commission the service, each airport within the EU/EEA is responsible to provide the assistance. The airline passes the request for assistance to the airport, the airport provides the service either by itself or its appointed supplier.
May 1, 2018, 11:44 pm
#280
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Programs: Hilton, IHG - BA, GA, LH, QR, SV, TK
Posts: 17,008
Now, secondly ..... you believe the airline is not allowed to monitor the service, is prohibited from monitoring the service provided to its passenger?
and, I guess thirdly, .....if if the airline learns (through monitoring or other means) that its passenger is in distress because of the airports dereliction, then the airline faces censure if it helps the passenger?
May 2, 2018, 12:07 am
#281
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Rhineland-Palatinate
Programs: *A Gold (A3), HHonor Gold
Posts: 5,704
Could you please details ? Are airlines forbidden to monitor the job done by the provider directly ? Or are they forbidden to step in if they think/know/see/acknowledge the service is not optimum ? Or both ?
May 2, 2018, 1:45 am
#282
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
So if the airline is not allowed to get involved, the BA crew who stepped in to help should be disciplined?
I always get worried when I click the number of posts and see the thread dominated by one or two posters.
Best bet here is to follow the advice dispensed by CWS a while back.
I always get worried when I click the number of posts and see the thread dominated by one or two posters.
Best bet here is to follow the advice dispensed by CWS a while back.
Last edited by simons1; May 2, 2018 at 1:56 am
May 2, 2018, 1:46 am
#283
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: All over the place often South Wales and Lake District
Programs: BA Gold for Life Accor Platinum
Posts: 4,552
MIght it have something to do with insurances? Omniserve will have specific liability insurance that covers its workers and the people 'served' by omniserve. If BA interferes with good intentions are their workers insured if they lift heavy bags and injure themselves?
May 2, 2018, 1:59 am
#284
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 5 miles from EMA
Programs: BD, BAEC Pleb, VS Pleb, Accor Pleb, HHonors Gold, Big White Season Pass
Posts: 5,906
MIght it have something to do with insurances? Omniserve will have specific liability insurance that covers its workers and the people 'served' by omniserve. If BA interferes with good intentions are their workers insured if they lift heavy bags and injure themselves?
May 2, 2018, 3:02 am
#285
Join Date: Jun 2003
Programs: BA, IHG, 5C
Posts: 4,413
Tobius said the airline DOES NOT commission the service, so I doubt you can agree on your follow-on points. If he is correct and the airport is responsible for these services (i.e. BA simply pass on the information that the passenger requires assistance), then no the airline wouldn't monitor the service or at least the airport would not be accountable to the airline for its delivery, nor the airline to the passenger.