tom tulpe

Get insurance then. Again, Special Services can do it, so why not anyone else (A.: because BA think it's a waste of money).

itsmeitisss

That's way too simplistic a view. Insurance won't cover something simply because you pay them. They make an assumption on the basis of proper training and it being part of a person's role to do a task.

Takiteasy

It is very entertaining to come back to this thread once a day to find out that:
- the OP continues to have the patience of a saint with the airline (I’m jealous)

itsmeitisss

I don't see anyone saying it is illegal for BA to assist, just that if people employed by BA get hurt while assisting they may find themselves uninsured for that injury, just as when a DYKWIA expects cabin crew to lift their heavy carryon into the overhead.

If Omniserve isn't doing its job properly then they need to be pressured into doing so, by BA and other users of LHR to get the airport operator to take action since the contract is between Heathrow and Omniserve, not between Omniserve and BA. BA doing Omniserve's job for them will definitely not make Omniserve better at their jobs. Quite the opposite - they may cut staff to make more profit.

NickB

Well, Tobias-UK is a lawyer and he made a very categorical statement without any caveat. Something that is inculcated into lawyers at a very early stage of their training is the importance of basing one's assertions on authority so I am sure that Tobias-UK must have some strong authority on which to base such a strong assertion. Either that or he got confused and made a mistake, as we all do at some point or other. Either way, he will no doubt clear that for us quite soon.

HMPS

Bolding mine.
Wouldn't that be kettle calling the pot black ?

IAN-UK

You seem to have got fixated on insurance as the reason BA can't ensure its vulnerable passengers are treated in the way they, and we, expect them to be treated: with efficiency, kindness and dignity.

The suggestion is that BA could, if so minded, push, chivvy, nag, kick Heathrow managers into to doing what they are paid to do.

And if the insurance angle isn't a red-herring, then when a passenger is stranded BA could pay a porter to do the heavy lifting

flyerkit

There can be a tendency in these situations to advise people to spend on mitigating and you will get the money back later. As tobias-uk points out, when the evidence is reviewed by somebody asked to pay the bills the advice might be flawed.

Mt friend was knocked off their bike by a car. Bones broker, skull cractures etc. They had to pay for wheelchair, gardener, taxis, new bike, clothes, helmet, ramps in their house etcetc. Out of pocket receipted amount £13,500. After a 2 year wait, while police slothfully provided evidence to injury lawyer, and insurer applied the hoopz to reduce successful claims, they got £22,000 for their injuries but only £7,700 of the out of pocket expenses.

For example if he had paid for a doctor to say a gardener was needed he would have got the money for both but he just neeed his grass cut and called a gardener and kept the £200 reciept... Fail.

That's why learning from the detail of this horrible experience is important. Like ensuring you don't say the wrong words when offered a downgrade you can't take - if that were the case - is important.

Tobias-uk is right to be curious. Op is kind to give us the info. Let' jhope we learn and ba improves and hal improves.

tom tulpe

HOWZAAAAT?!

(Bolding mine)
Not "might be a bad idea". Not "if it goes wrong, they're in trouble with insurance". Not "they're already paying HAL whose job it is to provide assistance, so why should they provide assistance as well, effectively paying twice?".

No, the statement was that they are not permitted, and that statement is wrong. They are permitted to offer assistance above and beyond what HAL is offering, they do so every single sodding day for CIPs/VIPs - even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they DO say "Jehova" (or are in a wheelchair).

itsmeitisss

I asked my wife if she would permit me to buy a new lens. She said I was not permitted to do so. Does that mean it is illegal for me to ignore my wife?

It is inadvisable, but not illegal.

In the same context, BA staff may be told they are not permitted to physically touch and lift passenger's luggage. Not permitted does not mean illegal. If it was illegal I would have thought that Tobias would have stated illegal, not 'not permitted'.

itsmeitisss

Look at the that HMPS' bolded. That is precisely what I said, that BA's responsibility should be to make sure that Omniserve do the task they are contracted to do and to get HAL to sanction Omniserve if they don't.

LTN Phobia

That reminds me.

I know this is extremely unlikely to be the case here, but there were instances somewhere in the world (not the UK) where pilots who tried to help passengers get on their way faster by offering to help the baggage handlers who were short of staff due to strike that they would have themselves punched in the face if they dared to do so.

Helping was not illegal, of course, but they were definitely not permitted to help.

Another one - an airline employee who helped with a passenger's bag when she wasn't supposed to and hurt her back was later terminated for being unable to perform her duty (not BA, but a UK airline).

Things like intervening to help is not always so straight-forward when you work for someone, and when you may have liabilities towards someone as a company.

(Much easier for an individual like me who is covered for public liability through house and travel insurances but corporations may not have coverage for all consequences, and I haven't seen 'all consequences of anything and everything' public/professional liability insurance for corporations).

orbitmic

Airlines do not have wives. They just have regulations to comply with or not.

itsmeitisss

IAN-UK

Excellent. So let's the forget the smokescreen of liability, health & safety, risk and insurance. Nothing to stop BA helping passengers to get on their way without exposing employees to risk.

And come to that, as the focus seems to be on bags and carousels, nothing to stop the carrier from ensuring its employees are covered for the level of risk involved in taking bags off belts.

As for what other posters said and, what you think they meant to say .... I join NickB in expecting Tobias to be along soon enough to explain his punchy assertions about what British Airways is prohibited from doing in terms of monitoring PRM provision, securing PRM service, or even taking on some elements of the service itself, where Heathrow is seen to be slacking.