orbitmic

I wouldn't say "they will likely lose" is particularly black or white - it is already a fairly grey-scaled phrasing!

Ldnn1

I suppose I was reading it as 'on the balance of probabilities' which is what, ultimately, translates into a win or a loss.

Besides, try telling some people that a 52/48 result isn't particularly black or white...

amit175

BA argued nothing about bag drop. Their main contention was not crossing security (in passing) but more importantly not being at the gate. The only deadlines that are stated in the Conditions of Carriage are the check-in deadline and the boarding gate deadline. Elsewhere on the website there is a deadline for "self service bag drop" but not for normal "bag drop". Passengers requiring passport / visa check which I was are required to use normal bag drop. The actual boarding only commenced on 1016 and ended at or just before 1100. This is based on the status on the apps and the display at the airport. So, in the absence of guidelines it is arguable that the bag drop at 0916 would have been OK for a flight departing at 1119.

Also, for avoidance of doubt, I do acknowledge that I have a poor case - and am not expecting any further comments to change that. So, if you are minded to write that I still have a poor case - I already get that. I am providing this information mainly for the benefit of future passengers who will come in my position and search out this thread.

Ldnn1

I would say that if you do intend to pursue your case, it's not a good idea to acknowledge publicly that you have a poor case!

UKtravelbear

But the 1119 departure time was only know after the fact. If the scheduled departure time (i.e. was on your booking confirmation) was indeed 1119 then arriving at 9.30 would have been perfectly fine but that wasn't your booking.. For a 0950 departure you needed to have been there by 0850 (I go by the 1 hour being checked in and bags dropped) and most people especially with children would have planned to arrive well before then. All it takes is one of the kids to need the toilet to divert you from check-in and your spare time has gone!

Most reasonable people- and that is what a judge would base their decision on - would not delay their arrival at the airport for what initially appeared to be a 45 minute delay - especially when travelling with children.

I would say, after reading all your posts - and it would have helped if you had provided ALL the information in your very first post rather than drip feeding - a judge at MCOL is not going to be pleased if you drip feed during disclosure or the hearing (and they are generally disposed to finding for claimants where there is reasonable doubt)- that you have no case not a poor case.

Schultzois

Just to clarify, I'm not a lawyer and neither were my comments specifically created with the idea of fighting in a legal venue. Rather, they were the approach I would have addressed at the time or in the immediate aftermath from a Customer Relations point of view.

That said, clarity of BA's website today or yesterday is not what we're talking about... we're talking about BA's website on 12th and 13th December as the OP was preparing to go to the airport. I would maintain that it was less crystal clear, since there was an explicit warning up owing to the weather disruptions, the knock-on effects, and indeed apparently the India flights. I can't remember precisely how it read, but there was a connection between whether to go to the airport and checking flight status (although I was reading it on the 11th as I prepared for my own flight, and on the 12th as well perhaps as the 13th as I waited for BA to direct my missing baggage).
The clearest reading of whatever they had published on those dates in December would still probably be that one should only change one's plans if the flight is shown to be canceled, but I can't be so sure there wasn't some ambiguity then that you would have no way of seeing now.

What strikes me still (and again this is Customer Relation, not legal) is that BA seemingly showed literally zero flexibility to the OP at the time of check-in and immediately following. The fact is the gate hadn't even opened yet (and would not open for another hour) and BA had frankly made a pretty poor show in its overall performance the prior three days. I would have thought on most days that would be enough for the customer facing agent to propose some sort of change for a fee, standby for next possible flight, etc. Not that they cancel the entire trip including the return with no further consideration. Once that was done, however, it seems what's done is done.

I would agree that this is likely the point for the OP to reduce expectations and perhaps rethink taking it as far as court lest this become an even more expensive lesson.

NWIFlyer

Without wishing to pile into the poor OP, who is probably feeling more than a little battered by now, I would urge caution in proceeding any further - because not only is this a case where judgement will almost certainly be awarded to BA, but we seem to be in a situation where this is approaching vexatious.

There is a certain amount of protection for the individual within the MCOL process, but it is not total - a less sympathetic judge could view this as frivolous and order costs to be paid to BA if the OP continues to try to take this through the whole court process.

The OP is already a lot of money down. BA's legal expenses, plus the loss of court fee, would make the whole experience extremely painful. OP - for your own sake, please, please think very carefully about this. This is not a time for false bravado or gung-ho decisions.

DutchessPDX

Yeah, this thread has more than run its course..it cleared the stadium, and started cross country.

UKtravelbear

@NWIFlyer - yes very well put.

I do get that the OP is upset and annoyed and wants some sort of resolution i.e. his money back (though surely he would be due a refund of APD and airport fees as he and his family didn't fly) but I honestly do think he has no realistic proposition of winning but we know that often people do pursue these things and then end up with a legal bill for no real reason than bloodymindness.

He also says he is pursuing AMEX (who I assume he used to pay for the tickets) to the Financial Ombudsmen. I don't think that will end well for him either.

RollAnotherFatOne

I haven't read all the posts because many of them go off on a tangent.
It seems to me that OP was unfortunate enough because he had gone to the check-in gate who then advised him he was too late.
If he hadn't gone there and just proceeded through security he would have been ok to get to the gate?

NWIFlyer

Most likely not. He missed both the bag check deadline and the 35 minute conformance deadline - scheduled departure was 0950, he arrived at bag check at 0916.

Could he potentially have got to security at 0915 if he walked for more than a minute to get to the check-in desk from North Security assuming he arrived by bus, tube or train? That's something of a long shot, I'd have thought, and the reality is that it didn't happen anyway - so it's a bit of a moot point.

RollAnotherFatOne

I guess there is no way of knowing for sure as he didn't actually get that far.
Rules are rules, but sometimes not effectively enforced, especially in times of disruption. If he had shown the person at security the new time, would they have let him proceed?
Significant queues at bag drop off could have added to the time. BA should be mindful that these warnings and prompts can be potentially misleading to travelling passengers. It needs to better emphasize the need to physically be at the airport regardless of the delay (unless stated otherwise). Unless it does this, I don't see that it's unreasonable for passengers to think 'why should I rush, boarding isn't due for another 2 hours?'..; more so if you've already checked in.

simons1

How would that work if you have bags to drop?

EsherFlyer

I've wondered in the past whether security has a role in policing hand luggage size / quantity, rather than just content. If beating conformance is the key requirement then ditching any large liquids, etc from hold sized bags at security and being told to gate check them could be a good strategy. There's even a chance they'd get on board...

Wouldn't have helped OP of course, they mistakenly thought they were in good time upon arrival at airport.

LHR/MEL/Europe FF