Mistake fare LHR - TLV [Tickets now cancelled by BA]
#331
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 155
The legal standard is that a reasonable person must have known it was an error. In the leading case of Digilandmall the court agreed that there was such an error but the item was sold at something like 50 times less than the usual price. That is not the case here, not even close. BA legal ppl must know this. Seems like they are hoping that most passengers will take the voucher and let it go.
#332
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: South East England
Programs: Status with BA Exec Club; KrisFlyer; Hilton Honors; IHG One; Marriott Bonvoy
Posts: 543
#333
Ambassador, British Airways; FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Leeds, UK
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, GfL, HH Diamond
Posts: 42,705
The legal standard is that a reasonable person must have known it was an error. In the leading case of Digilandmall the court agreed that there was such an error but the item was sold at something like 50 times less than the usual price. That is not the case here, not even close. BA legal ppl must know this. Seems like they are hoping that most passengers will take the voucher and let it go.
just to clarify, under English law the test is whether it was a “manifest error” and the English courts have defined that as one that is “obvious or easily demonstrable without extensive investigation”. This was recently confirmed again in a recent court of appeal case which someone else referred to upthread already (apologies on phone otherwise I would credit the person concerned).
EDIT: just to add from previous fare cases in England the question put is whether it’s a manifest error such that the person booking knew or ought to have known at the time there was an error on the part of British Airways. If the judgement is yes then the contract is void.
Last edited by KARFA; Jun 20, 2018 at 4:51 pm
#334
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: LHR/ATH
Programs: Amex Platinum, LH SEN (Gold), BA Bronze
Posts: 4,489
Did anyone contact the Dailymail journalist by email by the way? She gave her email address in the article! Come on guys, help her out!
Just had a quick look at the Dailymail article (unlike most FT'ers I happily admit to reading Dailymail and am proud of doing so even though i admit to it being stupid at times, but as a tabloid it certainly is effective) and the first comment I read says it all!
Last edited by ahmetdouas; Jun 20, 2018 at 3:17 pm
#335
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,721
And it goes without saying that anyone who did read this thread before booking, should not falsely state that they had not.
#337
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 27,191
Without wishing to undermine any fellow member's case, I really must stress however that if you did in fact read this thread before making the booking, then you did in fact have reason to believe that the fare, at the very least, might well be an error. That doesn't necessarily mean you will lose your argument, but it puts you in a much weaker position than someone who in fact had no knowledge and no reason to believe that it was.
#338
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: South East England
Programs: Status with BA Exec Club; KrisFlyer; Hilton Honors; IHG One; Marriott Bonvoy
Posts: 543
Absolutely. And a ‘mistake’ is not a ‘manifest error’. BA probably make mistakes in their judgement or execution on fares every day. Some will be too high or too low. That’s not a blatantly obvious misprice, which is what the law requires BA to demonstrate if they are to worm their way out of a contract.
#339
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: US/UK - and elsewhere
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 2,527
(Sorry if this has been mentioned - too many posts to read all of them) - surely it is a matter of 'trust' - how do I know that the fare I find is a 'real' fare? Sometimes WT+ is cheaper than WT - is this a mistake? Will BA cancel my ticket if I buy it? It would seem that BA (and others) could easily say that it is and profit from it.
#340
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,721
- it is not a manifest (i.e. obvious) error
- it is an error
That would (in my view) rule me out. YMMV.
Last edited by Ldnn1; Jun 20, 2018 at 4:04 pm
#341
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: TLV/ATH/LON/EZE/NYC/UIP
Programs: BA*GGL, A3*G, AF*P, VS*S
Posts: 1,007
The main issue is that this was a YBH fare which sophisticated travellers might have picked up on (flexible terms and conditions, 70 TPs and high Avios earning was a clue), so people were able to book for under £200 on days where the cabin was almost full. That's why BA are making their claim of manifest error and have calculated that the lost revenue potential of selling even a few hundred of those 2,000 seats at their full price was worth the bad PR and £200k of vouchers to go after.
The potential flaw is in understanding the breakdown of who bought the 2,000 seats, why, and when they were travelling.
Take the largely off-peak leisure traveller - what BA have done in effect is offer a £100 voucher to save £90 in cash to attract those customers who are really price-sensitive and would normally take an LCC, per this quote:
This is obviously pretty bad business for BA, and appalling for reputation and customer retention. If they have any sense, such people will rebook to TLV on a LCC and enjoy a free weekend in Europe at BA's expense some other time.
For those who piled in to do a mileage run, they've won £100 for about 5 minutes of work and a bit of credit card churn. This could have been offset by writing to all customers saying the manifest error was in the fare class, rather than the price, and either a full refund (no comp) would be given or pax could accept it being moved into a non-flexible, non-Avios/TP-earning bucket, which might have chased off the majority of the runners, whilst maintaining the loyalty and PR value of folks who really didn't spot the error.
For a tiny number of genuine frequent travellers on this route who give BA their business, and might have found these prices suspiciously low for the time of year, they too now have £100 to spend on a flight they would possibly have booked anyway, whereas in my proposal they could have just written off the miles earning and taken the flight, and their loyalty is actually worth something to BA.
My guess is that with the strategy of making it a booking class error instead of a pricing error, and switching it to an X fare or whatever instead, BA would have spent much less than £200k and hugely mitigated the terrible publicity.
The potential flaw is in understanding the breakdown of who bought the 2,000 seats, why, and when they were travelling.
Take the largely off-peak leisure traveller - what BA have done in effect is offer a £100 voucher to save £90 in cash to attract those customers who are really price-sensitive and would normally take an LCC, per this quote:
This is obviously pretty bad business for BA, and appalling for reputation and customer retention. If they have any sense, such people will rebook to TLV on a LCC and enjoy a free weekend in Europe at BA's expense some other time.
For those who piled in to do a mileage run, they've won £100 for about 5 minutes of work and a bit of credit card churn. This could have been offset by writing to all customers saying the manifest error was in the fare class, rather than the price, and either a full refund (no comp) would be given or pax could accept it being moved into a non-flexible, non-Avios/TP-earning bucket, which might have chased off the majority of the runners, whilst maintaining the loyalty and PR value of folks who really didn't spot the error.
For a tiny number of genuine frequent travellers on this route who give BA their business, and might have found these prices suspiciously low for the time of year, they too now have £100 to spend on a flight they would possibly have booked anyway, whereas in my proposal they could have just written off the miles earning and taken the flight, and their loyalty is actually worth something to BA.
My guess is that with the strategy of making it a booking class error instead of a pricing error, and switching it to an X fare or whatever instead, BA would have spent much less than £200k and hugely mitigated the terrible publicity.
#342
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: LHR/ATH
Programs: Amex Platinum, LH SEN (Gold), BA Bronze
Posts: 4,489
The main issue is that this was a YBH fare which sophisticated travellers might have picked up on (flexible terms and conditions, 70 TPs and high Avios earning was a clue), so people were able to book for under £200 on days where the cabin was almost full. That's why BA are making their claim of manifest error and have calculated that the lost revenue potential of selling even a few hundred of those 2,000 seats at their full price was worth the bad PR and £200k of vouchers to go after.
The potential flaw is in understanding the breakdown of who bought the 2,000 seats, why, and when they were travelling.
Take the largely off-peak leisure traveller - what BA have done in effect is offer a £100 voucher to save £90 in cash to attract those customers who are really price-sensitive and would normally take an LCC, per this quote:
This is obviously pretty bad business for BA, and appalling for reputation and customer retention. If they have any sense, such people will rebook to TLV on a LCC and enjoy a free weekend in Europe at BA's expense some other time.
For those who piled in to do a mileage run, they've won £100 for about 5 minutes of work and a bit of credit card churn. This could have been offset by writing to all customers saying the manifest error was in the fare class, rather than the price, and either a full refund (no comp) would be given or pax could accept it being moved into a non-flexible, non-Avios/TP-earning bucket, which might have chased off the majority of the runners, whilst maintaining the loyalty and PR value of folks who really didn't spot the error.
For a tiny number of genuine frequent travellers on this route who give BA their business, and might have found these prices suspiciously low for the time of year, they too now have £100 to spend on a flight they would possibly have booked anyway, whereas in my proposal they could have just written off the miles earning and taken the flight, and their loyalty is actually worth something to BA.
My guess is that with the strategy of making it a booking class error instead of a pricing error, and switching it to an X fare or whatever instead, BA would have spent much less than £200k and hugely mitigated the terrible publicity.
The potential flaw is in understanding the breakdown of who bought the 2,000 seats, why, and when they were travelling.
Take the largely off-peak leisure traveller - what BA have done in effect is offer a £100 voucher to save £90 in cash to attract those customers who are really price-sensitive and would normally take an LCC, per this quote:
This is obviously pretty bad business for BA, and appalling for reputation and customer retention. If they have any sense, such people will rebook to TLV on a LCC and enjoy a free weekend in Europe at BA's expense some other time.
For those who piled in to do a mileage run, they've won £100 for about 5 minutes of work and a bit of credit card churn. This could have been offset by writing to all customers saying the manifest error was in the fare class, rather than the price, and either a full refund (no comp) would be given or pax could accept it being moved into a non-flexible, non-Avios/TP-earning bucket, which might have chased off the majority of the runners, whilst maintaining the loyalty and PR value of folks who really didn't spot the error.
For a tiny number of genuine frequent travellers on this route who give BA their business, and might have found these prices suspiciously low for the time of year, they too now have £100 to spend on a flight they would possibly have booked anyway, whereas in my proposal they could have just written off the miles earning and taken the flight, and their loyalty is actually worth something to BA.
My guess is that with the strategy of making it a booking class error instead of a pricing error, and switching it to an X fare or whatever instead, BA would have spent much less than £200k and hugely mitigated the terrible publicity.
#344
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,721
This could have been offset by writing to all customers saying the manifest error was in the fare class, rather than the price, and either a full refund (no comp) would be given or pax could accept it being moved into a non-flexible, non-Avios/TP-earning bucket, which might have chased off the majority of the runners, whilst maintaining the loyalty and PR value of folks who really didn't spot the error.
#345
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
Back in the day before mistake fares were blasted over social media, many carriers honored their mistakes largely because there tended to be relatively few tickets issued and the entire out-of-pocket and brand damage far exceeded the small number of tickets issued.
Now, when any number of social media types send out what amount to notices, the numbers move in the other direction. If the people who had originally made these purchases had not said anything, I warrant that they would be flying on those tickets.
Now, when any number of social media types send out what amount to notices, the numbers move in the other direction. If the people who had originally made these purchases had not said anything, I warrant that they would be flying on those tickets.