NWIFlyer

Let’s put this in some sort of legal/regulatory perspective based on what we know. From the writer’s description it seems the bleeding actually stopped fairly quickly, and it sounds pretty certain that nothing as drastic as stitches or attendance at a hospital were required. We can therefore say that, whilst BA would need to log it, no Riddor report to the HSE would be required because the injured person - as a non-employee - did not require hospital treatment.

We are not, legally, looking at something that would be defined as a serious accident. BA is not going to be taken to court over this, although it should prompt them to look at their risk assessments and procedures. There is no litigation unless the writer wishes to take BA to court himself.

This therefore comes down to how much compensation is appropriate for a finger cut that apparently healed quite quickly. Given long term (as in years) trauma from traffic accidents often only amounts to a couple of thousand pounds from an insurance company, and that is reducing, £500 for a few hours of discomfort seems generous to me.

South London Bon Viveur

bisonrav

It's arguably not a serious outcome, but it is a serious near miss. There are plenty of risks associated with any accident where blood is drawn which are beyond the obvious discomfort of a cut that heals - the writer said there was plenty of blood so at face value it was a little more than a nick. If this happened in a workplace to an employee it would be viewed as a serious incident, particularly if it was a secondary effect of a previous incident and deficiencies in dealing with that. I go back to this point: if there was broken glass there was an incident that caused broken glass and there should have been special care taken during the cleaning.

As for the request, it's reasonable. The cost to BA of 2 F return tickets is very low even on a single point basis (on a "great scheme of things" basis it's nothing at all). The perceived value is very high. In a lot of ways it's an ideal compromise because it creates maximum goodwill at low cost.

BA are now dealing with a situation that is spiralling - the story has been published in a magazine, and it's being discussed on a frequent flyer forum. It wouldn't take much for it to get onto the front page of flyer talk and then to a newspaper. It would have been easy to head this off at the pass with a phone call and a goodwill gesture.

Virazuno

This was my interpretation too - asking for availability to be opened up in lieu of the £500 cash offer (as opposed to asking for two completely gratis one-way tickets).

If this is what was proposed, I don't think it's too unreasonable. Even if it does end up costing BA a little more than the £500 cash offer (unlikely!), the goodwill generated in the circumstances of what is an unacceptable event is probably worth it, no?

I suspect the issue here is that the relevant customer facing folks at BA probably don't have any way of making it happen, therefore resulting in automatic denial, and simply an offer of more money.

Prospero

A minor yet avoidable accident occurred. The cabin crew administered first aid. The passenger received an apology on behalf of BA while on board, and later in writing. That in itself seems to me to be a reasonable outcome.

littlefish

I think this fairly neatly sums up my starting point on this story. Which is then compounded by nothing really convincing from BA (either in the 3 month silence or the BT response) getting it across that the root cause of the glass being there and left there in the first place has been investigated and understood. The LHR cleaning would be the second or third line of defence here and that seems to have failed too (though one could note they were exposed to the risk and fortunately weren't impacted).

The customer service recovery angle is a separate aspect and my take is the BA side here are at least engaging and proffering some kind of normalised response and figure; albeit it late and slow and maybe not as well tailored to the customer as one might hope. Yes, I know we are all used to the famous copy & paste CS interactions, but there are occasions where a more engaged response or call would go a long way.
Finally, as a customer, I would be thanking the onboard first aid administration as that seems to have been taken care of promptly and effectively.

GlasgowCyclops

Someone in my family took a major food manufacturer to court so we have some experience of injury compensation. They nearly died because something was in the food that caused internal lacerations and they would have died within hours if not able to get to a hospital (fortunately their rural location was near a hospital fully equipped by the MOD).

After a legal battle they got about £20k. So a cut finger getting £500 is probably generous. The fact they had status is immaterial. The fact it was an expensive ticket in a premium cabin is immaterial. The compensation was offered for an injury, It doesn't matter if the injury was in F/J/Y or toilet, the compensation is due based on the injury. If it was a dirty Y cabin and a cut happened then the compensation should be the same. Getting the offer is probably easier because of the status/cabin-class but that is a different issue from injury compensation.

Comparisons with equipment failure etc is not relevant because the equipment/service etc "is" part of the Cabin experience so the compensation should be based on the percentage weight of the specific part of the service in that cabin.

In nutshell, Injury claims are based on the injury only.

LondonElite

The word 'snowflake' comes to mind...what is the world coming to when a minor finger cut must be compensated with two first class seats to New York. Pretty soon the incidence of people suddenly finding glass to cut themselves with will spike.

Barnaby100

dougzz

dougzz

bisonrav

This is beside the point really.

Just as an exercise in customer care, a phone call and letter saying "We are sorry you suffered an injury on our flight, and we deeply regret that your experience of First Class was not as it should have been. In view of this, we would like to offer tickets for you and a companion on the same route from New York to London as a gesture of goodwill, and we will keep you updated on the progress of our investigation into the incident." would have (a) turned a negative into a positive with the customer; (b) avoided a critical letter to a magazine and discussion online and whatever ensues; (c) cost BA far less than £500.

That way you get to choose between a non-story (a passenger is cut by broken glass, root cause is investigated and he receives a gesture of goodwill) and a Daily Mail "Passenger Injured in Filthy BA First Class Cabin" piece.

It's as close to a no-brainer as you can find, but as others have said the BA customer care structure prevents this happening because of the layers of scripted interaction you have to work through. Conversely, offering Avios seems like an empty, formulaic, gesture - the psychology of this complaint is not to benefit from compensation (if so, most would take the £500), it's about wanting a distressing experience to be recognised and dealt with, and having some sort of feeling of control of the remedy, that you are being taken seriously. From a customer care perspective, the initial response is critical: seems to have been exemplary from the CSM and first aiders, then seems to have broken down.

I'm pretty sure from the response to the letter that the customer is getting an acceptable resolution now that it has got to someone with a wider view of commercial reality. I would be amazed if BA were not taking this extremely seriously from a health and safety angle.

Ancient Observer

On a no-win no-fee basis in the UK, compensation for a cut would renage from UKP5,000 to £10,000. (Source - Quittance Legal Services)
If it had been a member of CC or Flying staff, the bill would have been higher, and there would have been a Full H & S examination. It sounds like a Reportable LTA.

lizban

umgowah

I have 30+ years experience in dealing with personnel injury claims, mostly in the UK. £5k plus would be a serious cut, with permanent cosmetic affect, visible to the casual observer at conversational distance. (I.e. someone who has not had it pointed out to them,) £10k would need permanent disability, potentially loss of grip in the hand, perhaps nerve damage leading to permanent loss of sensation or the formation of an ultra sensitive neuroma. Indeed, total amputation of a finger (other than the index finger) would attract a lower award than £10k.

With no stitches, and no long term deficit, the offer of £300 is in the upper end of the bracket, £500 is generous, when compared to a Court award.