allturnleft

sxc

I agree with this. I assume LCY-FRA is on an Embraer? So there is no middle seat to block, no lounge - aside from the food, the only other difference is the tier points and avios?

Whether paying for J is worth it is a separate question. If you have paid for J, and don't get the one thing that is the differentiator, then I would expect the difference between J and Y back.

Gig103

I fail to see how you can interpret "I paid for X and did not receive it" as "arrogance and compensation culture." If you ordered 12 shirts from an online shop, and only 10 showed up, I find it hard to believe you would shrug and say "Oh well, there are many people across the world who don't have a shirt."

Someone who just wants to fly from A to B books World Traveller, or Easyjet, or Ryanair. When we start talking business class, you're darn right it's luxury travel, so don't give me the same WT seat and take away one of the differentiators. BA doesn't even provide extra legroom like KLM!

ilcannone

The fact so many people are getting SO defensive over a poxy meal kind of proves my point all along to be fair.

offtothehills

It really doesn't. I am pretty sure that you are just winding some people up. Successfully.

Just recently, on a CE flight from MRS-LHR, I'd ordered a gluten free meal and was given only three tiny sandwiches, nothing else. I was given 3000 Avios by the CSM in compensation which is fair, IMO. Poxy or not, it's what we have paid for.

mario

Fair enough. They failed to deliver the advertised service but we all make mistakes. Next time I am at fault with BA, e.g. missing my flight and being asked to pay a change fee+fare difference, I'll let them know how once I didn't pursue compensation for a missing meal and how a new seat on another flight doesn't cost them a lot. What's a seat in the millions of seats they sell every year?

ll even quote you verbatim if they dontd bulge.

and I'll let you know if that made BA waive the fees.

Deltus

Hah, we could be given new ideas to BA's copy-paste robot at customer services here:

"Dear Customer, thank you for getting in touch about your recent flight in First. We're sorry to hear that your seat didn't recline, you didn't have any food or drink, your IFE didn't work, we lost your bags, and the flight was 6 hours late. However, the plane didn't crash and nobody died, so unfortunately we are unable to offer you any compensation on this occasion. Thank you for choosing British Airways."

PAL62V

Yes, it is ONLY a small amount of food but here's the thing - BA (like so many large companies) strictly force their customers to play by the rules, BA's rules. They will use any infraction by the customer to penalise them. These pages are filled with issues that are clearly their fault yet the customer has to jump thru hoops for compensation for issues that are clearly the fault of the airline. It's a one-way street in so many cases that it stands to reason when, in a case like this the customer decides on a matter of principle to require the company to stump up for not providing something that is already paid for.

BA would have no qualms about going thru the fine print and standing its ground on any number of small yet insignificant issues instead of using a common-sense approach. If they were a touch more human, more flexible, it would mean that the customer goes away knowing they were treated fairly. Is it any wonder then that when the shoe is on the other foot, customers demand to be compensated as almost a pay-back for the "computer says no" way of being handled in the past? Yes, I will agree that there are instances of CS operators who show a certain amount of common sense and try and sort an issue out but this is the rare exception and not the rule.

You reap what you sow and this is BA's (and many other company's) legacy.

ilcannone

See, that I can see as being a worthwhile reason, particularly given how dietary requirements can be critical etc.

But I am actually quite serious in my own opinions, just like everyone else is with theirs. It just so happens that my opinion is a very unpopular one and is going to cause outrage, unfortunately. So believe what you will.

kaka

cx said something along the line once. i got told to wait at the F checkin desk outport whilst the F agent summons a Y pax. i complained and cx said i did eventually get checked in there (after me complaining) so they didnt give a ....

mausmaus

You're conflating two separate issues: what was lost and what was spent on a non-identical replacement. What you voluntarily spend on the replacement is not a factor in the value of the loss.

If your car is deemed a total loss and you choose to buy a more expensive car, the insurance payout has nothing to do with what you chose to spend on your replacement car. It has to do with the value of the car that was lost.
No. Passengers A and B on the same flight, who missed the same meal service, are owed the same compensation, even if Passenger A spent €35 and passenger B spent €12 on food. Restoring an affected passenger to the position they would have been in with the meal is not a case-by-case issue; the item not delivered is a commodity, not situation-specific. An airline meal is hardly more than a starter on a short-haul flight like this. "Actual expense" is meaningless if the item being purchased is not comparable to the item lost, and you'd be hard-pressed to spend €35 on a like-for-like replacement for that small plate.

That person chose to replace a light meal missed on a flight with a full meal in the airport. It's a reasonable response, but it isn't a valid valuation of the loss. 3500 Avios or €35 is probably a pretty typical amount in this situation, but it has exactly zero to do with having a receipt for €35 from an airport eatery. It has to do with the actual value of the meal (€20 more than covers it) plus a reasonable, customary (i.e., not compulsory) gesture for the inconvenience.

Mike P

No, you are trolling this thread and not helping the OP in the slightest.

carrotjuice

Takiteasy

Globaliser

Oh dear, I knew that I should not have broken my usual self-imposed restriction to try not to go anywhere near issues that look too much like real-world work - like discussing different methods of valuing a loss, or how an insurance payout is the payment of a contractual amount and not of compensation.

So if you'll forgive me, I will now respectfully bow out of this conversation!