Globaliser

It's a strange world that some people inhabit, if simply pointing out that the CEDR decision-maker has already not believed the OP and that the next decision-maker might again not believe the OP = trashing the OP's character.

It's almost as if it's become a requirement to believe that the OP is truthful, that the airline staff are lying, and that the CEDR decision is wrong. The lawyer in me simply can't bring myself to believe anything about any story that anyone tells: I always want actual evidence (which we will hardly ever get on an IBB).

Often1

This is the sole factual question at issue. If BA required the production of the physical card at the gate and OP did not produce the card, it seems a clearly reasonable basis to deny boarding and no compensation is due. If, on the other hand, either BA did not require the card, OP had no particular reason to produce it and the denial of boarding was not reasonable and compensation is due. I use the term "BA" to include its own employees and employees of its agents at the gate.

The rest is a series of red herrings. BA does not and should not know what other purchases OP has made and when. BA is only privvy to OP's purchases where BA is the vendor. Hopefully the sort of people who work in quasi-judicial roles at alternative dispute resolution facilities such as CEDR are trained and of a mind to focus solely on the issue at hand and not to make broad pronouncements about anything beyond the immediate matter before them. Similarly, whether BA routinely runs out of the BOB of choice before reaching one's seat may be a reason to dislike the service, but has little to do with the facts here.

MitchR

Based upon my experience with Iberia I would surmise that it was poor communication on the part of the Iberia employee. The airline is terrible at communicating. I have had an inordinate amount of issues with them, and quite a few on co branded BA flights. Even their customer service and bag claim is impossible to reach.

Ldnn1

I think that is giving BA too much leeway. It's not simply a question of 'did BA require the card', but did BA make clear to the customer that they required the card. If there was some sort of miscommunication such that OP didn't understand what was being asked, and BA (via the agent) didn't make every effort to explain properly and give OP the opportunity to resolve the situation, then I don't see that they have reasonably denied boarding. Remember there has been no suggestion from BA, CEDR or anyone here that OP did in fact use a credit card fraudulently (which would be a crime), merely that the card wasn't in fact seen in person by a BA agent at PMI. Nothing in the BA notes posted above suggests to me at all that they made the request clear (or indeed at all) to OP, that OP understood it and failed to produce it, or was given any reasonable opportunity to resolve the situation in another way. This is why my view as stated above is that on the face of it CEDR made a bad decision here.

To requote BA's own notes:

bluemoon68

Accepting that OP arrived at the gate with a cancelled boarding pass, do the gate staff have the power to re-validate the boarding pass on the production of a CC?

scubaccr

Decision by CEDR had nothing to do with OPs credibility, decision due to an uneven playing field experience regards OP documenting his own evidence to counter BA's PNR record evidence in OPs complaint for consideration by CEDR.

BA have a highly paid professional legal dept/team who will will be familiar with CEDR process & know exactly how to state the BA case , whereas first timer OP is at a massive disadvantage in stating his CEDR case evidence as was needed to win, and thus OP no doubt failed to present OPs own compelling CC statement facts in the right way to offset BAs PNR note(s).

Thankfully at MCOL, that disadvantage on OP is lessened, as OP can be asked/prompted during the face to face MCOL hearing, unlike with CEDR where only the provided written case is considered.

Mrlmrl

1)

Good question. We have learned we were offloaded 3 hours before the flight departure time. This actually even before we passed the first security to the gates (so you can pass the gates if you are unchecked?) The agent actually mentioned several times that he wouldn't be able to change it. I wonder if it's really true. Does anyone know?

2)

This is probably from the "supervisor". We told the agent to let us speak with him directly when they were on the phone (in Spanish) or tell him to come and explain us why we were not allowed to the flight. He refused our requests. I believe he lied on behalf of his gate agent on the email about the incident. I'll at least mention that this is a 3rd hand account and request for an email directly from the agent himself.

To clarify for some of the posters, we were there at least half an hour and we asked million times, there was no mention of "card" at all. He was mostly saying "I want to help but I can't, I don't know why this is happening, there is nothing to do, you should talk to BA", etc. Also as seen on the call record shared by BA, even the BA call center agent did not make any explanation. He said "system says you need to buy a new ticket".

So, we will try to summarize the points again as much as we can to reject the CEDR's decision. If the decision doesn't change, we will go to MCOL as suggested.

Thank you all!

sxc

The other mistake (?) that BA/IB made was not making it clear that the purchase of a second ticket was just to replace the first purchase, and that the first purchase would be refunded to the first credit card. This is normal practice when a credit card needs to be produced, and it can't be produced.

NickB

If the airline has not informed the passenger at reservation time or in the confirmation email that he may be required to produce additional documents, I cannot see how they can lawfully deny him boarding for failing to produce a document that the contract of carriage does not require him to produce.

I think that you might be missing the point here. The relevance of other purchases the OP has made at the airport is evidence to determine the likelihood, on a balance of probabilities, of the OP having or not having been asked to produce the card. If the OP can establish that he made other purchases at the airport, this establishes that he did have the card at the airport. If that is so, it is difficult to find a convincing reason why he would have refused to show it at the Iberia agent when asked from which the dispute settlement body could infer, on a balance of probability, that the OP was more likely to not have been asked the show the card. If the OP cannot establish that he had the card at the airport, then the balance of evidence shifts more towards BA's story than the OP's.

In any event, it seems to me that it still does not address the question of the OP being asked to produce a credit card where he had not been been informed before that he needed to have that credit card with him at check-in.

Often1

A perfectly reasonable set of inferences which one might draw if placed in a fact-finding role in this dispute. Another fact finder might draw unfavorable (to OP) inferences from BA's submission. CEDR, in this instance, was of the latter type.

HIDDY

I'd move on and try and forget about it. Seems to me it hinged on what the BA handling agent at the airport said and I doubt they're going to change their story.

What I would like to ask you is what were Easyjets actions after they cancelled your flight? Have you had any compensation from them?

Stewie Mac

Often1

The CEDR adjuicator expressly stated in the determination (go back to #3 )

"however, the ground handling staff at PMI have confirmed that the passenger was unable to present the credit card used to purchase the booking,"

That need not be an entry in the PNR notes which are not intended to be a verbatim transcript of the proceedings at the gate and could just as easily have been a representation by BA of an interview or message from the IB staff who handled the matter. In whatever form, the statement is either factually incorrect or not. Nobody on FT can say one way or the other and presumably the adjudicator is not on FT.

icebird

As a long time member, I’m sad to see how miserable the BA forum has become - this thread as an example. A distinct lack of tolerance and an almost guaranteed abuse when people post on here. I used to look forward to reading FT but increasingly I’m forgetting to log on.

HIDDY

That's the problem. Might be a good idea if the airlines are forced to get passengers to sign a form agreeing they were unable to produce the card the booking was made on.