CW Defective Seat Compo
Apr 8, 2019, 4:48 pm
#31
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Home: East Mids UK - Work (Base): Accra, Ghana.
Programs: BAEC: Silver - Marriott: Titanium
Posts: 12,086
OK, although in your breakdown you are assigning 100% of the value of the flight to the flat bed. Dining, lounges, tier points and Avios earned, and not forgetting of course safely transporting you 3500 miles (ish) are all completely discounted by your calculation. I don't mean to knock the importance of a flat bed, but I think it can be easily overlooked how many other important elements of a flight there are too. All these other elements were provided, and have value.
Apr 8, 2019, 8:17 pm
#32
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Arizona
Programs: BA (GGL G4L), AA (Gold), HH (Diamond); Marriott (Gold)
Posts: 3,011
I know I’m in the minority with my opinion, but for situations like this I feel like an unrestricted (eg doesn’t require Avios availability) single class upgrade is fair compensation as the OP effectively received a downgraded experience. The corresponding number of Avios is not sufficient given the challenge in using them.
I often use the example of buying a computer from Apple. If you get a MacBook and the space key doesn’t work, Apple doesn’t say “here’s an iTunes gift card, you’re stuck with a broken key on your new machine, but it mostly works fine” nor would they say “you paid full price for a 15” model, but here’s a 13” model and a voucher for 100 quid”. They would make it right by replacing or fixing the issue. With the perishable nature of airline seats the closest option would be what I proposed above. Of course the abuse of such a system is why we don’t have such a system in place today, and I don’t have answers for what is a significant enough issue to offer the compensation I propose.
I often use the example of buying a computer from Apple. If you get a MacBook and the space key doesn’t work, Apple doesn’t say “here’s an iTunes gift card, you’re stuck with a broken key on your new machine, but it mostly works fine” nor would they say “you paid full price for a 15” model, but here’s a 13” model and a voucher for 100 quid”. They would make it right by replacing or fixing the issue. With the perishable nature of airline seats the closest option would be what I proposed above. Of course the abuse of such a system is why we don’t have such a system in place today, and I don’t have answers for what is a significant enough issue to offer the compensation I propose.
Apr 9, 2019, 12:12 am
#33
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 5,380
Yes, and I enjoyed them all for the time that they were available. However, the largest portion of the journey, the 7H25 spent onboard the aircraft, were without a fully functioning hard product seat. I think we best leave the apportioning of value there, as we obviously have different views as to how it should be dealt with.
Apr 9, 2019, 12:30 am
#34
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: JER
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 816
There are certainly cases of people trying it on to get compensation, but this clearly isn’t one of them - not sure why one poster is so obsessed with firing questions regarding calculation at the OP.
It doesn’t make sense to try and ascribe monetary value to each individual element of the CW product when the seat is the basis on which the rest of it is built. It’s the key point of differentiation with, say, a PE exit row - the idea for instance that you can have a decent meal in the knowledge you can relax in a flat bed afterwards. Many of the airport benefits are also of limited value to anyone who has status or priority pass.
With all that in mind, the right offer is surely something that would allow the OP to upgrade from PE to J on a future flight, whether by way of the right number of Avios or a space-available upgrade. The idea that 2500 Avios is even worth discussing is laughable.
It doesn’t make sense to try and ascribe monetary value to each individual element of the CW product when the seat is the basis on which the rest of it is built. It’s the key point of differentiation with, say, a PE exit row - the idea for instance that you can have a decent meal in the knowledge you can relax in a flat bed afterwards. Many of the airport benefits are also of limited value to anyone who has status or priority pass.
With all that in mind, the right offer is surely something that would allow the OP to upgrade from PE to J on a future flight, whether by way of the right number of Avios or a space-available upgrade. The idea that 2500 Avios is even worth discussing is laughable.
Apr 9, 2019, 1:51 am
#35
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Provincie Antwerpen, Vlaanderen, België
Programs: MUCCI Gold
Posts: 2,512
2500 Avios for a fundamental hard product failure like this is far too low.
I thought that the period of derisory service recovery offers had been left behind, but obviously not.
I thought that the period of derisory service recovery offers had been left behind, but obviously not.
Apr 9, 2019, 5:30 am
#36
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 5,380
There are certainly cases of people trying it on to get compensation, but this clearly isn’t one of them - not sure why one poster is so obsessed with firing questions regarding calculation at the OP.
It doesn’t make sense to try and ascribe monetary value to each individual element of the CW product when the seat is the basis on which the rest of it is built. It’s the key point of differentiation with, say, a PE exit row - the idea for instance that you can have a decent meal in the knowledge you can relax in a flat bed afterwards. Many of the airport benefits are also of limited value to anyone who has status or priority pass.
With all that in mind, the right offer is surely something that would allow the OP to upgrade from PE to J on a future flight, whether by way of the right number of Avios or a space-available upgrade. The idea that 2500 Avios is even worth discussing is laughable.
It doesn’t make sense to try and ascribe monetary value to each individual element of the CW product when the seat is the basis on which the rest of it is built. It’s the key point of differentiation with, say, a PE exit row - the idea for instance that you can have a decent meal in the knowledge you can relax in a flat bed afterwards. Many of the airport benefits are also of limited value to anyone who has status or priority pass.
With all that in mind, the right offer is surely something that would allow the OP to upgrade from PE to J on a future flight, whether by way of the right number of Avios or a space-available upgrade. The idea that 2500 Avios is even worth discussing is laughable.
Apr 9, 2019, 10:21 am
#37
Join Date: Jun 2011
Programs: BAEC Gold, HHonors Gold, Marriot Bonvoy Gold, MeliaRewards Gold, Radisson Gold
Posts: 816
So what if BBB stated that his SOLE reason for booking CW was for the flat bed and that he ascribed zero value to the other flight elements? He'd be well within his rights to hold that view To be honest I've taken flights where the only thing I care about is sleep on a flat bed. Where I haven't been able to make use of lounges food/drink offerings. Would that be a satisfactory response for you, or would you insist that he has to ascribe value to those elements?
And no, I wouldn't be factoring in my gratitude for not crashing the plane in to my calculations here.
And no, I wouldn't be factoring in my gratitude for not crashing the plane in to my calculations here.
Apr 9, 2019, 10:40 am
#38
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Programs: Lemonia. Best Greek ever.
Posts: 2,271
I have flown many times when all the lobster/fillet/champagne/Puligny/Lynch Bages in the world would not stop me from sleeping.
Some times the food and alcohol is nice. Other times it is irrelevant. BBB is quite correct, and 2500 is derisory.
Some times the food and alcohol is nice. Other times it is irrelevant. BBB is quite correct, and 2500 is derisory.
Apr 9, 2019, 10:42 am
#39
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: SW WA
Posts: 3,886
So what if BBB stated that his SOLE reason for booking CW was for the flat bed and that he ascribed zero value to the other flight elements? He'd be well within his rights to hold that view To be honest I've taken flights where the only thing I care about is sleep on a flat bed. Where I haven't been able to make use of lounges food/drink offerings. Would that be a satisfactory response for you, or would you insist that he has to ascribe value to those elements?
And no, I wouldn't be factoring in my gratitude for not crashing the plane in to my calculations here.
And no, I wouldn't be factoring in my gratitude for not crashing the plane in to my calculations here.
Apr 9, 2019, 10:47 am
#40
Join Date: Jun 2011
Programs: BAEC Gold, HHonors Gold, Marriot Bonvoy Gold, MeliaRewards Gold, Radisson Gold
Posts: 816
I quite like the approach of providing enough Avios to upgrade a future PE flight to CW. Food and drink are available PE, lounge access can be gained through status or other means. Arguably the only defining feature of CW is the flat bed (and perhaps the rather vaque benefit of extra space - which is arguably also achievable in PE in some cases). So compensation should be appropriate that the customer can book a future seat which can be upgraded in order to properly deliver on the original (broken) promise. Seems just to me...
Apr 9, 2019, 10:54 am
#41
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Cheltenham
Programs: KLM Plat for Life , BA Gold, HH Silver, (Other half Diamond), IHG Gold
Posts: 2,398
In addition if you are a GCH or similar you of course get the lounges , priority check in, boarding, baggage, seat selection etc any way making these calculations even trickier. As an aside if you are a non status customer spending avios for European CE makes far more sense than if you have status
Apr 9, 2019, 11:02 am
#42
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 5,380
So what if BBB stated that his SOLE reason for booking CW was for the flat bed and that he ascribed zero value to the other flight elements? He'd be well within his rights to hold that view To be honest I've taken flights where the only thing I care about is sleep on a flat bed. Where I haven't been able to make use of lounges food/drink offerings. Would that be a satisfactory response for you, or would you insist that he has to ascribe value to those elements?
And no, I wouldn't be factoring in my gratitude for not crashing the plane in to my calculations here.
And no, I wouldn't be factoring in my gratitude for not crashing the plane in to my calculations here.
May I add, BingBongBoy actively solicited opinions from us on FT, and I hope mine are welcomed just as others are on here:
Apr 9, 2019, 11:41 am
#44
Join Date: Jun 2011
Programs: BAEC Gold, HHonors Gold, Marriot Bonvoy Gold, MeliaRewards Gold, Radisson Gold
Posts: 816
I'm not sure if you actually read my posts, or instead they become warped into something that causes some personal offence to you. I completely agree BingBongBoy has every right to hold whatever view he wishes (please point out where did I say he didn't). Where did I ever insist on anything from BingBongBoy?
I asked "Would that be a satisfactory response or would you insist he ascribe some value to those elements?"
I was asking a genuine question about your approach to this. It is unclear (to me at least) whether you would accept a customer ascribing zero value to the other elements or - because those other elements may have been available - you would feel they must be factored in somehow. I have inferred from your replies that you feel those aspects must be included, even if a customer personally doesn't value them at all (or factor them in to their choice to purchase the seat). I asked the question to check whether or not I had inferred correctly.
