CW Defective Seat Compo

Reply

Old Apr 8, 19, 4:48 pm
  #31  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 11,983
Originally Posted by Flexible preferences View Post
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.
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.
BingBongBoy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 19, 8:17 pm
  #32  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Arizona
Programs: BA (GGL), AA (statusless), HH (Diamond);
Posts: 2,742
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.
dylanks is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 19, 12:12 am
  #33  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Programs: BAEC Bronze
Posts: 5,137
Originally Posted by BingBongBoy View Post
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.
To be reasonable about this your calculation ascribes zero value to any elements of the flight except for the seat. Surely that can't be right?
Flexible preferences is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 19, 12:30 am
  #34  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 115
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.
Never Stansted is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 19, 1:51 am
  #35  
V10
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Provincie Antwerpen, Vlaanderen, België
Programs: MUCCI Gold
Posts: 2,410
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.
Buster and nancypants like this.
V10 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 19, 5:30 am
  #36  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Programs: BAEC Bronze
Posts: 5,137
Originally Posted by Never Stansted View Post
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.
I think this is unfair regarding obsession. What I'm doing is contributing to an interesting debate (as are you). What value is ascribed to various elements of a flight's overall package? You say the seat is the fundamental upon which the rest is built, but that could be equally said about the safe transportation from A to B, or the personal space offered or indeed the cabin crew service. Isn't it valuable to explore this and see what comes to light from each of our opinions? For me, what has come to light is that I agree 2500 is too low, however I disagree that the compensation awarded should be based all about the seat element, and the others disregarded.
Flexible preferences is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 19, 10:21 am
  #37  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Programs: BAEC Silver, Virgin Flying Club, SPG
Posts: 613
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.
Magic01273 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 19, 10:40 am
  #38  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Programs: Lemonia. Best Greek ever.
Posts: 1,493
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.
Ancient Observer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 19, 10:42 am
  #39  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,747
Originally Posted by Magic01273 View Post
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.
This is my entire rationale for booking CW. On flights from the US to the UK, I don't eat on the flight. I put that seat flat as soon as I can and sleep the entire flight. That's it. I'm not using the rest of the services. That they got me there safely really shouldn't enter in to the equation - that's the bare minimum, and is as applicable to economy as CW, so there is no "added" value to arriving at your destination without incident.
Buster is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 19, 10:47 am
  #40  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Programs: BAEC Silver, Virgin Flying Club, SPG
Posts: 613
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...
airb330 likes this.
Magic01273 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 19, 10:54 am
  #41  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Cheltenham
Programs: KLM Plat for Life , BA Gold, Avianca Diamond, HH Silver, (OtherhalfGold), IHG Gold
Posts: 1,759
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
simonsmith is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 19, 11:02 am
  #42  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Programs: BAEC Bronze
Posts: 5,137
Originally Posted by Magic01273 View Post
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.
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? And where did I say that he should be grateful for BA not crashing the plane? Honestly, you seem to be creating an argument with your own words that you put into my mouth, and certainly not with me.

May I add, BingBongBoy actively solicited opinions from us on FT, and I hope mine are welcomed just as others are on here:

Originally Posted by BingBongBoy View Post
I am really not a big fan of the compo culture we see today, but just looking for opinions...
.
Flexible preferences is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 19, 11:35 am
  #43  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Programs: BAEC Bronze
Posts: 5,137
It will be very interesting to see what BA come back with after escalation - I wouldn't be surprised if the offer increases.
Flexible preferences is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 19, 11:41 am
  #44  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Programs: BAEC Silver, Virgin Flying Club, SPG
Posts: 613
Originally Posted by Flexible preferences View Post
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?
Where did I say you had said that? It was posed as a question.

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.
Magic01273 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 19, 11:43 am
  #45  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Argentina
Programs: BAEC/IB
Posts: 37,555
2500 does seem to be on the stingy side.You should have been more Flyertalker melodramatic when you complained to the CSD BBB.

Maybe they forgot to record it?
HIDDY is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread