Sadly, the remaining BA'ness and "crew" in me is unable to do drama onboard.

And, as for forgetting to record it... I was stood with her in the CSD office under the stairs when she wrote it in the AML/Cabin Tech Log.

I rarely comment on other people's posts but have to say that I find FP's remarks even worse than unhelpful and unnecessary.

Which is why I have stopped replying to them... :D

Transporting us - in safety - is a given assumption. So that doesn't count for 'value' here. The 'upgraded' food and beverage doesn't count either because it's not the reaon I fly premium. I can manage perfectly well with an economy meal (I do whenever I eat out at a cheap place for lunch or dinner).

The whole point of biz class is the flat bed. That's the product differential over PEY or Y. If you can't use it, there should be full compensation, otherwise I might as well have been in the main cabin. (In other words... would you pay £1000 extra just for the CW meal?)

I agree that the transportation is a given assumption - although I also think that it is reasonable that the transportation of the OP and his bags forms part of the value of his fare. Primarily, we are paying to get from A to B, but just with different amounts of comfort.

If you are making an argument that say the compensation should be partly based upon the difference between CW and WTP, less some allowance for the extras over and above WTP that CW allows, then this may be more reasonable. After all, the seat that BingBongBoy received was arguably close to a WTP product, except with more privacy, space, lounge access, better food etc So maybe as a base point, take the Avios difference between the CW and WTP fares, adjust for other CW elements not provided by WTP and go from there?

I'm really sorry to hear that, but understand that's up to you.

Except that possibly, like me, the OP may not have chosen WTP if they weren't going to get the flat bed. They might have been just as happy with WT as the extra cost for a wider seat and a bit of extra legroom is rarely a good value-for-money proposition. (If you are going to be forced to downgrade, why accept a product you might not buy anyway?)

Fair point, although here you are applying as a yardstick for compensation how the customer values the product. I am not sure (not being legally trained) that this is a basis for reasonable compensation calculation.

As I see it, the OP pretty much received a CW product in its entirety except that instead of a fully flat bed he received a bed in the Z configuration. I understand that this was not what was paid for, and not what he would have chosen. So the question comes down to what is reasonable compensation here? This is what BingBongBoy asked for, our opinions given his concerns about the compensation culture and presumably wanting to be fair in his expectations. You seem to be saying it should be the Avios difference between Y and CW, but I think that is an excessive expectation in this case.

I think it is fair to say EU261 sees it from the point of 'value'. You get downgraded you get 75% of the ticket price. it doesn't matter if you get downgraded from F to J, or J to Y. It's seen as a single product - not components of the product you may get (otherwise the difference between F and J might only be 30% for example).

I think it's fair to say long haul biz class these days is all about the flat bed. I think the first thing most people look for is the flat bed. Meals and everything else then differentiates between airlines. (I for example would take an airline with a flat bed and an economy meal over an airline with angled beds but a 5-course meal.)

As a point of reference, there were approximately 15 broken CW and First seats on the flight from Bridgetown to Gatwick last night and each passenger was offered 80,000 avios compensation.

I like your thinking... But, sadly no... If anything, I think some crew feel it can be a bit of a free card to try and get away with stuff... meal choices running out etc. but I would never ask for anything in terms of special treatment from crew based on my old employment status. If anything, it probably makes me a worse passenger as I know what should, roughly, be being done and when :D

:o :o :o

Heavens... Well... Wow...!

2,500 v 80,000 really does put this into perspective :o

Well for reference I was given 15,000 Avios for a broken TV in Club World in 2012. I recently had the misfortune of a completely broken new Polaris seat (no TV or power either) on United and was offered 15K miles OR $300 ecert (took the $). United has given others the same compensation for just a broken TV, so they're all over the map in compensation too. It isn't limited to BA, unfortunately.

Yes, it really does.

I don't know the correct number for compensation, but I do know it isn't 2,500 Avios.

Well, my case has come to a close...

77,500 Avios have been credited to my account, along with an apology from someone else in customer relations for the issue with the seat, and it having not been properly dealt with in the first lot of communication.

77,500 is more like it...

Thanks for the advice all.