let_BAegones_be

orbitmic

bisonrav

corporate-wage-slave

You aren't correct on this one. The last time they did that during a Christmas irrop period, there were plenty of complaints here (though relatively few from those directly impacted it has to be said). People choose to pay CE for different aspects, and certainly middle seat block is a big factor for many passengers. But other people want the extra TPs, Avios, increased baggage allowance, lounge access, Fast Track, Priority Boarding, additional staffing, complementary food, complementary drinks, Pinnacle seating, seated near the front and so on. To take all of that away and replace it with EC261 is a worse outcome for many (most?) passengers than doing what they have actually done: moved some people from ET to CE, they get the benefits listed above, existing CE passengers should get some Avios if they claim them. If instead BA had overtly downgraded everyone to ET, the EC261 reimbursement on the cheapest LON-NCE Club Europe (£215 return) is £23.70,. and would probably take 2 months to be paid. So personally I'd take the 3000 Avios.

orbitmic

corporate-wage-slave

From what we can tell (mentioned above), and looking at the seat maps, only 2 services were affected. I can't find any examples today even for Prague or Nice, so I would challenge the word "significantly", as far as I can tell less than 100 people were affected, and it may have been less than 50. Given the 30% rule on downgrade reimbursement, I suspect BA have lost more money than they have gained, and by the time hotels and what not get factored in, I doubt BA's Treasury team have had a good few days overall.

adrianlondon

Have people in this instance been offered 3000 Avios?

corporate-wage-slave

This was what happened to those who claimed it last time this happened, since that time CR have been slightly more generous with compensation Avios. I don't know about this time, or whether SCCMs have been handling it out via the iPad option.

orbitmic

I actually agree with both points, but again, this answer two arguments which I am simply not making and not the one that I make.

Significantly is for each flight it is done, not in terms of BA's annual balance. A typical 321 to NCE has 18 rows of CE, meaning 72 C and 110 Y pax with a load factor of 100%. By sacrificing the middle seats, this adds a further 36 pax on the plane, potentially all of them in CE. That is a very significant increase indeed for each flight where this is made (+19.8% of total capacity or up to +50% of C capacity) and that is lucrative. Moreover, this is 36 people for whom the duty of care stops being owed (as well as, once again, 36 happier people so once more, it is right to fly them).

And again, nobody has claimed that BA would become rich because of this week, that is simply not something I said. What I am saying is specifically that releasing the middle seat makes BA financially better off than they would be if they kept them blocked. That is a different argument altogether and I don't think that there is anything controversial about it.

I just don't think that it is good judgement (or for that matter moral) that by not offering a spontaneous gesture of good will, BA will be financially profiting from that decision which is purportedly (and rightly) intended to benefit stranded passengers instead whilst only the other passengers themselves are asked to accept a lower service. It is also wrong that compensation should only go to passengers who ask for it - or for that matter that passengers be left to either accept a loss of comfort with no compensation or left to feel pretty darn horrible if they right to complain about their loss of comfort whilst precisely this could be wrongly misconstrued as them resenting that other passengers were helped, which in all likelihood, the immense majority of them will support.

As for the fact that this has affected a small number of flights, the argument goes both ways: it precisely makes it all the more ridiculous that BA would not offer that small number of customers the handful of avios (or for non BAEC members a £20 voucher for onboard shopping or a future purchase) pro-actively.

I don't think that BA are being malicious here, but I think that they are being poor at customer service. What they should have done is make exactly the decision they did, send exactly the text messages they did, but simply add a sentence saying: "We do realise that this flight will not be to the usual standard of comfort that you expect from Club Europe but we are sure that you understand why we chose to prioritise flying stranded passengers back to their destination as early as possible and hope that you will accept 3000 avios that we have posted to your account to thank you for your understanding in those difficult circumstances".

If they had, there would be no discussion.

PS: One thing I'm confused about is the reference to downgrade reimbursement. Do you think that BA will pay such reimbursement here? As I said before, I personally do not believe that this constitutes (or should be deemed) a case of downgrade.

subject2load

Often1

While downgrade reimbursement under the Regulation looks to be lucrative, bear in mind that it is on the base segment fare only. By the time one breaks out the segment in question, e.g., not the ticket price for the return, and strips out all taxes and fees (including what would have been APD on the outbound), 30% of the base fare may not be a large amount.

tuonopepper

Compensation culture has brought us here sadly. One day that may be me faced with a chance to get home to see my kids at the weekend by taking a middle seat, or 'allowing' someone else that opportunity by being OK with someone else being sat there.

I'm assuming they'll be putting other CE passengers in to fill the gaps so everyone will be in the same boat, I'd agree if no meal service then they should comp the difference between the club and eco fares, however if its just the middle seat then I wouldn't be looking for comp, I just don't feel it's required and would be satisfied someone was able to benefit.

orbitmic

I must admit that you've lost me here. I thought that since the changes that occurred a few years ago, the cost of a UUA is always calculated as the difference between the mileage cost of the class of travel you want to fly in minus the (notional) mileage cost of the class you paid for. At any rate, that's definitely always what I have paid when doing UUAs on WT+ to CW which is the only ones I buy. If that were the case, that would be 4000 off peak for LON-NCE (CE is 8000 and ET is 4000) and 4500 peak (CE is 9000 and ET is 4500).

Are UUAs costs calculated using a different formula for European flights? I'll admit that I've never UUA'ed from ET to CE (and certainly would never consider it unless I was planning a move and needed extra luggage!) so maybe the calculation is not the mileage difference then, but if so I'd be really curious as to why BA have chosen to make this an exception, especially if it means to make an exception for as little as 250 avios which hardly seem worth the trouble!

orbitmic

I think that the basic reason is that companies in general do not offer pro-active compensation or gestures because they would then give it to everyone whilst if they wait for people to complain, between those who don't know they can, those who forget or never get round to asking, and those who don't care enough, they will only have to pay a fraction of the people affected so the savings of waiting are pretty clear.

What is less obvious but in my view just as important is the benefit of not waiting, which some airlines do in cases such as delays above a certain length of time. When someone complains and you answer, you merely mitigate the damage. By contrast, when you offer something pro-actively, you have a chance to build a reputation in the customer's eyes as a fair and honest company or even a company that cares, and the consequential reputational benefits can be very significant. As a result, the couple of airlines I can think of which chose to pilot sending pro-active compensation to customers affected by some specific travel incidents chose to continue the process and never seem to have thought twice about it.

I would argue that this constitutes best practice and that the rest of the industry (at least among quality legacy carriers) should ultimately aim to emulate it.

tuonopepper

Suppose they'll be sent down the back for leak too.... Lol