Thank you for all the replies. I will certainly pursue a claim and report back on this thread. I see how BA may try and claim a health and safety exception, but given I fulfilled all their documentation requirements and that my wife is fit and healthy (as per the doctors letter and to they eye), I don’t see what more I could have done to be boarded.

Regarding the question of who the staff work for, I can’t be sure but I think they were just BA - all in BA uniforms, all went to the gate for departure, all left the airport after departure etc.

Hadn’t seen this part when I replied - of course defer to CWS on this

CWS answered up thread but most US stations are contract employees now. (All xmt JFK?)

Yes indeed. His post was just after I asked the question.

That was my reaction too: the letter didn't mention the return trip.

At the risk of overthinking this, I wonder if the author of the original letter was thinking of his/her liability reference a return flight several weeks hence? That said, the whole medical letter thing is a game of pass-the-liability-parcel.

Wouldn't the doctor hedge and say something like "at this time, I can see no reason that the patient cannot travel in three weeks."

It would largely be pointless to get a letter from a random doctor who hasn't been involved with the patient's care and no one would want (to endure or pay for) extensive duplicate medical tests just for a new letter from someone who has no direct knowledge of the patient's medical history. Moreover, it wouldn't be easy for a new patient to get an appointment with a medical professional on short notice and it would be inappropriate to take oneself to an emergency room for such an issue.

👍

I think we have 2 possible situations here, in descending likelihood:

1. BA’s contract agents in DEN made a mistake.

2. OP and his wife failed to strictly adhere to BA’s medical requirements for carriage and were refused travel legitimately.

Whatever the reason(s), it’s certainly a reminder to everyone to ensure that any medical letters explicitly mention the full duration of travel.

We have been through the same thought process of what we could have done differently.

Given the letter we obtained did include the due date (I didn’t include the particulars in my quote, and besides, the due date is a derivative of how how many weeks you are, which was also included), cleared the letter was sufficient with BA before travel, I don’t see how we could have done anything differently.

i understand the point about medical liability, time passed since the outbound flight etc., but we followed the instructions to the letter. On the point of wording of the original letter, it didn’t say we were only fit to fly on the outbound flight, it simply stated the point of pregnancy (28wks 3days) on the outbound travel day. I suppose it could have stated the pregnancy duration only the return date, but (1) the guidelines don’t ask for it, and (2) adding that would just have been a statement of fact (she will be xxx weeks on xxx date), not medical opinion.