BA First Helicopter Ride - QC [Quebec, Canada] Lawsuit
Jan 28, 2020, 8:20 am
#151
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: JER
Programs: BA Gold/OWE, several MUCCI, and assorted Pensions!
Posts: 32,144
but that’s sort of a silly analysis, or at least doesn’t reflect on this case. I wanted the helicopter to go to a location that was historically serviced by BA’s helicopters. I’m not asking to be transported somewhere unreasonable, within the NY area, and the tariff fails to define what the helicopter travel limits are. A requirement to take a helicopter that’s as cheap as possible to a location I don’t want/need to go is not written nor sensible.
Jan 28, 2020, 8:22 am
#152
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: YYC
Programs: BA bronze, Aeroplan peon
Posts: 4,744
The Tariff forms part of the ticket and an individual ticket purchaser has no possibility of negotiating or changing any of the terms they don't like.
Jan 28, 2020, 8:28 am
#153
Moderator: British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: TPA/ABZ
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold. GGL/CCR.
Posts: 13,248
All credit to @durberville for perseverance on this thread. You must have a very thick skin. As to the matter in hand, I would imagine your action fails the test of 'reasonableness' and that you're wasting your time. It is of course yours to waste.
Jan 28, 2020, 8:28 am
#154
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: JER
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 814
JFK to Manhattan helicopter transfer (Concorde days)
I suspect that this sort of evidence would also help BA's case (appreciate it refers to Concorde rather than F, but I suspect equivalent documents are available somewhere). The requirement to request the helicopter at time of booking presumably left it open to both BA and the passenger not to do business if the helicopter was unavailable or the nuances of the transfer didn't suit. And it also suggests that the transfer from JFK was limited to downtown, LGA or EWR - I'm not sure if the OP has used LGA or EWR as their preferred destination, presuming it wasn't downtown.
I suspect that this sort of evidence would also help BA's case (appreciate it refers to Concorde rather than F, but I suspect equivalent documents are available somewhere). The requirement to request the helicopter at time of booking presumably left it open to both BA and the passenger not to do business if the helicopter was unavailable or the nuances of the transfer didn't suit. And it also suggests that the transfer from JFK was limited to downtown, LGA or EWR - I'm not sure if the OP has used LGA or EWR as their preferred destination, presuming it wasn't downtown.
Jan 28, 2020, 8:34 am
#155
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2010
Programs: Enough
Posts: 961
JFK to Manhattan helicopter transfer (Concorde days)
I suspect that this sort of evidence would also help BA's case (appreciate it refers to Concorde rather than F, but I suspect equivalent documents are available somewhere). The requirement to request the helicopter at time of booking presumably left it open to both BA and the passenger not to do business if the helicopter was unavailable or the nuances of the transfer didn't suit. And it also suggests that the transfer from JFK was limited to downtown, LGA or EWR - I'm not sure if the OP has used LGA or EWR as their preferred destination, presuming it wasn't downtown.
I suspect that this sort of evidence would also help BA's case (appreciate it refers to Concorde rather than F, but I suspect equivalent documents are available somewhere). The requirement to request the helicopter at time of booking presumably left it open to both BA and the passenger not to do business if the helicopter was unavailable or the nuances of the transfer didn't suit. And it also suggests that the transfer from JFK was limited to downtown, LGA or EWR - I'm not sure if the OP has used LGA or EWR as their preferred destination, presuming it wasn't downtown.
not that reserving in advance is a tariff requirement.
I then made the request at the airport lounge in LHR. The kind agents there worked on it but their contact with the JFK station manager was that it wasn’t possible.
Jan 28, 2020, 8:49 am
#156
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: Flying Blue, Miles & Smiles
Posts: 467
BA was made aware of the OP's intention to utilize this part of the tariff and could have cancelled the ticket should they have decided they didn't want to honour it. Personally, I think if a company's view is not to answer a query that is too hard and hope it goes away deserves to have it come back to them. Anyhow, I suspect OP knew that he wouldn't get a free helicopter ride and had prepared for it. How was the rest of the experience?
Jan 28, 2020, 8:49 am
#157
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: YOW
Programs: AC E75 / Marriott Titanium Elite
Posts: 952
As a Canadian taxpayer, I'd really like to know the OPs motivation in filing the suit at all. I'd like to give the OP the benefit of the doubt that it's for some reason other than being difficult to prove a point about picking something out of the tariffs for some potential personal gain, but to me this really just looks like a huge waste of my money to run the court system. You might gain a few dollars, but probably cost the people of Canada $100,000 to do so. I wish there was a law against these kind of things and IMO judges should have more latitude and be quicker to throw out waste of time cases.
Jan 28, 2020, 9:00 am
#158
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2010
Programs: Enough
Posts: 961
BA was made aware of the OP's intention to utilize this part of the tariff and could have cancelled the ticket should they have decided they didn't want to honour it. Personally, I think if a company's view is not to answer a query that is too hard and hope it goes away deserves to have it come back to them. Anyhow, I suspect OP knew that he wouldn't get a free helicopter ride and had prepared for it. How was the rest of the experience?
3-4 trains to get from JFK-EWR, which sucked.
As a Canadian taxpayer, I'd really like to know the OPs motivation in filing the suit at all. I'd like to give the OP the benefit of the doubt that it's for some reason other than being difficult to prove a point about picking something out of the tariffs for some potential personal gain, but to me this really just looks like a huge waste of my money to run the court system. You might gain a few dollars, but probably cost the people of Canada $100,000 to do so. I wish there was a law against these kind of things and IMO judges should have more latitude and be quicker to throw out waste of time cases.
Jan 28, 2020, 9:02 am
#159
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club, easyJet and Ryanair
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 15,922
Jan 28, 2020, 9:02 am
#160
Moderator: British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: TPA/ABZ
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold. GGL/CCR.
Posts: 13,248
Jan 28, 2020, 9:08 am
#161
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: YOW
Programs: AC E75 / Marriott Titanium Elite
Posts: 952
Unless your fee was in the 10's of thousands, you are costing the system a significant amount of money. Perhaps not 100k, but far more than you might think. About ten years ago when I was working at a provincial level government we had an assessment done that it was costing us $192 to process a single cheque - it was at a time when employees reimbursing the employer for personal calls on cell phones to the tune of $4/month which was costing the system a fortune. The cost of government administration in Canada knows no bounds. The judge, their assistant, court clerk, security, etc adds up pretty quick. Your one case you'll be surprised about the actual cost. The question I asked though was what was the motivation to pursue to the case aside from potentially proving a point about finding something in the tariffs and seeking some personal gain?
Jan 28, 2020, 9:22 am
#163
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: Flying Blue, Miles & Smiles
Posts: 467
Unless your fee was in the 10's of thousands, you are costing the system a significant amount of money. Perhaps not 100k, but far more than you might think. About ten years ago when I was working at a provincial level government we had an assessment done that it was costing us $192 to process a single cheque - it was at a time when employees reimbursing the employer for personal calls on cell phones to the tune of $4/month which was costing the system a fortune. The cost of government administration in Canada knows no bounds. The judge, their assistant, court clerk, security, etc adds up pretty quick. Your one case you'll be surprised about the actual cost. The question I asked though was what was the motivation to pursue to the case aside from potentially proving a point about finding something in the tariffs and seeking some personal gain?
And I think you are highlighting Canadian inefficiency more than anything else.
Jan 28, 2020, 9:23 am
#164
Formerly known as newbie elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: YUL
Programs: IHG Diamond Ambassador, Accor Platinum, AC50K
Posts: 2,923
I love all the people commenting as if this is a common law case, it isn't. Quebec has a Civil Code system and it also has some of the toughest consumer protection laws in Canada, courts at all levels side with the consumer much more than in other jurisdictions in my experience. I will be following this with interest.
Jan 28, 2020, 9:26 am
#165
Join Date: Aug 2012
Programs: BA Executive Club, AS Airlines Mileage Plan
Posts: 981
again, document was provided by the DOT. If a moderator wants to review the documentation to confirm it, more than happy to... not fair to share an employee’s info publicly.
the DOT, as a moderator can confirm under my offer, stated it would only provide a direct section. “We do not provide the whole tariff.” I explained the clause I referred to from the Canadian version of the tariff, and she emailed the excerpt.
a funny tidbit of USA law if you ask me. It’s difficult to get a copy of the airline’s contract. Ridiculous, eh? I even emailed BA to send me a copy, which was never responded to.
now that’s fair. It’s nearly impossible to actually read the contract of the ticket you’re buying.
and reading the contract is evidence of malfeasance?
the date on the document, which is an excerpt of the BA international tariff is 26AUG19, the date of travel. That means August 26, 2019.
it also says “CXR - BA” and the 0006 refers to the tariff rule.
the DOT, as a moderator can confirm under my offer, stated it would only provide a direct section. “We do not provide the whole tariff.” I explained the clause I referred to from the Canadian version of the tariff, and she emailed the excerpt.
a funny tidbit of USA law if you ask me. It’s difficult to get a copy of the airline’s contract. Ridiculous, eh? I even emailed BA to send me a copy, which was never responded to.
now that’s fair. It’s nearly impossible to actually read the contract of the ticket you’re buying.
and reading the contract is evidence of malfeasance?
the date on the document, which is an excerpt of the BA international tariff is 26AUG19, the date of travel. That means August 26, 2019.
it also says “CXR - BA” and the 0006 refers to the tariff rule.