Dave Noble

I cannot imagine that it would put any effort in to put in place additional criteria on involuntary upgrades - if the person wins the case, then it is because BA left things in its tarrifs that it should not have done and was responsible for what was there. Do you really think that it will have a hissy fit should it lose?

durberville

oh well. Usually confirmed in premium cabin anyways.

It’s interesting for me. Time doesn’t really matter.

GM1985

It’s an interesting analogy, and one I had considered touching upon in a previous post where I said the OP is very possibly right, but to what extent is this reasonable?

Instinctively, my initial reasoning was that a mistake fare is something that is offered quite openly, and publicly, on BA.com (or, at the very least, a channel managed by BA). If BA offer a return J fare LON-NYC for £200, and a passenger books that, I don’t think BA should be allowed to unilaterally cancel due to their error.

Contrast that with the situation in the OP, it takes quite a bit of not insubstantial investigative leg work to even find the helicopter reference. It isn’t something the ‘average’ passenger would ever stumble across, which is where the initial distinction was in my mind.

But having seen the argument of others in the thread that BA are not shy to enforce tarrifs and CoC when it suits their commercial purposes, my initial reactions to this were probably wrong and I wish the OP well in their fight.

percysmith

Analogous to the nurse who tried to claim his upgrade 20 years after he saved a pax on his CX flight:

https://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/201...00822_001.html

KeaneJohn

Surely if 7b in BAs Conditions of Carriage is invoked that’s part of the contract with you and you are in receipt of a banning notice.

flyuk

If putting a "don't upgrade" marker is easy, why wouldn't they?

percysmith

With an error fare you can enforce even in UK law if you can show history of buying in fares at the error level (Telford County Court case). This case is a contractual promise that BA is being held to fulfil.

I was thinking more of the effort involved rather than a direct analogy of the principles behind the claims.

durberville

so British airways makes it incredibly difficult to navigate their tariff. They print and scan it, and the scans are at funny angles. You can’t search the document and pages aren’t in order. But I found the rule - C25.

Dave Noble

Because it isn't known to be a company that is vindictive , would seem to be a key reason - do you think that it is going and applying such a marker to everyone that takes it to court on EC261?

If it loses, the only thing that I think that it will do is to make sure that it submits up to date tarrif information to ensure that it doesn't happen again

KeaneJohn

The way that I read that is that if you are refused boarding your sole recourse is a refund.

flyuk

EC261 is not the same as someone raking through 30 year old tariffs for a clause that is clearly deprecated, causing an embarrassing scene for their staff at multiple locations and subsequently costing them a fortune in legal representation. On what basis and with what evidence do you consider them to not be vindictive?

This court action will cost Canadian tax payers a considerable amount, and through price increases on fares BA customers too. But the OP doesn't care, the ticket wasn't even a full fare ticket, it was an award ticket from CX.

Before I get dragged further into a pointless argument, which is exactly what I think this whole affair is, I'm backing out. Best of luck OP. I hope you get the result you wish for, and I hope it's fair to all involved.

​​

durberville

when evaluating a ban, the CTA will look at the rules/reasons of the tariff and whether those reasons are fair.

if there’s no tariff violation, then the passenger has, as a right, access for payment to an airline. That is a matter of law and good public policy.

there’s lots of good reasons for this. Unless you live in a mega city, folks are limited in choice of airlines. While operated privately, air carriage is a public utility and becomes increasingly important for smaller communities. It would be bad public policy to give carriers broad discretion to prohibit travel, as that can be a major impact on a person’s mobility. You certainly don’t want passengers whose contracts are breached being coerced into silence by the threat of a ban. And it’s a way to establish an enforceable and balanced standard that serves to promote public safety rather than giving airlines more leverage to screw over passengers.

that’s why the CTA, a responsive and competent adjudication body uses this standard.

Jagboi

However, a passenger could only be banned for reasons set out in the Tariff, and the OP showed us the conditions. You've put the cart before the horse in your rush to ban someone. Requesting BA fulfil it's obligations set out in the Tariff are not reasons for banning.

percysmith

I thought Quebeqois pay for their own courts - esp inferior courts - even if by subventions of Federal taxes Quebeqois pay in.

HIDDY

Well I personally don't give a stuff whether the OP wins or loses their whatever it is against BA. However I'd love to know just what is the motive behind it all?

If you say it's all for the rights of the consumer I suggest you get your backside down to Argentina asap!!!