The_Bouncer

D'accord.

dhuey

Indeed, this case is a matter of contract law, not votes on an IBB. Best I understand it, the arguments against the OP are that he knew that BA didn't intend to provide a helicopter, and that decades-old language of the Tariff was left there by mistake. Maybe that flies, maybe not.

But for those making this argument against the OP, what is the legal test you imagine for when BA may disregard its own contractual terms, and when it may not?

T8191

And there’s the rub!
The Big Boys are always keen to cite the small print when it comes to the crux ... and I include Insurers in that, obviously.

dhuey

I have no idea what the applicable laws in Quebec on this might be, but I am familiar with two doctrines that could potentially apply under the common law of contracts: unilateral mistake of fact and unconscionably. With mistake, BA would argue that it was mistaken as to how this old '90s language was still in its fine print. The problem with that is BA is solely responsible for the mistake. And it has enormous financial and legal resources to review and update the terms it has drafted over the years. There's a high fairness hurdle BA needs to clear with this, and I don't think they can. BA surely can and does point to its own fine print when that is advantageous. Goose, gander.

Unconscionably is where either in the process of contract formation, or the resulting terms, there is an extremely unjust result. Here again, I think BA has a weak argument. Including a heli ride to/from JFK with an F ticket isn't some crazy deal -- it's what BA actually had on offer for years. It doesn't make business sense for them today, but it's not some off-the-wall, crazy result.

If the heli language is actually part of the BA contact with the OP, I think the OP wins.

Jagboi

Not necessilary. I have bought a combined AC/BA ticket to get me from Europe to Canada and it was on 014 (Air Canada) stock. Air Canada's Tariff says that their Tariff applies to AC operated flights. The BA Tariff would apply to the BA operated portion. Similarly I have also had flights on Air New Zealand paid by Aeroplan points (AC's FFP ) and that was on 014 stock. Air Canada and Aeroplan are separate companies, but AE kept right to plate on 014 stock, yet they were in no way owned or controlled by AC.

For the NZ flight, AC was a "plater of convenience", but had nothing to do with issuing the ticket or carrying me on it's aircraft, even though the ticket was on their stock. They didn't take payment for the ticket, they simply issued it, presumably under a contract to Aeroplan. I can't see how I could sue AC if something wasn't delivered, just because it was on their stock. I'd have to go after NZ and the terms of their Tariff. A long way of saying that who issued the ticket isn't important, the Tariff applies to a passenger of the airline.

Presumably if it was a critical point of law, in their Motion to Dismiss surely BA would have argued that if it wasn't their ticket stock the OP would have no standing to sue BA. Either they didn't argue that, or it was unsuccessful as the judge didn't accept their motion to dismiss.

Did BAEC even exist in 1993? I don't know it's history back then. I wonder if what the Tariff refers to things like free staff travel or other complementary tickets, not tickets from a points based frequent flyer scheme.

I don't know the whole history and etymology of the term, but in the past it was a railway term. The railways were required to publish a schedule of rates and transport conditions for both freight and passengers, and that document was called their Tariff.

Back then prices didn't change by the hour the way airline prices do now, so if you wanted to know how much it would cost to travel from A to B you could look up the chart in the Tariff and it gave you the cost. Typically ( for Canadian railways anyway) Tariffs were issued twice a year, so you knew rates were fixed for at least 6 months.

FlyerTalker39574

‘Ascenseur’ is too long to fit on the buckle!

flygirl68

Yes it existed then.

The_Bouncer

"Levez" would fit.

Dave Noble

BA Executive Club existed in the 1980s, though at that early time it was simply a lounge membership programme. I cannot remember exactly when it changed from being a simple silver card to becoming a points earning programme

UKtravelbear

Would have been the Air Miles programme then

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Mi...United_Kingdom

Beltway2A

Not it helps you in QC unfortunately, but the entire tariff should be viewable by in-person appointment per https://www.transportation.gov/polic...ne-rules-fares. Unfortunately I never have a free day or half-day when the Feds are open, but someone so inclined who keeps different hours may be able to take a look at the full document over at DOT.

lowfareair

Question for those who say OP is only due the cost of the train tickets: What would happen in another bundling scenario?

Joe Schmoe saves up for years and pays for a $25k package for his dream trip to NYC, including first class flight, limousine transfers (no helis available!) and staying at the Four Seasons NYC for him and his wife.
Upon getting to the hotel, he finds out they don't have a reservation. He phones the tour company and they say 'Oops, we don't have a hotel for you. Sorry, no refunds.' Having blown a huge amount of savings on the trip, he decides to scrimp and gets a dodgy Comfort Inn for $149/night.

Now if he took the package company to court, would you assert he is only due the $149/night that he dropped on the Comfort Inn, and that any additional money he paid upfront is not due back to him? In a similar vein, if OP bought a ticket that included a helicopter ride and the airline refused to provide it (and not for something out of their control like foggy skies, they simply refused to provide it), is he really not due at least some portion of his payment (even if it is in miles + carrier surcharge) on top of the train tickets? In a sense, I doubt BA would ever consider substituting multiple subway trains as an acceptable alternative for a First Class passenger back when they were actively offering chauffeur transfers and helicopter rides.

WorldLux

IMO Your analogy doesn't work. In your example, they specifically booked and paid for the hotel. In OP's case, the helicopter transfer hasn't been advertised in decades.

Andriyko

lowfareair, your analogy does not work here. First of all, the tariff says 'complimentary ticket,' so the OP did not really pay for it as part of the package. Or if he did he paid for it then it was zero dollars (since it's complimentary), and asking for some random amount of money seems unwarranted. That being said, I think that if the OP is due anything it is that complimentary ticket...or a partial refund of the miles that he used for the first class ticket if we know what BA used to apportion from the cost of the ticket to the cost of the helicopter ride.

FlyerTalker39574

Good point!