bambinomartino

Quebec law, like the province itself is... different. What many (most?) on here are familiar with is English common law and its variants, so who knows how a Quebec judge would rule.

I sure hope BA can establish at trial that this was all in bad faith from its very conception, and that Quebec has rules similar to those in my jurisdiction with respect to awarding solicitor-client costs against a vexatious litigant.

NickB

Nah. BA Board old timers will know that the appropriate level of compensation in those settlements is one palm tree.

Beansprout

So is this the real reason Harry + Meghan are relocating to Canada.....!

The_Bouncer

I'm not too bothered about the helicopter, but I'm intrigued about the cigarettes. Are they another part of this antiquated, but unrepealed, tariff?

If so, can I have some sent to me? ...and if so, who pays the excuse duty on them?

RetiredATLATC

^THIS

enzian

Was this time travel? The date says “26Aug19” which is not a date; the last two digits have been whited out. The whole first paragraph refers to flights in the supersonic Concorde. When did that last fly?

Dave Noble

I doubt that there would be any way to 'come down hard' on any person in a small claims court.
It does seem to read that BA has filed such a provision in the past, but didn't put any effort in to updating it

Reading the details in the link, it suggests to me that BA was worried about the consumer laws in Quebec enough as to be trying to move the claim to somwehere more likely to be friendly to it, or , just as bad, somewhere where it could be too inconveniant for the passenger to pursue it. That desire to try and move it, makes it seem like the claimant may have a case

If there is a case due to BA not bothering to keep its details up to date, then how is it a 'clear waste of the legal system'. Simply a failure to supply that which was contracted to supply , doesn't seem like something that would be some obscure law

The amount claimed seems to be less than the amount that BA scams in surcharges on awards - at least it would go somewhere

If BA loses, would be interesting to see how many others pursue similar claims.

If the statement isn't in the filed dcumentation, I suspect that BA would have used that to try and get claim dismissed, though going to part 3 from https://www.britishairways.com/en-gb...urce=BOT_legal , section BA-59 has no reference to such a service

EDIwanderer

Does this mean that those 747s with W behind F shouldn’t have been flying to Canada?! What about upstairs J is that fully behind the lower F curtain?!
Sacre-bleu! 🤷🏼‍♂️

durberville

Many computer systems enter dates in DDMMMYY format. Including many GDSs.

This was received directly from a DOT employee through official channels. You can see the same wording in the Canadian Transportation Agency’s BA tariff, as previously posted.

mctaste

Seems like paying with miles would reasonably exclude the big perks...

And then you ask for $2500 you never paid in the first place.

enzian

Prospero has provided the link to the relevant BA documents. There are a lot of them, but they are dated at the bottom of each page. And each revision specifies that it cancels the previous iteration.

The PDF incomplete copy provided by the OP is clearly outdated (even if the date has been redacted). And it does not say it is BA. The number 0006 does not even line up with any of BA’s documents. Coincidentally, JL has a section 0006 on Classes of Service in its tariff filed with the Canadian agency:

https://www.ar.jal.co.jp/arl/en/carriage_ca/

But no helicopter.

durberville

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.

JFX1764

Part two on the BA website has the helicopter section.
Part three says no transportation.
🤷‍♂️

https://www.britishairways.com/en-gb...ormation/legal

_fx

ITT: People who aren’t lawyers commenting on a nuanced legal question.

Knowing a lot about airplanes or what a contract of carriage is won’t help you here.

And also, to anyone who thinks OP deserves to lose because of moral reasons...

Recall the many, many times a pax post on this board about how they were wronged by an airline, and what response do they get? Someone saying “hurrr durr the CoC says the airline owes you nothing deal with it.”

Airlines hide behind legalese CONSTANTLY. It’d be highly satisfying (IMO) if it bit them in the ....

Dave Noble

It reads to me like a lot of people wanting to rush to BA's defence regardless of the legal position. It seems likely to me that if this was without merit in that such wording was not in any filed documentation, that whether it be heard in Quebec , Montreal, UK or USA is not something that would be of concern to BA