A P Yu

Yes, the aircrafts country of registration defines the applicable law.

brunos

I find it interesting that I get repeatedly attacked because I was badly managing my expectations, rather than about the hard facts (no pun intended). But this is BA forum after all.

I apologize to all if my back pains made my post a bit excessive. I feel that BA could have handled better the few revenue F pax that transit in LHR, but maybe I am wrong.
Having had three return Asia-EU trips since February (when Covid was peaking in China), I have been surprised by the experience compared to its competitors.

orbitmic

HIDDY

Rather than defending BA all I see are posters stating facts about the service changes currently in force. Changes that can easily be found on the BA website for customers to see. So it's not as if they're trying to hide them. If other airlines are able to offer a better service on the route then I suspect it's not a direct flight which isn't a like for like comparison.

Ancient Observer

I do not understand why anyone is defending BA here.

That food was an insult. So was the wine.

I could go out tomorrow and buy better than that, easily served, for about UKP10.

1Aturnleft

But neither was HKG-NCE a direct routing for the OP.
For that routing it was always going to be indirect.
The way I read it is they did they homework pre travel to familiarise themselves with what the BA F service expectation might look like and felt that they would somehow be able to defy it and enhance it by blagging Flounge chairs for a bad back..... And it didn't pay off.... So a certain amount of sour grapes and clutching at straws. Honestly if F service and lounges are so important then why weren't they flying on Emirates from the get go? They had an opportunity to cancel the BA option when the original LHR-NCE cancelled resulting in a 5hr connection but chose not to. Perhaps the EC261 possibilities and potential service recovery to a GCH with a bad back for a journey doomed before it even began looked sweeter than any F product EK could provide...... But that's all subjective and of course people are going to view it differently.
​​​

Oxon Flyer

What does the website say about changes to the F catering offering, exactly ?

HarryHolden68

The guidance does no such thing. Leaving out the pertinent words to suit ones own position is not legally sound.

The only absolute in the guidance quoted above is that "passengers must wear a face covering." This is the only none-negotiable.
The rest calls for the airline to consider it. BA could "consider" it and on being pressed for why they have not reduced the service respond with "We considered it, and decided that the minimal benefit in the reduction of the risk of transmission was not worth the brand damage caused by offering such a pitiful product."

Alternatively, they could (and have it seems) considered it and decided that their DNA should never let a good pandemic go to waste.

Most laws in the UK are equally vague with very few absolutes. Until case law is established, the definition of what is reasonable remains open to interpretation, which most companies do in reducing their cost base.

DoctorCopper

The BA website states the following in connection with First catering:

START

From 16 June, we will be offering a bar service with a selection of alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks. The alcoholic drinks will be served either as miniatures or individual quarter bottles. Dining on board is enhanced to offer an a la carte menu with safely pre-packaged options, offering a range of hot and cold items. Our cabin crew will be able to provide you with details of choices available and any allergen advice. Any changes will be published on this page.

STOP

Link here: https://www.britishairways.com/en-gb...d-faqs#onboard

Doc Copper

wrp96

Even AA is offering better food in J transatlantic to/from LHR than the F meal the OP received on HKG-LHR.

absoluy

This is the part that I would be upset about if I had a pre-COVID F ticket and wasn't lucky enough (!) to have one of my flights cancelled. Drastically cutting back the experience/product without offering the ability to get a refund (knowing that your experience is going to be significantly different to what was marketed when you made the purchase) doesn't seem very fair.

golfmad

The effects of Covid are not particularly fair to consumers or companies. I wold pose this question instead: "Is it reasonable given the circumstances?" With the exception perhaps of the quality of the food/presentation I'd say it probably is.

DYKWIA

Which 'laws' are these?

corporate-wage-slave

I'd go a little further and say "is it reasonable, and am I being told about the (non-)service provision in advance"? Which was the case here since the OP was quite rightly asking about this in FT before travel, along with the emails he should have had from BA. The mystery is why he didn't seek a refund / rebook given there were alternative carriers.

absoluy

Is it reasonable not to offer a refund when you're unable to provide the product/service as originally marketed? I would say "no". If a refund was possible (without a schedule change happening) then I would say it is indeed a very reasonable approach.

In my mind, arriving someplace a few hours later than scheduled is just as "disruptive" as not getting to enjoy the lounges, food and drinks that I expected based on how the product was marketed for my $5k++ ticket.