JamesBigglesworth

The thing I find *most* amusing about that, aside from the sheer inaccuracy and ignorance it displays, is that it's someone that lists Southwest as their programme trying to look down on ... well,, anyone.

HIDDY

This thread has to go down as one of the most nerdy (boringly studious) I've ever seen on here.

mysterym

I couldn't support any company that had that in their terms. They blanket applied it to everything and everything. Despicable.

Worcester

Can you imagine the bad publicity BA would get if the actually cancelled someone account and they lost all their Avios?

I actually agree that if BA tried to enforce this against a honestly held opinion it would not stand in court, but the possible media storm would escalate it from nothing to real damage. The so called Barbara Streisand effect.

drvannostren

Just start every post with "this an opinion, allegedly, and in no way is meant to defame BA" that should cover all the bases no?

The way I read this is the misleading statements, so while I think this is a ridiculous policy, as long as your critiques are limited to facts and opinions, there shouldn't even be anything they can get you for right?

"I was served cold tasteless chicken". Tasteless is an opinion, cold is a fact, there's nothing misleading there unless you were lying and they can prove the served temperature

ratechaser

The world has moved on, and it happened well before WFH. Forget brown shoes, ties are all but extinct amongst my banking colleagues - yes there are usually ones available in case of a meeting with a more 'traditional' client, but virtually never worn in the office.

But then 'offices' have all but disappeared as well, it's all open plan nonsense these days. I blame the yanks and their fancy trading floors. All went to pot after the Big Bang...

Harrumph...

krispy84

I sympathise, and I’m a newcomer to the industry.

I prescribe a soothing visit to Sweetings. Put on the tab obviously.

Stormbel

So excrement causes a sticky wicket? I thought that went without saying!

binman

+1

VSLover

frankly i find this change more in line with various changes all companies are going thru in their very boring terms and conditions as part of broader platform to business regulations that came into force. so this aligns with that well where a company must detail in writing that is made available to a consumer where they may have violated any terms.

like any major company there will be truly awful people who likely harass the twitter agents, for example, and such abuse being directed to them on twitter which could include threats, is exactly the type of thing i imagine BA would want to revoke executive club access for. if you are going to be abusive to a flight attendant on a plane, or abusive via twitter to a BA agent, they need the ability to penalize a customer appropriately.

it would be against their interest to just go out and end accounts for anyone ever criticizing them, let alone be able to match a social media profile to the correct BAEC account.

ReinaDeLaSelva

Senor, do not be too sure this would not happen. En verdad it can and does happen in cases where there are court filings. I know an FT member who did this vs LX during the RGN events and during the hearing the LX counsel produced an extensive folder in which the social media profile was mapped and quoted. They had specifically identified the poster which required some discovery and time and work. Also AA have done this with Coupon Connection bandits and other violators of AAdvantage program rules.

OK I do not believe this is 100percent enforceable even in UK. It is too broad even if UK does not have First Amendment rights to abridge lol and for sure for US-based Avios members like me there is no chance these terms will stand in a court case in gringolandia. Or even in case of US DOT rulings because DOT expressly prohibits T&C from overriding other consumer and Federal laws. BA already has negative experience with class-action customer rebellion from US-based Avios members against weasel T&C which are unenforceable and indefensible, senores y senoras do you remember the famous Avios "fuel-surcharge" scam and Avios compensations? I do! LOL!

But the change is evidently designed to stifle and inhibit free discussion of BA product and service and intimidate critics by those who fear the EC/Avios guardians. This is exactly their interest. It is very Stalinist.

Tobias-UK

The only change as a result of that particular case is the descriptor; YQ still exists, it still applies both to redemptions and cash fares, except now YQ is significantly more expensive on USA originating fares than before the class action!

HarbourGent

That's high praise on Flyertalk.

VSLover

sure. im not discussing enforceability, im only making a guess based on my own line of work, why this would have suddenly appeared because BA are not alone in modifying their standard terms and conditions as most all other commerce platforms have had to. so most will have included intentionally broad language to comply with said regulations.

then there is the practicality of using resources (ie people) internally to track these sorts of things to just go around terminating accounts for mean tweets with abandon! i mean they dont have enough people to process refunds in a timely manner, or to build a website that doesnt leak data...and remember they still have a whole other concern with terminating all of us (NOT ME if you are looking at me BA, DEF NOT ME) who drop the last leg of their DUB or SOF multi-leg itinerary on the return--and that actually has to do with lost revenue and not reputational harm from social media.

however it would be amazing to see BA in court pulling out our thread on covid meals for example and try to explain how all the negative comments actually were causing retputational harm when in fact BA manages to do that to themselves on the daily!

KARFA

very reasonable approach since the legal test for a mistake fare is whether you believed it was a mistake when you booked it - so posts on FT and elsewhere on a thread saying it clearly is a mistake would be very relevant to the case.

We have Human Rights Act 1998, specifically Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights which is incorporated therein: