T8191

If we're talking about gross exaggerations, perhaps a further 144 people were inconvenienced?

mrow

Fixed that for you as I think you missed a couple of zeros in your number...you did say 'gross exaggerations' after all

Jimmie76

You’re missing the subtle but clever humour from T8191 here.144 is generally called a Gross Grocery / Gross « The Word Detective

Schultzois

The tweet I referred to said “caused 300 people to miss transfers and connections” - it didn’t just say “300 people to be inconvenienced…”
So I still think that the tweet exaggerates the knock-on effect to 300 other people of BA’s overbooking… but I’ll acknowledge that it can be easy that 300 people were inconvenienced, even if only very few “[missed] transfers and connections”

By the way, I wouldn’t say that ten people waiting at TRN for the same people are “ten missed transfers or connections” but I would agree that it’s ten people waiting around and who wouldn’t be except this overbooking by BA and the subsequent chaos that ensued with a barrister who should have known when to hang up the fancy hairpiece.

hydro001

But they weren't denied boarding against their will. They accepted the new boarding passes, proceeded to board, and then only once onboard started 'challenging' the crew to use the middle blocked seat for the nanny.

mrow

Again; 300 people missing onward connections on flights and ground transfers isn’t an infeasible situation as most people don’t finish their journey at an arrival airport - they travel onward to a final destination via multiple means, many using pre-booked ground transfers.

Schultzois

Okay, the choice of wording is nonsense, not the overall number.
300 actual people were likely inconvenienced to some degree - perhaps even more.

But to describe it as 300 missed connections and transfers (by transfer, do you just mean a fancy taxi? Book another one!)

As I mentioned way up-thread, had I been in a similar predicament, I’d have probably moved to the seat in Eurotraveller in the best interest of the bigger picture with respect to both family and a planeload of people.

But that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t have gotten upset that I was forced to sit between two strangers in ET (during a global pandemic) when there’s a blocked seat in CE, next to my wife, and that I would have paid for a seat in the CE cabin that wasn’t offered.

But I’m not a barrister, I’m an engineer. I would have made my decision strictly on the basis of the calculus of how things were likely to work out. So I would have sucked it up as the one who had to fly ET whilst paying for 5 CE seats, and raised the fuss later.

Schultzois

You’re assuming 100% of passengers on two fully packed flights would do this… quite a bold assumption.
In the end, this was also a situation of BA’s decision, so by that logic, all 300 people should have been offered, at the least, a transport voucher courtesy of BA, as it was BA (apparently) who chose to return to stand.

DYKWIA

True - but maybe BA could have asked for volunteers who'd be prepared to accept a cash payment for the downgrade.

mrow

I was indeed, thanks for the link. Every day is a school day as they say

I am thankful that my lesson wasn’t as bitter a pill to swallow as the one our learned friend is likely experiencing

mrow

Not as bold as assuming that everyone on an aircraft completes their journey when they reach the arrival airport.

Schultzois

If we are going to use “butterfly effect” logic then we shall all have to agree that this tempest in a teacup affected seven billion people, but will likely happen again.

WickedStepMother

When I read mrow ’s post I thought it was also being subtle and clever - the added zeroes being the exaggeration of gross

T8191

To add to the Thread diversion, there's a very old RAF joke.

"What you call gross ignorance?"
"144 Navigators!"
"Why 144?" asked a Navigator.

hydro001

The person downgraded (and family)accepted the downgrade, willingly boarded the aircraft, and only kicked up a fuss once boarded on push back. If they weren't happy to accept it, then there are many touch points and opportunities up to the point the aircraft door was closed to make a decision not to accept the downgrade, or to ask for alternatives. To do so after push back and challenge the crew at this time demonstrates intention to disrupt.

In any case that's if the downgrade is true, and that the nanny wasn't booked in economy to start with, as per other sources not reported in the media.