NickB

This is irrelevant. The point is that the Montreal Convention will pre-empt any claim based on national law, whether contractual, tortious or any other type of claim.

AJA_

I agree that Customer Relations and PR is the better avenue or as you say vote with your feet and go via another airline. The latter action is realistically not going to happen for most simply because although there are multiple other flights to choose from they may not be as convenient or they need their TPs to maintain grasp on a shiny card or indeed the alternative offers as bad a service as BA, the grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence. Of course that is exactly why BA does what it does because it knows it can get away with it. Also BA has the option of enhancing away the current J service and permanently removing the empty middle seat. I suspect people would still fly J because of the lounge and the TP and extra Avios.

That said I do think BA is in a precarious situation as there seems to be more bad news than good these days with BA from awful queues to last minute cancellations to multiple IT meltdowns to very high Y and J fares and to fed up staff who appear not to be apologising anymore and rather just explaining it as it is to the fare paying public. So you never know there may not be a BA at all and then what would we do on a Sunday morning without an airline to complain about?

xenole

Judging by a few comments here, I could see BA in future wheeling out the old "due to overwhelmingly positive customer feedback regarding the usage of middle seats in Club Europe, we have decided to continue with this for the foreseeable future"

JD1905

I’m not certain that the Montreal Convention dismisses any claim under the CRA. But i’ll find out next month when my case against BA is due to be heard.

SW7London

Nick - how does the Montreal Convention apply here in this context?

AJA_

A particular lawyer would probably come back with his nanny

Bohinjska Bistrica

I've read the Montreal convention and I'm not seeing how this would excuse BA's liability here. Indeed, it seems to me that its scope is limited to delays, injury/death of passengers and damage to baggage/cargo or indeed loss of these.

The matter at hand here does not deal with the above, so I'm not seeing the get out here. Then again, I am not a lawyer.

cauchy

Not the case on a UK-only itinerary though?

JD1905

This was BA’s response to my recent claim for not receiving the service as advertised in CE. I’d imagine BA will offer a similar response in regards to this matter.








What i’ve missed out is that they got the airport name wrong and also falsely claimed to have offered me compensation.

NickB

Art 29 of the Montreal Convention provides that any action for damages in the "carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo" , however founded, including in contract, tort or otherwise, is subject to the conditions and limits of liability specified in the Convention. Therefore, if you are within the scope of the Montreal Convention (essentially the matter relates to what happens (or does not happen) during the flight), you can only claim damages if the claim is actionable under the Montreal Convention (which it would not be here).

scottishpoet

and you appeared to have indicated you want comped for a downgrade to Y. BA disputes that the service offered was Y as you seem to claim. In my mind you are right that it was not J they are right that it was not Y

If people ask for a comp for downgrade to Y i expect they will get the same response


I do not understand this idea that because its not J it must be Y. I do agree thecservice was downgraded from thevJ service advertised. I do not agree in was dowgraded so far it was Y

Tobias-UK

It’s Article 29 that is the operative clause:

“In the carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo, any action for damages, however 121 founded, whether under this Convention or in contract or in tort or otherwise, can only be brought subject to the conditions and such limits of liability as are set out in this Convention without prejudice to the question as to who are the persons who have the right to bring suit and what are their respective rights. In any such action, punitive, exemplary or any other non-compensatory damages shall not be recoverable.”

NickB

Good point. We would need to check whether we have unilaterally voluntarily extended the scope of the Convention to domestic flights but the Convention itself only applies to flights between contracting parties.

JD1905

It doesn’t matter how far it’s been downgraded. If the service isn’t as advertised then there is a legitimate claim under the CRA. Of course this could be avoided if BA were to offer a reasonable amount of compensation. This never happened in my case.

AJA_

I wasn't disagreeing with you but I was saying that BA probably doesn't do this as it is cheaper for them only to deal with a smaller number of passengers who actually complain rather than automatically comping every J passenger.

As for the rest of my post i was trying to point out that those who forgive BA for its current actions might not be quite so forgiving if they were to actually suffer being put in the middle seat and receive a lesser J service.

I would argue with them that they got no food because of IRROPS but still got to travel in J. That is essentially their argument for why no compensation is due for the lack of an empty middle seat.

Except they forget that those passengers in A and C seats have not suffered an IRROPS, they are booked on the original service which "guaranteed" an empty seat.

I've amended my original post to make it clearer. Apologies for any confusion caused.