Ned1968

The problem here is that BA is not using Covid-19 as a legal argument - they are using it as an excuse and a diversion

Let's see them test it in court if they believe they are correct

Ladyfliestheredwhiteandblues

I believe that both KARFA and Tobias-UK are lawyers? Correct me if I’m wrong, so I suspect when they say there could be a defence here I don’t doubt there could be. “Could” being the operative word. To my mind as a once scientist and then IT professional I think there is a world of difference between caused by the pandemic and caused by the reactions to the pandemic. Did the government’s reactions make it almost impossible to plan and run any business let alone one as complex? In my view, yes. Did BA compound those issues and make the knock on effects much worse by their own actions and penny pinching? In my view definitely yes. Now to be putting flights in timetables with an attitude that we may or may not run those and to hell with the customers we inconvenience is not a good look and I hope they don’t get away with it.
I haven’t flown since this time last year. We looked at a holiday in August and thought it may well be too risky. I’m considering transferring our points to Nectar and letting our companion vouchers expire. I really have no confidence in BA at all and this move does nothing to increase it.

Tobias-UK

Do we have any binding precedent that suggests BA's defence in these cases is invalid? I've not seen any, and would be very interested in reading the judgment. Ethics has nothing to do with this, it's about the evidence, the law and its application. The courts will look at these cases objectively and dispassionately.

scottishpoet

no, and this is why BA will not take this to court. Once they lose in court they can no longer deny these claims and hope they go away.

Even if only 25% of people go away and they pay 75% of the claims it is in their interest to continue this behaviour.

GrannyWeatherwax

Surely the point with regard to these cases in particular is not that BA can run no flights, but they are scheduling flights knowing full well they cannot hope to run them all and making a commercial decision about which flights to cancel. This has always been the point with EC261 claims in the past; a commercial decision was made to cancel the claimant's flight and the decision is made, in part, knowing how much compensation needs to be paid under EC261 which is an amount that can be calculated in advance.

DYKWIA

dodgeflyer

If they don't fly, why serve?

scottishpoet

would you be happy to run the case for BAs defence that this sick leave is extrordinary circumstance? Or would you only take the case against BA?

KARFA

I assume you aren't suggesting Tobias-UK is only willing to argue for BA? As far as I can see he hasn't actually shared his personal opinion on the issue. Or are you probing to see if he can represent you for your own claim?

From a professional point of view I think it would be interesting to argue for either side in this.

Tobias-UK

I'd very happily take either side. There are great arguments to be made for and against both parties. The defence is not limited to sick leave, that is but one aspect of the circumstances leading up to the cancellations.

BA without doubt has the more difficult task, but I would not be so bold as to dismiss all their assertions outright. There are arguments to be had, evidence to assimilate and case law to review. These cases are decided on issues of law, the facts are easily agreed, it's the legal arguments that will decide the outcome and how the court will interpret the law in the context of the agreed facts .

1P

Having watched the IT issues, the staffing shortages and operational ineptitude leading to endless reschedulings and cancellations, and the baggage chaos and T5 immigration fiasco over the past few months, I have just completed a European roundtrip on another carrier on a route also "served" by BA. Clean planes, punctual flights (both actually arrived early), baggage delivered promptly. What's not to like?

As long as people keep feeding BA by remaining loyal to it, it will not learn and will not adapt. I thoroughly recommend voting with your wallet.

Kgmm77

I can.

There is substantial evidence in academia that companies who evidence strong ethical behaviour and act in their customers interests rather than solely being driven by what they can legally get away with, deliver better long term returns to shareholders.

it’s not binary clearly, you can’t roll over & give the house away and you need to balance your legal position with fair treatment of the customer. But if you find yourself relying increasingly on legal analysis to make your business decisions, in my experience it isn’t a good sign of where the business is heading.

SxMan

For the sake of the shareholders, not least their entire solvency – it is a course they simply must take.So obvious.

scottishpoet

And yet if Ryanair had this problem and performed in the same manner then this board would have a very different view.

scottishpoet

Do you believe BA would take any of these claims to court and risk getting a ruling that would prevent them from initially denying future claims?