Dave BA and QF should pay you as executive defense lawyer on board. Your view does not present most of flyers on this forum.

So what if it doesn't agree ? whether it is nice or not to get a large excess fee is irrelevent as to whether charging the fee is valid

I do know that with the two of us travelling with three checked bags on a LONE4 though Europe last month that it came in handy on two occasions to have printout of the one world explorer rules:Both IB and BA initially tried to charge for our third bag. Once I produced the printout, no such charge was assessed, although the IB agent decided they needed to call a supervisor.

BA doesn't honour OW codeshares, and is generally not much interested in OneWorld itself. That should not be news to anybody.

Cathay also have special allowances because he was taking a golf bag. I think that BA was being unreasonable..... When BA was operating under the wait system they also had allowances for sporting equipment.

Nearly every airline that works with the weight system have allowances for sporting equipment - it's therefore completely unreasonable for BA to charge the full amount - especially when dealing with partner airlines. It's not fair for the customer and leaves a bad impression of the Oneworld Alliance and of Cathay's partners. Cathay is an airline that prides itself on its customer service.... and in this case the customer has suffered big time!

What BA may have had in the past is irrelevent, they no longer do have any additional allowances. How is it unfair to assess charges based on the weight beyond that which is permitted ?

The customer is the one that turned up with twice as much luggage as permitted, it isn't BA's fault that he did this

Quite right, Dave Noble, and another reason for me not to take up golf.

How then are Oneworld fliers supposed to travel on BA on mixed carrier itineraries with their sporting equipment when it will invariably bring them over their 20Kg allowance?

Absolutely, the customer is to be fleeced with a whole series of completely inconsistent rules and regulations, possibly running in the hundred of pages, and with continuous changes.

The big picture here is that inconsistent bag charges are making a fool of oneworld's customer benefits and that the asking for GBP 575 (that's USD 905) for a golf bag is ludicrous, especially when on the same fare when no charges were due on the opposite direction. The fact that these rules are utterly complex makes the situation worse, not better.

Incidentally, all mortgage CDOs came with multiple pages detailing risks, yet this fact didn't make them right (nor are actions taken by Mugabe right just because they follow the law to the letter).

+1

Be prepared to pay excess fees

Conversely, why should someone who chooses to play golf expect additional allowance for free?

I haven't yet understood why the OP didn't buy a second full-fare seat EDI-LHR for his golf bag - it would have been cheaper than the excess baggage surely?

Exactly. I feel I hear common sense here. Some on this forum seem to prefer to live in an Orwellian society.

Incidentally, in 2008 it still said on the BA pages that they respect a more liberal baggage allowance of other carriers on the itinerary. No more.

The excess fees were for EDI-HKG , not got EDI-LHR.

Assuming the ticket had some flexibility, the OP could always have changed his LHR-HKG to a later flight , paid the BA GBP38ish excess fee to London and then checked in with CX for the next flight separately.

Dave

Kingbat, you are correct. Basically, anyone with sporting equipment - be it skis, golf clubs - will definitely run into the same problem with mixed carrier itineraries on OneWorld.