BA changes to Exec Club Ts & CsBack to Forum
[quote quote=1013488]I suspect, however, that this would probably run foul of consumer protection legislation (but I am not giving legal advice here so don’t rely on that!) if BA tried to rely on it in circumstances where there wasn’t some element of malice or very deliberate intent to cause damage.[/quote]
If I’ve understood you right this is not to dissimilar to the practice that many retailers and other service providers use to deny at first point of contact responsibility for a failure in service or product. This corporate passive/aggressive behaviour can most commonly be found on the High street . They’ll list localised rules limiting your complaint options, and on the same notice or within close proximity there’ll be another sign stating …. ” This does not affect your statuary rights”
The vast majority of the population haven’t a clue what their consumer rights are . Thus they ( Companies) get away with shoddy money saving practices.
On another point, if BA do exercise this membership clause I’d suggest that their social media team are keeping a very close watch on what the BAEC members are posting etc15 Oct 2020
[quote quote=1013509]I’m not a lawyer, but I always understood that for something to be defamatory, it had to be partially or wholly untrue. If you eg criticised aspects of the service during a flight, it might be critical, but not defamatory, as long as you stick to the facts. Where would that leave BA, or are they able to apply the rules they see fit to in the context of “membership” of a club?[/quote]
I am also not a lawywr Esselle, but this is not about defamation. This is about the rules of a “club”, by way of terms and conditions.They are entitled to change these from time to time. Whether, in the context of this debate, this is commercially sensible is the essence of this debate here.15 Oct 2020
[quote quote=1013517]I am also not a lawywr Esselle, but this is not about defamation. This is about the rules of a “club”, by way of terms and conditions.They are entitled to change these from time to time. Whether, in the context of this debate, this is commercially sensible is the essence of this debate here.[/quote]
I completely agree, ASK. The clause doesn’t use the same test as the legal one for establishing a defamation claim, it is much, much wider. A perfectly truthful statement about some shortcoming in BA’s seat/service/whatever would not be actionable in a court as defamatory (because truth would be a defence, at least in the English courts, although there are also issues about malice which I won’t go into here!) but could still constitute “conduct … which causes, is intended to cause or is likely to cause a detrimental effect … on the reputation of British Airways or any aspect of its business, brands, products or services” or “any conduct which … reflects unfavourably on the reputation of British Airways or any aspect of its business, brands, products or services”18 Oct 2020
[quote quote=1013516]If I’ve understood you right this is not to dissimilar to the practice that many retailers and other service providers use to deny at first point of contact responsibility for a failure in service or product. This corporate passive/aggressive behaviour can most commonly be found on the High street . They’ll list localised rules limiting your complaint options, and on the same notice or within close proximity there’ll be another sign stating …. ” This does not affect your statuary rights”[/quote]
canucklad, sorry I didn’t pick up on this before. The reason that retailers and others include wording about something-or-other not affecting statutory rights (not statuary – I don’t think any retailer I have ever encountered has tried to affect anyone’s rights regarding statues!) is a simple one – any provision which purports to change a customer’s rights, or even grant them rights, but which conflicts with a statutory provision, may be struck down.
To put it in layman’s terms (as much as I can, as a lawyer, we are notoriously bad at plain English) – think of it as being a “range of protection” from 1 to 10 and you are permitted to go up to (say) point 8. So long as your wording only goes up to point 8, the protection works. If you try to protect yourself up to point 9 then, absent “saving” language, you lose ALL protection – in other words, you don’t just lose the protection from point 8 to point 9, you lose the whole lot – because you have tried to go beyond what the law allows, the entire thing collapses. Your protection isn’t 8 or 9, it’s 0 – all or nothing. That is why they use “this doesn’t affect your statutory rights” language – because it means that your attempt to get to 9 doesn’t infringe the statute, and therefore you still get protection up to 8.
I hope that clarifies…9 Nov 2020
This has been the case for some time. There are numerous EX BA employees that have had Staff Travel voided, a total travel ban on BA (can’t remember if it was 15 years or life or they all have different lengths of time), which in turn means they lose points if Avios Member. These I understand are from a variety of writing online and sending letter
As I would like to keep mine, won’t make any comments, just stating fact. 😊17 Nov 2020
Not sure how to edit my post above. I have looked up the info of one of the individuals I have heard of and they have said it was a life ban on staff travel, and a 10 year ban on using BA and the Executive Club. I am unable to clarify the 15 years or life. Please disregard my comment in brackets as may not be accurate.17 Nov 2020
handbag: why would BA ban their former employees from holding Executive Club membership, or travelling on BA, for 10 years? And, why cannot they continue to accrue Avios say by travelling on another One-World airline or through Amex?17 Nov 2020
Because they were not happy with the comments that individuals had written both on private social media and an email sent to the Company.
I have seen a copy of one of the banning letters on a Crew Forum. It specifically names the date it starts in August 2020 and that the person is banned for 10 years from that date on BA or BA Cityflyer. It says it is for “highly offensive communications from you (both by email and social media towards British Airways Staff).”
I am not going to get into the whether this is right or wrong, but when people are unhappy they vent quite heavily on social media.
The point I was making, following on from the original post, is that you can be banned if BA do not like what you have written.
They have said a second letter was sent cancelling their Exec Club. I have not seen a copy of this letter. I have no reason to not believe, as several people are in a similar situation.
I am not sure how it works about accruing points on another One World Airline , or using Amex but bans have been put in place.
I feel that people should be aware that Exec Club is being cancelled and bans put in place.18 Nov 2020