[LuganoPirate]

I tend to agree with JohnPhelan. IRC was well compensated. Not sure of the difference between J & F but had he declined he would have ended up on his original flight and BA would have found someone else happy with the offer most likely.

Invol or not, this was a deal struck between two parties both of which were happy with the outcome. In addition, reading other comments elsewhere about BA pax profiling, I bet as he was a happy “compliant” passenger next time they need to upgrade someone they will ask him.

If this is the case I hope you’ll let us know ICR.

As to the six hour early departure, from a personal point of view I regard the last day of a trip as wasted anyway. Invariably you have to badger the hotel for a late check out or hang around in an airport somewhere. You can’t do anything as you have your baggage with you. Hats off to ICR and BA on this one.

[VintageKrug]

…though I’m not sure I’d appeciate the roaming charges…!

An email would have been just as effective, and would probably be a better route to offer this initially.

[esselle]

The compensation point is not relevant here. Had the BA offer been declined, and the OP original plans subsequently varied to his detriment, then a claim would have been viable.

In the circumstances that were described, nothing had occured which could give rise to a claim.

Agree with other comments that the outcome here seemed to have worked well for all concerned.

[EdTraveller]

Booked a First Class BA return flight ( Cash , not Avios ) in July to Barbados with EDI-LGW connections. I now dont need the first segment of EDI-LGW but the other three segments remain unchanged. I realise that i wouldnt get any money back…..however I am being changred a £ 200 change fee from BA…..a total rip off….I will be cutting my Gold card in two…….hideous customer service !

[Bruce98]

SteveScoots

I agree that BA used excellent salesmanship techniques to persuade the OP to accept a voluntary re-routing.

[EdTraveller]

To rub salt in the wound, I called BA customer services to complain and was told that complaints are only received in writing through the post ! BA dont mind taking our money over the Internet and the phone, but they deliberately discourage receiving complaints by enforcing this draconian rule.

[Cheeryguy]

Ed, surely BA are just asking you to honour the terms and conditions of the ticket you purchased, which you agreed to at time of purchase.
Sometimes a bitter pill but just how it is.

[EdTraveller]

If First Class is all about service, and a Gold card is a reward for custom, then a £ 200 fee for using one less segment on a very expensive flight is very poor customer service.
Terms and conditions are one thing, and seriously offending loyal customers are another !

[Cheeryguy]

I’m afraid I can’t agree with you there. I consider myself a loyal customer of BA and I too have a Gold Card.
However, if I purchase a restricted ticket then I have to accept that if I change my plans then I will be charged for it as set out in the T and C’s when I bought the ticket.
The normal change fee is £50.00 in my experience, why so much in your case.

[EdTraveller]

Dont know how the £200 is comprised, there are three passengers. The call centre didnt break the amount down, and despite discussing it with a supervisor, the only feedback I got was to write to Customer relations in Sudbury as they do not have any devolved resposibility to make changes.
I appreciate your challenges Cheeryguy, but Its a shabby way to deliver Customer Service, and would be in direct contradiction to many Blue chip organisations.

[Cheeryguy]

It’s more than likely tax tax and more tax.
Hope you get some resolution and more importantly have a great holiday.

[ICrighton]

VintageKrug – 09/07/2012 08:58 GMT

…though I’m not sure I’d appeciate the roaming charges…!

An email would have been just as effective, and would probably be a better route to offer this initially.

Yes indeed, and it made it even worse that my transport broke down on way to airport and I had to ring them again to advise I was running an hour behind. I made the connecting flight with 15 minutes to spare! Cost me around £15 all in all for calls, but given what I got out of it, I swallowed it ok!

[esselle]

The advantage of the phone call, of course, is that it got an instant response. An email may have sat in an inbox, possibly unanswered, and frankly is a pretty impersonal way of dealing with an issue such as this.

[Binman62]

Unbelievable that some (well, one) think you should get compensation when you get upgraded to First!

John….I think you should read my post again. I asked if compensation had been paid and then asked if people felt it should or should not be. I did not express a view either way. It is therefore not right that you should suggest what I think from what I wrote.
******************************************************************************

Savior-Monk is right in that any deviation from your original plans when travelling on an EU carriers or when departing from an EU point is covered by the EU compensation legislation. Whether one thinks this is right or wrong, the fact is it is the law. Indeed QF at LHR will pay full compensation when moving passengers from a 9.30 departure to a 10pm departure as that is what is required when the cause is overbooking.

BA in this instance provided the OP with a solution that he found acceptable despite the loss of 6 hours. He may well feel that it was sufficient and that is his right and choice.

Many will see this as an effective and clever means of avoiding the compensation but others may feel that such behaviour by airlines is against the spirit, if not the letter of the law. What cannot be avoided is that the course of action BA embarked on was due to their overbooking and no matter how elegant their solution, or indeed how welcome that solution may have been, such changes fall under the existing legislation.

The EU legislation regarding delays and denied boarding is a huge issue for carriers and is being fought through the courts, but all indications are that they are about to lose.

[esselle]

Whilst a bit obscure, the legisaltion covers delays and denied boarding.

The OP was neither delayed, nor denied boarding. Had things got to this point, it may have become relevant. In this specific case, it does not apply.

[Author]

Posts