STRIKE TO GO AHEAD: British Airways issues strike guidance for Heathrow Terminal 5

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.

• Paul says:

  30 Mar30 March 07:23

  The right to re routing is absolute. EU /U.K. 261 compensation does not apply but if BA cancel the flight then they must reroute under comparable travel conditions. (ie) same class of travel irrespective of the underlying fare basis and it is the passengers decision when that is.

  I benefitted greatly from this when BA cancelled LHR HKG due continuing covid restrictions that closed HKG to visitors while holding a F Avios ticket. I was rerouted on QR in F on commercial F fare basis!

  • zapato1060 says:

    30 Mar30 March 07:40

    rerouting still feasible? but what if the flight still goes ahead and 70% of its intended passengers are stuck in security?

  • Richie says:

    30 Mar30 March 07:46

    Sounds like you were re-routed on ‘superior’ travel conditions, not ‘comparable’.

    • Paul says:

      30 Mar30 March 08:27

      No, it’s class of travel not fare basis, though I suspect you know that. But point taken

  • Numpty says:

    30 Mar30 March 10:34

    I had a similar rerouting, i now see a BA cancellation as no bad thing, and appreciated the Silver status gained for both me and partner from what was originally a 241 booking using avios changed to a paying fare in Biz with QR.

  • Rizz says:

    30 Mar30 March 14:51

    How do you push them when they say “no” (which I assume is their default first answer)?

• Fred Hopkins says:

  30 Mar30 March 07:27

  So Heathrow airport staff unnecessarily strike and you all think BA should pay even more of a penalty in addition to lost sale? Hope none of you run a business.

  • Nancy says:

    30 Mar30 March 08:22

    Who thinks BA should pay even more? If BA has my money to get me from A to B, there’s nothing wrong with me exercising my rights if they can’t do that. I’ll expect them to rebook me to another carrier and pass my money on them – no one is getting refunds or compensations.

  • SammyJ says:

    30 Mar30 March 08:31

    BA haven’t contacted us directly in any way to tell us about the strike or their latest policies, we fly on Saturday.
    It’s unfortunate for them, but they could have put mitigations in place. People who don’t want/need to fly this weekend could be allowed to move to other dates for example. That lack of consideration for passengers is the bit for many that makes much of the impending disaster BA’s fault.

    • Rhys says:

      30 Mar30 March 08:55

      I think BA is hoping (and I would share this view, to be honest) that Heathrow and Unite are going to call it at the last minute.

      • JDB says:

        30 Mar30 March 09:23

        BA is of course hoping, but I don’t think they are expecting in light of events so far this week that anything will change. The runes are not good, but anything can happen!

      • SammyJ says:

        30 Mar30 March 09:48

        We’re all hoping for that, me as much as anyone this weekend! Head in sand doesn’t always win the day though!

  • Paul says:

    30 Mar30 March 08:31

    It’s a cost of doing business it’s built into all fares. The counter argument is you book months in advance, the airline cancels but then offers you a seat at 20 times the price you paid. Consumer protection is necessary as this is exactly what they were doing prior to EU261

  • jjoohhnn says:

    30 Mar30 March 09:52

    Maybe they could move a chunk of flights over to LGW for the period?!

  • PeteM says:

    30 Mar30 March 10:59

    “Unnecessarily strike”? Who defines unnecessary? I’d personally be striking too!

  • Chrisasaurus says:

    31 Mar31 March 08:07

    Put the Mail down Fred grown ups are talking

• zapato1060 says:

  30 Mar30 March 07:38

  In the three years before the pandemic, HAL paid out £2.1 billion in dividends to shareholders in Spain and Qatar, who control HAL’s ultimate parent company.

  Wonder if they even spare a moments thought for us peasants tomorrow?

  • Richie says:

    30 Mar30 March 07:49

    Nope, they really really don’t care.

  • JDB says:

    30 Mar30 March 08:11

    @zapato1060 how are dividends paid by HAL to its shareholders relevant to this dispute. Most companies pay dividends – is it your position that it’s OK for companies whose shares you hold in a pension can pay dividends, but others not? You will find that the largest companies you hold paid tens of billions of dividends in the same period. You aren’t alone in criticising dividends paid by various companies here, but without reinvested dividends, people will have terrible pensions prospects.

    • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:

      30 Mar30 March 08:40

      A very small proportion of those dividends could be used to pay the staff a decent wage.

      1% of 2 billion is £20m

    • ken says:

      30 Mar30 March 09:02

      HAL is a perfect example of ‘cakeism’.

      Of course companies pay dividends, but when events conspire (COVID) against them, they equally may have to inject equity.
      BA raised £2.5 bn.

      HAL has chosen a model of loading the business with enourmous debt, while paying handsome dividends in normal years, playing games with the regulator and providing ludicrous under estimates of passenger traffic.
      Then crying poverty and screwing pretty low paid workers alonside treating their customers with utter contempt.

      Don’t know how anyone can defend them.

      • A says:

        30 Mar30 March 11:45

        Well said Ken

      • Lady London says:

        30 Mar30 March 13:04

        +1,001 I spent long enough in finance to know that the cries of “but it’s paying dividends for your ISA and pension” unfortunately do not cover all that’s going on – though those are worthy points to make

        • JDB says:

          30 Mar30 March 14:13

          @Lady London the problem here is that all these people complain about dividends and other capitalist horrors yet want all the benefits to ensure that they are in privileged queues, better lounges, better seats etc. So much for socialist egalitarian ideals, but it was ever thus.

    • AJA says:

      30 Mar30 March 09:17

      @JDB while I tend to agree with you on dividends and pensions it is still HAL’s decision to pay its staff poorly which results in the profits it makes which then allows it to declare the dividends it does.

      I would prefer it if they could be a little less greedy and pay staff a decent wage. I am sure that would result in better profits overall and still allow HAL to pay a decent dividend.

      Besides it’s BA and all the other customers of HAL that suffer from HAL’s poor wage practices. So while HAL might end up paying lower dividends IAG might make up.for it if they were able to operate all their flights and therefore make higher profits which means they could pay decent dividends too.

      • JDB says:

        30 Mar30 March 09:33

        @AJA you should bear in mind that the other twelve ballots at LHR all voted against strike action. There are also some quite specific and very costly issues at play here in addition to pay which is the pattern with most of the current disputes. I think that even all the ‘solidarity with the workers’ posters we have on HfP (typed of course once they have used priority lanes to bypass the proletariat and safely ensconced in a lounge away from the hoi polloi) would consider some working practices ludicrous.

        • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:

          30 Mar30 March 10:15

          @JDB Lots of working practices are ludicrous. I think you’ve worked in the law so must be well aware even your agust profession is full of them.

          The key to emiminating them is for emloyers to discuss changing them with their workers. Often it’s the workers who have ideas on making changes yet employers simply won’t engage.

        • AJA says:

          30 Mar30 March 10:21

          I agree with you. FWIW I am also against the strikes. My two opposing viewpoints are not mutually exclusive. I believe that employers could pay better wages and make decent profits at the same time. On the other hand I also think that the pay offer is pretty good in the circumstances and don’t believe striking is terribly effective as a method of negotiation.

        • Rob says:

          30 Mar30 March 10:25

          But the offer still leaves them on 10% lower salaries than pre-covid despite 15% inflation in that period?

          You may find later today that striking is a hugely efficient way of negotiation ….

          There’s also a reason why London Underground train drivers get £60k-£65k even though the trains are now automated and all the drivers do is open the doors ….

        • JDB says:

          30 Mar30 March 13:54

          @Rob most of the employees weren’t working for HAL pre covid so haven’t had the pay cut you suggest. I think you have been swallowing all the guff from Unite although that’s better than one earlier poster who copied and pasted their comment from a Unite press release!

        • DaveJ says:

          30 Mar30 March 16:42

          “ @Rob most of the employees weren’t working for HAL pre covid so haven’t had the pay cut you suggest. I think you have been swallowing all the guff from Unite although that’s better than one earlier poster who copied and pasted their comment from a Unite press release!”

          What % is most?

• Nancy says:

  30 Mar30 March 07:48

  It’s 2023. The EC261 regulation was introduced in 2004, and came into force in 2005… Here we are 18 years later and people still don’t understand it – amazing. The article is wrong and misleading by stating that no rebooking rights apply in this situation. They very much do!

  • NorthernLass says:

    30 Mar30 March 07:50

    Rob does actually know this – it’s making me wonder if a BA exec has hacked into his HFP account to spread disinformation 😂

  • JDB says:

    30 Mar30 March 08:15

    Yes, of course rerouting rights do apply and no doubt the article will be corrected, but as a practical matter it will difficult to get BA to apply those rights (any more than LH did for recent strikes) unless it suits them and, in any event, other airlines’ services will generally be very busy.

    • NorthernLass says:

      30 Mar30 March 08:30

      Of course it will, but if someone is determined to get to their destination and fight BA for reimbursement they can be reassured that they are legally in the right (and there are now numerous examples on this site of people who have successfully done this).

    • Nancy says:

      30 Mar30 March 08:30

      As a practical matter, it’s important to know the rights. Having only a single terminal (not really comparable to LH recent events) impacted should not be that difficult. And even if it is, for similar situations there’s the “Pay and Claim” guidance by CAA in case of mass disruptions.

      • Mike says:

        30 Mar30 March 12:21

        It’s not a single terminal impacted. Heathrow intend to move staff from other terminals to keep T5 going.

        • Nancy says:

          30 Mar30 March 20:45

          But it is. In the context of LH/German strikes it’s not comparable. That was the point which you obviously missed. No direct impact in any other airports or rest of the country.

    • MattB says:

      30 Mar30 March 08:35

      Exactly, I’m travelling from lhr on Saturday and am well aware that if I don’t go then I won’t be going at all. EC261 will be useless for many of us as plans will be ruined. There clearly isn’t any capacity to move more than a few % of affected passengers onto suitable alternatives within a couple of days.

• Richard says:

  30 Mar30 March 07:48

  I’m in the Crown Plaza T4 then flying out of T5. Would it be easier to go through security in T4 and transfer airside or do I have to trasnsfer landside to T5 and go through security.

  • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:

    30 Mar30 March 07:52

    You’d still have to do connections security in T5.

    Plus I don’t think you can enter one terminal with another for a different terminal.

  • Nancy says:

    30 Mar30 March 07:52

    No. Your boarding pass will not let you to T4 security. And even if it did, you’d have to go through the security at T5 anyway. All that would probably take you more time than the queue.

    • Richard Peters says:

      30 Mar30 March 08:23

      Thanks both and I’ll just have to take an extra chill pill though given strikes may just cancel.

• Richard B says:

  30 Mar30 March 07:49

  So the only lever BA pulling is allowing you to check your hand luggage in when they don’t have enough ground staff available to run smooth turnarounds over the last few weeks as it is. Great stuff.

• Ryan says:

  30 Mar30 March 08:19

  Would check in for long haul really not be open until 3 hours before, since the check in queues are for all flights? Would it still make sense to arrive earlier even if the guidance says to not?

  • Rob says:

    30 Mar30 March 08:22

    Business Class passengers can check in at any point.

    There is an interesting legal issue over whether BA would be liable for compensation for not opening check in earlier if security queues reach 2-3 hours.

    • Mike says:

      30 Mar30 March 12:27

      It’s interesting that a T5 BA are saying don’t check in any earlier than 3 hours whereas LATAM in T3 are saying to be there 6hrs early (my flight is next week). To quote…

      “we recommend you arrive at the airport six hours early as (sic) airport, we invite you to keep an eye on the status of your flight with origin LHR…”

  • JDB says:

    30 Mar30 March 08:27

    @Ryan for things to work on any day, let alone strike days, it relies on a smooth flow of passengers, but realistically people are going to arrive early such that passengers will be arriving for more flights at once than normal. In respect of luggage, it’s up to the airline whether they take it early or not, but if they do take it more than three hours ahead, it goes into a general bag store rather than directly to your flight’s ‘bin’ and needs to be retrieved from that store. If things get chaotic/overwhelmed the bag may not get retrieved.

  • MattB says:

    30 Mar30 March 08:37

    Arriving too early will just make things worse, it’s common sense really.

    • Nancy says:

      30 Mar30 March 08:43

      Sadly common sense disappears in these situations. The news and fear of missing the flight will make people to “err on the side of caution” and arrive early.

  • AJA says:

    30 Mar30 March 09:23

    The trouble is that BA is trying to smooth out the number of passengers going through security at any one moment.

    If everybody just turns up 6 hours before their scheduled check in you have the problem of queues and bottleneck through security 3 hours earlier than otherwise as you add to the number of passengers checking in 3 hours before their flight.

    In this instance I think BA is right to try to limit the number of passengers going through security.

    I think if you have a business class ticket BA will still let you check in earlier but they might not.

• Paul says:

  30 Mar30 March 08:37

  Given that BA have not issued waivers, clearly expect disruption and have no means of servicing passengers in their home port. I’d suggest their actions are deliberate and reckless and clearly an attempt to leverage influence with the airport operator through their passengers. In such situations I would argue BA would be acting negligently by not taking pre emotive action and consequently liable for all aspects of EU261 if a passenger checked in on time.

  It should also be a requirement to cease all retail operations airside to ensure free unhindered flow of passengers on such days!

  • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:

    30 Mar30 March 08:45

    I wasn’t aware that shops just magically sprung up blocking passenger flow. They always seemed to be in fixed locations to me.

    And would those retail operations include places like boots and smiths who sell sandwiches as well as the cafes, restaurants and bars?

  • JDB says:

    30 Mar30 March 08:48

    I think you will find that HAL will have been working very closely with BA, its largest customer, on the contingency planning and is satisfied that reasonable measures are in place. That doesn’t mean they will necessarily work as hoped, but BA doesn’t expect or want chaos any more than passengers do. Let’s hope people make some effort to cooperate by minimising hand luggage.

    • Rob says:

      30 Mar30 March 08:59

      That’s irrational though. It doesn’t speed you up if you check in hand baggage – it only speeds you up if others in front of you do it. The logical thing to do is keep your hand baggage with you and potentially take even more than usual, because if passengers start missing flights in their hundreds the only way of getting aircraft away (given the need to remove bags from latecomers) will be to not load any luggage at all.

  • A says:

    30 Mar30 March 11:58

    I think that’s a good strategy by BA, why should BA help HAL mitigate a problem they’re in a position to resolve themselves. If an agreement is reached today, then BAs tactics are vindicated.

    • Rob says:

      30 Mar30 March 12:06

      Very risky though. Tomorrow is due to see rain all day in London. Does BA want TV pictures of thousands of people queuing in the rain outside Terminal 5, with flights taking off without them in the background?

      There is an unconfirmed story that Heathrow has asked for load factors to be cut to 80% if the strike is not resolved today, meaning 20% of passengers on full flights will get a cancellation email tonight for their flight tomorrow.

      • A says:

        30 Mar30 March 13:41

        When push comes to shove HAL always throw money at a problem, CEO of Heathrow John Hollland-Kaye won’t want scenes of Easter chaos as his legacy.

  • Lady London says:

    30 Mar30 March 13:09

    No, BA is just doing their best. I think they’ve cleverly chosen, as usual, the alternative that’s least bad.

    Whatever I might say about BA’s morals they know their business.

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.