-
I would be grateful if someone would kindly advise what reimbursement I should request for a downgraded flight.
Booked with a solo 50% off companion voucher for a J return LHR to Montreal.
On the outbound J was downgraded at the airport to PE. Inbound was in J as planned. BA at check-in gave a printed letter advising that included passenger details, stating “We’re very sorry to have disrupted your travel plans today. Like most major airlines we sometimes sell more seats than are available, as many customers choose not to travel after making a booking”. I have kept the original J boarding pass from checking in online the day before, as well as the actual at airport reissued boarding pass in PE.
In total I paid 85,000 avios (as was 50% of 170,000 avios) and £350.
On the receipt there is a separate listing of total government, authority and airport charges= £284.21, and additionally total British Airways fees and surcharges = £550 which does not correlate with my actual payments.I understand I can claim 75% of the affected flight (is this half of 170,000 as if I hadn’t used companion voucher or half of actual 85,000). In terms of the cash element I am not sure as to 75% of which monetary amount. I believe avios refund would be in cash, but at what actual rate?
Do I get my companion voucher returned? Do I claim at airport.compensation@ba.com?
Many thanks in advance, so I can apply and receive the correct downgrade reimbursement.
If you paid 85,000 Avios in total, it looks as though that was peak one way and off-peak the other, so you should get back 75% of 40k or 45k and also 75% of the cash element that isn’t actual disbursements, so that won’t amount to much as the APD is the same for PE or Club as is the Heathrow passenger charge. If the email address you have given is the one provided in the letter, use that, otherwise just apply via the BA customer relations pages.
Thanks JDB.
I thought with a 2 person companion voucher, BA had to align the compensation for the free person as if they’d actually paid and couldn’t not pay “downgrade reimbursement” based on the fact they had spent 0 avios. Ie if one person to be downgraded, they couldn’t purposely choose the “free companion” to avoid fully compensating the “paying passenger”.
Would that not mean for the solo companion voucher should be claiming for the actual avios total value and not the discounted fare?
Just wondering?
These downgrades of pax using 241 vouchers seem far too common. With all the effort & flexibility you need to dedicate to finding seats, perhaps booking nearly a year in advance, it doesn’t seem worth the bother when the downgrade compensation is so minimal if BA arbitrarily decide to oversell the flight.
Feels like a con.
Thanks JDB.
I thought with a 2 person companion voucher, BA had to align the compensation for the free person as if they’d actually paid and couldn’t not pay “downgrade reimbursement” based on the fact they had spent 0 avios. Ie if one person to be downgraded, they couldn’t purposely choose the “free companion” to avoid fully compensating the “paying passenger”.
Would that not mean for the solo companion voucher should be claiming for the actual avios total value and not the discounted fare?
Just wondering?
It works differently when the voucher is used as a 241 because the companion ticket is not considered to be free. I’m not sure we have yet encountered a case of downgrade using the voucher as a 50% but my sense is that your reimbursement should be based on the Avios actually paid, but you may be right that calculating it that way doesn’t adequately reflect the use/cost of the voucher. In the first instance, BA may try to fob you off with the difference in price between the classes which is definitely wrong.
If you are up for the fight and feel confident in making the argument to claim 75% of the 80/90k, you should do that for the extra Avios and to establish the point for everyone. The alternative is to ask for the voucher back, and although they will say it was used on the return and it can be valid as a one way or return that’s the end of it because unlike Virgin, BA doesn’t really deal in ½ vouchers. If you were successful in doing that, the validity will probably be the same as the original which may be a consideration. It is a very interesting case, so good luck and let us know the outcome.
@JDB @Boltonsam is only entitled to a 75% on downgraded leg. His inbound was still in J.
So if the total without the voucher for one leg was 85k, he should get 75% of 85k plus 75% of £175.
However, the tricky thing is that BA chose to muddle the waters by introducing RFS on long haul, so the real taxes paid are not clear.
I would claim 75% of £175 and then let BA argue a different amount regarding cash component. It is also very likely they’ll fight the Avios part as well (that you should get 75% of 42.5k). You will need to be clear in your submissions to BA and court that voucher was not ‘free’.
@JDB @Boltonsam is only entitled to a 75% on downgraded leg. His inbound was still in J.
So if the total without the voucher for one leg was 85k, he should get 75% of 85k plus 75% of £175.
However, the tricky thing is that BA chose to muddle the waters by introducing RFS on long haul, so the real taxes paid are not clear.
I would claim 75% of £175 and then let BA argue a different amount regarding cash component. It is also very likely they’ll fight the Avios part as well (that you should get 75% of 42.5k). You will need to be clear in your submissions to BA and court that voucher was not ‘free’.
@meta I don’t think it’s a good idea to focus on the cash element here. The pax is liable for APD + LHR passenger service charge which total c.£246 and if you ask for unjustified or unreasonable amounts, BA will focus on that and use it as a weapon. The cash reimbursement due here is zero to minimal so don’t fall into that trap.@Boltonsam – on further reflection, what I would do is not to mention the voucher separately but to include it in the total consideration paid, so ask for 75% of 40k/45k Avios, 75% of 40k/45k Avios (the voucher) plus 75% of the cash element (don’t specify) the latter to be calculated in accordance with the June 2016 CJEU decision in Mennens v Emirates at paragraph 43.
Igniring the cash element and relaying my own experience for the Avios reimbursement when booking with a 241 voucher, I claimed for, and BA refunded, the Avios based on the full fare for that leg, i.e. the voucher was ignored in the calculations. In my case it was a short haul CE leg downgraded to ET, but the methodology should be the same in this case.
@JDB I didn’t meant that, it was perhaps not clear from my post. I meant that in addition to the Avios element, @Boltonsam should claim 75% of £175 rather than trying to work out what the actual taxes under RFS regime are.
Igniring the cash element and relaying my own experience for the Avios reimbursement when booking with a 241 voucher, I claimed for, and BA refunded, the Avios based on the full fare for that leg, i.e. the voucher was ignored in the calculations. In my case it was a short haul CE leg downgraded to ET, but the methodology should be the same in this case.
Unfortunately I think you were short changed as no value was attributed to the voucher but BA won’t cough up more than requested.
Igniring the cash element and relaying my own experience for the Avios reimbursement when booking with a 241 voucher, I claimed for, and BA refunded, the Avios based on the full fare for that leg, i.e. the voucher was ignored in the calculations. In my case it was a short haul CE leg downgraded to ET, but the methodology should be the same in this case.
Unfortunately I think you were short changed as no value was attributed to the voucher but BA won’t cough up more than requested.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear in my original post. What I meant was that no discount was applied to my Avios refund because of the voucher being used. I received, in my case 40%, of the full fare for each passenger.
@Boltonsam – on further reflection, what I would do is not to mention the voucher separately but to include it in the total consideration paid, so ask for 75% of 40k/45k Avios, 75% of 40k/45k Avios (the voucher) plus 75% of the cash element (don’t specify) the latter to be calculated in accordance with the June 2016 CJEU decision in Mennens v Emirates at paragraph 43.
I think this structure by @JDB is the best to claim.
There is the avios rack rate for the fare : whatever the one way cost LHR to Montreal YUL was that day.
1. So claim back 75% of the avios for that, or 75% of that multiplied by BA’s current official selling price for an avios. Which has moved recently to an amount greater than the previous 1.6p per avios selling price.
2. Look at the total cash you paid then the fare breakdown. Identify only APD, and the small amounts for things like airport charges and immigration/security charges. Then claim 75% of the rest. No further analysis needed let them argue it if they want.
3. Add a claimback line, this will follow the above 2 lines, 40k / 42.5k voucher credit for remaining avios required for fare, calculate 75% of that, state cash selling price operated by BA for 75% of that, as above.
This will tot up to the total 75% value of your reclaim. Clever JDB as this circumvents any refusal by BA to return any value for a wasted or part wasted voucher.
I do expect BA to try to return the avios as avios not as cash though, you need to decide if that is acceptable I guess. At MCOL you’d claim a cash value but who wants to go through that if avios can be acxeptable?
BA’s lawyers may just possibly treat your claim as an opportunity to argue the voucher is worth nothing. In order to try to head off future claims.
If so then I would actually consider CEDR. As arbitration might agree it’s fairer to consider it has a value. Whereas at MCOL I suspect would be made harder by the likely presence of something somewhere in BA terms saying zero or .0001 value, so far as BA are concerned. And then it’s a three-way mess with the cardco…. <<shudder>> hence CEDR.
Please let us know how it goes.
Thanks everyone. I will send my email tonight and keep the forum updated.
Just to update: ba initially deposited 19000 avios (difference between premium economy and business ?) talked about a monetary refund but nothing further. No actual breakdown of anything, just said they’d resolved issue.
On further emailing have now said all is correct with their maths but no monies owed as was an avios redemption. But I can have 40,000 avios as a “goodwill gesture” (their words).
Again no mention of the 75% rule. Is that normal to ignore the law? I’d imagine 75% of fees won’t be much but it is the principle…
Just to update: ba initially deposited 19000 avios (difference between premium economy and business ?) talked about a monetary refund but nothing further. No actual breakdown of anything, just said they’d resolved issue.
On further emailing have now said all is correct with their maths but no monies owed as was an avios redemption. But I can have 40,000 avios as a “goodwill gesture” (their words).
Again no mention of the 75% rule. Is that normal to ignore the law? I’d imagine 75% of fees won’t be much but it is the principle…
Doesn’t 40k + 19k cover 75% of the Avios and fees, bearing in mind the APD (same for PE as J) + LHR charge on the outbound – c.£250 which BA doesn’t have to refund you 75% of? It isn’t that BA has ignored the law, they have just decided to pay you as a GOGW rather than acknowledging the calculation process; lots of companies do that.
Final update and resolution:
BA said for my involuntary downgrade their calculations stated I was owed £35 and 37,500 avios (difference between premium economy and business Lhr to yul one way off peak).
I, from day 1 quoted the 75% rule (4 emails). Each email in reply they ignored to comment on this.
But they decided as compensation to give me what I had asked for 60k avios and £225.
Given they unilaterally, and without any breakdown, deposited initially in my account 19k avios, followed a couple of emails later a 40k avios “goodwill gesture”, I ended up with a refund of £225 and 119k avios (compared to my whole trip using a solo 50% companion voucher, 80k avios and £350).
Pretty pleased and hopefully gives some guidance to others who are seeking involuntary downgrade reimbursement.
I can’t help thinking BA has made a mistake here. I can’t see any basis for a compensation claim as such. I only see 75% downgrade reimbursement claim for one way.
If we assume the leg downgraded was the one departing the UK then as @JDB says, you’d be due around 75% of say, 90,000? avios if peak, so, say, 67,600 as reimbursement. 60,000 if off peak. Plus as @JDB says, due to APD out of the UK being so high, the 75% cash reimbursement was so small it wasn’t even worth calculating, so about the £35 sounds right.
Your flight wasn’t cancelled or delayed so no compensation. There is only downgrade reimbursement to pay.
If you ended up with 119,000 avios then it looks like they’ve accidentally paid out to you twice!
Alternatively, their odd internal tweaking of some fare constructions may have backfired on them. Eg in this case: perhaps with RFS artificially depressing tax in the fare construction on one leg, thus pushing the true taxes artificially to the other leg you weren’t claiming on. So that most of the non-tax (and therefore 75% reimbursable) cash landed on the half you were claiming on and therefore got refunded?
My first thought about the 40,000 was that, as alongside the 19,000, it brings it up to close enough to the 75% you were owed, the only reason I could see for it was somehow BA still didn’t want to admit they were liable for the 75%, or just possibly didn’t want to be dragged to CEDR or MCOL and get told to pay it, but they were actually prepared to pay it, just not to admit they know they have to reimburse 75%. Otherwise you are someone really important, or you are affiliated with a really important corporate. Because I just don’t see BA tossing out 40,000 extra voluntarily on a dispute 🙂 .
Either way, would you kindly accompany me the next time I buy a lottery ticket?
‘Gestures of goodwill’ are treated same as gifts and under general contract law can’t be rescinded. With 40k it was clear that it was a gift. BA should have made it conditional. Regarding 19k unilaterally deposited it really depends on the description on the actual transaction. It might well read ‘goodwill adjustment, gesture’ or similar. Then same as above. If not, BA might remove it at the later date same as with Avios from shopping portals.
OP wasn’t happy with this and he pressed for full compensation, so BA now has agreed to give full compensation as they don’t want to go to CEDR/MCOL or whatever. However, as they didn’t make the goodwill gestures conditional they have to pay more.
Edit: It admit it might be blurry with miles, but does BA want testing of this in court?
Yes that was my point. Even though the MCOL judgment doesn’t create precedent, so they shouldn’t have worried, that 40,000 looked all about keeping it out of court.
I like your goodwill/gifts explanation @meta, and am going to think about it joyfully, some more.
Yes that was my point. Even though the MCOL judgment doesn’t create precedent, so they shouldn’t have worried, that 40,000 looked all about keeping it out of court.
I like your goodwill/gifts explanation @meta, and am going to think about it joyfully, some more.
I think the OP just got very lucky with essentially double the requires reimbursement courtesy of BA’s chaotic administrative functions. They really don’t care about cases going to CEDR or MCOL where they win some and lose some and in a case like this there is no subjective decision to be made. BA is perfectly entitled to pay any reimbursement or compensation by way of an ex gratia or GOGW payment and could offset that against what any court/adjudicator ordered.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Popular articles this week:
