Downgrade from First to Business with BA

[Magsdis]

Flying London to Boston in May we were downgraded from First to Business. We are travelling on an Avios purchased ticket with a companion voucher. The ticket cost for two people was 148000 return (FIRST out Business back) and £1567.22 cash plus one Companion voucher. To fly business both ways I believe was about 160000 and £750 at the time.
I was told when I accepted the downgrade that I was due a significant fee refund. In addition afterwards by checking on various forums I realised I was also due downgrade compensation in miles or cash.
Since then numerous emails and phone calls we were initially offered 51000 airmiles. Then an extra 10000 air miles per person as a sorry. When I have challenged them about the fees they say no fee difference between the fares!
But they are now offering £500 cash per person as a sorry for the downgrade. However I believe they still owe us 31000 airmiles and plus the fee differences which is greater than £1000.
Any thoughts as to what to do next?

[meta]

You are due 75% of the leg you were downgraded minus any real airport/government taxes. It only applies to downgraded leg.

You need to go back to your eticket email and see how much were actual taxes for London to Boston and carrier imposed charges. You’re due 75% of carrier imposed charges in cash and 75% of Avios (68 or 80k depending on peak or off peak). 51k seems correct for Avios off-peak.

[Garethgerry]

Read the CAA document, you are entitled to 75% of the value of the ticket for that leg .

Ie 75% of (cash for that leg plus value of two lots of avios that you would have paid for first, compensation based on companion voucher being worth the number of avios you would have paid without it, Rob I think says you can use 1.7 pence per avios, BA standard rate).

There are quite a few threads on this search this forum .

This is a lot more than BA are offering you.

[meta]

Not true. BA have offered 51k Avios per person which seems to be correct amount unless OP flew at peak times.

£500 cash per person would also seem more or less correct as APD tax alone from London is about £190 per person. I can’t tell precisely, but OP can easily verify it by consulting eticket email they received when booking the ticket.

[BA Flyer IHG Stayer]

APD is irrelevant to any calculation as it’s the same in F as it is in Club and as a proper government tax is excluded from the cash element of the fare when it comes to calculating the 75% reimbursement amount (as are any airport feesj

[Lady London]

@meta is right. It does look like the avios component you are due back is 51,000 per seat.

Then as you were downgraded on the outward leg you were paying UK APD govt tax which I think is about £220 each. Plus some Heathrow airport charges should appear in your fare breakdown. The 75% back does not reduce either of those as they are “true” taxes and airport passenger charges. So you remove those for each passenger, so x2, from the cash you paid before we look at 75% of the rest of the cash you paid, that is due back to you.

Note real taxes are the same for Business and First, but BA’s extra amounts that they pocket (co-pay) are different between Business and First. So don’t just halve the co-pay as it wasn’t the same for out and back legs when you paid, for both outward and return as you bought to go out in First and back in Business.

A big, big chunk will be BA’s own charges = carrier charge = co-pay and you may see YQ next to it. That is not tax, it’s money you get 75% back of as it all went into BA’s pocket. Calculate the 75% you’re due back and to me without seing your figures that sounds like about £500 or so back each?

[meta]

@BA Flyer IHG Stayer It’s not irrelevant from calculation of what the person is due because it needs to be deducted and can’t be used in the 75% percent as Lady London also pointed out. OP paid about £1560 in cash on top of Avios because there is no co-pay because of mixing First and Business.

[ekposh]

I also think the OP can opt to take the cash value instead of Avios? So 51000 @ 1.7p – he may not want Avios if not intending on travelling again. So is it right that he could opt for cash equivalent? (not withstanding the actual cash element which he is due)?

[Garethgerry]

51000 × 1.7p per person plus some of cash paid is certainly more than £500 per person . Much nearer £1000pp . Take in cash, can buy avios if wants when on sale at circa 1.1p

[JDB]

Garethgerry wrote:

51000 × 1.7p per person plus some of cash paid is certainly more than £500 per person . Much nearer £1000pp . Take in cash, can buy avios if wants when on sale at circa 1.1p

You only get the Avios at the cash purchase rate if the matter goes to CEDR or MCOL where a claim can only be made in cash terms. Otherwise BA is entitled to reimburse the passenger in the original currency and the passenger cannot expect or demand otherwise.

[sayling]

You can’t opt to receive cash instead of Avios when dealing direct with BA. Their T&C/CoC state that refunds/ reimbursements will be made in the currency the fare was paid in (or words to that effect).

If cash is wanted, you’d have to go through MCOL – assuming things can’t be agreed beforehand (and I doubt “I want cash, not Avios” is a ground that could be relied on).

Be aware, you are unlikely to be able to receive reimbursement for the companion voucher, nor the Avios ‘saved’ by using it. As the Judge said in my (similar) case, the voucher cost ‘nothing’ and the reimbursement value of 75% of nothing is… nothing

[JDB]

@sayling – two things there, you can’t go to MCOL just to get your Avios in cash at 1.7p (or whatever price). If anyone tried that, BA would apply to have the case struck out with costs. They would win and the costs would considerably outweigh any cash uplift.

In respect of the voucher, I’m afraid that what you experienced was user error. The case needs to be carefully pleaded to show the voucher seat has the same value as the ‘paid’ one. There is no legal precedent as such, but it’s fairly well established at CEDR and MCOL that the voucher passenger is compensated or reimbursed in full.

[meta]

As OP said, they were given 51k Avios per person plus 10k Avios as goodwill gesture plus later they were also offered on top, £500 cash per person.

So that’s a total of 122k Avios and £1k cash. Comparing this to the fact they paid 148k Avios plus £1560 cash, it’s probably more than they were entitled to.

For once, BA did the right thing.

[sayling]

@JDB – agreed regarding taking the case to court, which I thought I had covered by saying “assuming things can’t be agreed beforehand (and I doubt “I want cash, not Avios” is a ground that could be relied on)”

With regard to the voucher, compensation value and reimbursement value are two different things though, aren’t they? One of the reasons why FlyerTalk peeps are always keen to stress that downgrading requires asking for reimbursement rather than compensation (as 261 regs refer to cancellation compensation – value unrelated to cost of ticket – and downgrade reimbursement, value completely based on a percentage of price paid).

I agree, people have been lucky to find a Judge that will accept an argument that there is a value that can be attributed to the voucher – or perhaps better prepared with a reasoned legal case. I did feel like I wasn’t fortunate enough with either, but as there is no precedent I could call on, I felt I had to accept the Judge’s finding that, as the voucher effectively discounted the Avios required, no Avios were used and no Avios could be reimbursed in respect of the voucher.

As you say, there is no legal precedent on vouchers, so you are at the mercy of the courts here…

I also didn’t want to labour the point too much, as I was awarded 75% of the cash element (excluding taxes) for the whole booking, rather than just for the downgraded outbound flight…

[Magsdis]

Just to clarify I have received total of 71000 air miles between 2
Originally an agent told me I was due £811 back fee difference in the outbound leg, now they are denying this and telling me there is no fee difference?! Clearly there was when I booked

[JDB]

@sayling – the same applies for downgrade reimbursement (which is compensation but under a difference name for convenience and clarity). Both passengers are entitled to the full compensation.

This is why I get a bit irked when some posters tell people to rush off to MCOL without really understanding how it works or how it differs to say CEDR for BA issues or the FOS for financial complaints. The latter processes are designed for lay people, so you tell them problem, why you think the firm has acted wrongly and the desired resolution. They then essentially make your case for you and assess and even find the law to help you.

MCOL is quite different and it says very early on in the guidance notes that you have to make your own case and specify the legal basis for it which may be under EC261, but could equally be a simple breach of contract or under the Montreal Convention and that needs to be set in the initial claim, you can’t add to the claim as you go along. Critically, the judge absolutely cannot help you make out your case or make an argument for you. Both parties are aware of each other’s cases before any hearing.

In this case, the voucher clearly isn’t free or worth zero as BA must have claimed. It’s a form of payment. BA is trying it on.

If BA tries this defence in their response to anyone’s claim they should take the opportunity of filing and serving a Reply (which one isn’t obliged to do) rebutting their zero cost argument. I would also separately write to them in a polite but very firm way suggesting that their defence risks misleading the court (something extremely serious) and contravenes the Law Society guidelines for dealing with litigants in person. Ask them to advise the court how many cases they have lost at CEDR/MCOL in identical circumstances. You will advise the court accordingly if they persist with this defence. Invite them again to settle.

[meta]

@Magsdis In which case I would go back to previous advice to calculate yourself how much you are due and respond to BA asking them to settle this claim. If they refuse then your options are to go to CEDR or MCOL.

[JDB]

@Magsdis Just to clarify I have received total of 71000 air miles between 2
Originally an agent told me I was due £811 back fee difference in the outbound leg, now they are denying this and telling me there is no fee difference?! Clearly there was when I booked.

However BA has expressed the £500pp/£1,000, that is going to be part of your overall downgrade reimbursement, not an extra sum.

You should be able to identify all the different fees and charges from your ticket. The disbursed element on the outbound flight comprising APD, Heathrow PSC and US arrival charges is about £275pp. For the return, RFS for business was probably £175pp when you booked so that all accounts for about £900 leaving maybe £667 of carrier charges eligible for the 75% but one would need to see the figures. The package of £1000 and 71,000 Avios doesn’t seem so far off, but if you think it’s wrong give them a detailed calculation, don’t just accept random numbers from them; that’s their fairly standard game. Tell them what’s what!

In your first post, you mentioned the difference between Club and First at the time you booked. You absolutely do not want to go there.

[sayling]

@JDB

BA did not attend the hearing. It was the Judge (at Uxbridge, one of the ‘specialist’ courts) that said there was no reimbursable sum that could be attached/associated with the voucher, when calculating the amount he would be awarding as reimbursement.

If I recall correctly, his thinking was along the lines of ‘what was paid by/for the passenger’s ticket?’ and his response ‘just the taxes and surcharges’. He didn’t feel he could reimburse us for the cost of Avios as the Avios weren’t ‘paid’ – if he awarded (the monetary equivalent) of 75% of the total Avios cost, I would have received more than the 50% of the Avios I had used, which is not, as he put it, reimbursement.

I would still contest there’s a fundamental difference between compensation and reimbursement, though.

[JDB]

@sayling – you are right to contest any fundamental difference between compensation and reimbursement for downgrades. A few people here get quite heated up about it, but the ECJ is with you! In the Mennens case which deals with the downgrade calculation, the Court says:-

“Thus, Article 10(2) of Regulation No 261/2004 aims to compensate a specific inconvenience, related to a given flight and not to the transport of the passenger as a whole.”

In your case, I’m afraid the judge probably acted in good faith, but he needed to be fed the right answer and one which should have been agreed in advance with BA if they weren’t planning to attend. BA effectively set a trap such that they were going to win either way. It is very poor form but at MCOL one has to look after oneself.

[Ihar]

Presumably first was full – hence you were bumped. Meaning it was oversold or someone paid top dollar to bump you. It is a strange argument that it had no value to the customer, but immense value to BA. It is quite obvious that a 241 voucher and Avios rewards not only have value to the customer, but also have a cost to BA. Avios and 241 vouchers will be on the balance sheet somewhere as a liability.

I agree, the judge might not understand how big Avios business is, but presumably if they had no value then BA would be happy to reimburse you 😉 Not legal arguments, but sensible ones that should have weight at MCOL.

As for the “monetary equivalent being more than 50%”, that probably happens in EU261 for most flights on Ryanair. Pay for a £30 quid flight, get £200+ in compensation. Thems the rules.

[JDB]

Ihar wrote:

Presumably first was full – hence you were bumped. Meaning it was oversold or someone paid top dollar to bump you. It is a strange argument that it had no value to the customer, but immense value to BA. It is quite obvious that a 241 voucher and Avios rewards not only have value to the customer, but also have a cost to BA. Avios and 241 vouchers will be on the balance sheet somewhere as a liability.

I agree, the judge might not understand how big Avios business is, but presumably if they had no value then BA would be happy to reimburse you 😉 Not legal arguments, but sensible ones that should have weight at MCOL.

As for the “monetary equivalent being more than 50%”, that probably happens in EU261 for most flights on Ryanair. Pay for a £30 quid flight, get £200+ in compensation. Thems the rules.

I’m afraid that the ‘obvious’ and other bits highlighted above from your post would carry zero weight at MCOL. The judge will be dealing with dozens of civil cases in all sorts of different areas of law so nothing can be deemed ‘obvious’. A litigant in person is expected to make out their case on the facts, evidence and law, as is the defendant. BA should not have won this case, but the claim clearly wasn’t properly presented so they didn’t send anyone as they knew they would effectively win either way. It’s very easy for BA to persuade a judge the 241 has no value if you let them, but their argument has to be refuted at the very earliest stage; it’s all too late once the judge has decided in your favour then to ask for more.

[sayling]

@Ihar nope – First was dropped from the route.

Whether or not there is a cost to BA or a liability in their balance sheet for vouchers is all fairly immaterial.

As @JDB pointed out in his quote, Article 10(2) of Regulation No 261/2004 aims to compensate a specific inconvenience and the Mennens judgement set the precedent that the compensation should be reimbursement of a percentage of the fare paid (excluding taxes).

Totally different to delay/cancellation compensation, which can easily exceed the sum paid for the flight.

Can you be reimbursed for something that cost you nothing? Arguably, a new voucher could be provided, I guess – but how do you award 75% of a replacement voucher? How do you award someone 75% of the missed opportunity of using the CCR?

And none of that even starts looking at how you apply it to half a voucher, as the claim related to the outbound flight only.

Incidentally, in my application, I did assign a monetary value to the Avios that the voucher effectively discounted. So, whilst I assigned a value to it (based on how much it would cost me to book a flight without a voucher, the Judge decided I had not used any currency he felt could be reimbursed.

The way I see things is probably best illustrated by thinking how the two different areas of UK/EU261 would be applied to a free long haul flight.

If the flight was cancelled or delayed, you would still be entitled to compensation at the fixed rates specified in the legislation.

If you got downgraded on the flight, you would be entitled to be compensated by receiving reimbursement of 75% of the fare paid, excluding taxes. Which would be the grand sum of zero.

[Ihar]

When I said “obvious” I meant it was a valid argument that should have been made. Avios has a value, whether you earned them or not. So does a 241. But comparing them to the value of a cash ticket is wrong (unless comparing to the lowest value bucket). I’ve paid cash First tickets to the USA that were only £300-£400 more than Club.

If Avios has no value, BA won’t mind giving you a few million 😉

[sayling]

@Ihar what?

The monetary value I applied to the voucher was the cash cost of buying the equivalent Avios from BA, similar to the cash I was claiming for the Avios used for my seat.

Nobody said that Avios and/or vouchers don’t cost BA nothing. That wasn’t the point at all.

The point is that the legislation says that I am entitled to reimbursement of 75% of the fare I paid for that seat. Not the value of the seat, nor the cost to BA of that seat.

I, effectively, used a voucher that allowed me to purchase one seat, for me, for x number of Avios and 0 Avios for my wife.

75% of 0 is still 0 when it comes to reimbursing what was actually paid for something.