mmmm…I’m flying to South America via Madrid next month by Iberia (BA). I’ll make sure I check-in as soon as allowed.
Well… without a surcharge payment you can only checkin 24 hours before. My SIL did that and was puzzled to find that while she could checkin ok for Madrid-Sao Paulo she could not check in for the LGW- MAD leg.No explanation was given but it prompted them to arrive and checkin physically 3 hours before. Turned out her fate had already been sealed. So if I were you I’d pay the surcharge . I hate to say that because it means they get more revenue as a result of their incompetence and mendacity. Caveat is, they’ll probably charge you two fees, one for each leg. And I guess Feb is not a busy time on those routes, certainly compared with mid December.
More than a week ago @SporadicAddick asked me on another thread whether we had received any compensation from Iberia yet. I though it best to answer here.
The short answer is "no". And the background to that is further evidence of a company that is only paying lip-service to the regulations protecting customers, and has no interest in doing the right thing. AKA they are taking the piss. The only positive thing I can say is that if you ask Iberia customer care Twitter a question they do respond quickly, far quicker than BA, but they do not deal with these claims themselves of course. I detect some embarrassment on their side as I repeatedly asked them to chase up their colleagues for a response. "Highlights" as follows:
15.12. We submitted the claim on their webform. It asked for a contact email address there. We gave my brother's since SIl would be in Brazil for several weeks and not always with good net access. That kind of tends to happen with long distance air travel...The form said an email would be sent to the address provided.
3.1. After extensive nudging of their Twitter people they came back and admitted that a confirmation had been sent to SIL's address and they were waiting for her to respond in some way "She just has to reply to the email, we send the answer to the email linked to the booking. For security reasons is not possible to send it to other email, but we will check if we can make an exception." Itold them they bloody better. Subsequently SIL reported that she could see no such mail anyway even though the Twitter mob gae ma date and time to check junk mail etc. Tellingly, she reported that she did have promotional mail from Iberia
4.1 At last the mail arrived in my brother's email box. Here are highlights of how sorry they are:
Thank you for contacting us about being denied boarding to flight IB3717 on 9 of December 2023, from London to Madrid. We appreciate that you were inconvenienced by this. On certain occasions, we have to change the type of plane originally scheduled to operate a route, and this is what happened with your flight....We apologize for this incident, and we trust that you will have a satisfactory experience the next time you fly with us"
My brother was worried that they might try to fob us off with lower compensation for the Madrid connecting flight only, but since the letter did ask us to send them the receipts for hotel etc and bank details I don't worry about that so much. However I drafted a reply that pointed to the real complaint - if they had a smaller plane, there are clear regulations about how they should handle such an issue (volunteers for bump off, help with re-booking, refreshment, accom. etc) and SIL got none of that, apparently because there was no desk staffed by Iberia people who could do any of that. So I said that in addition to €600 plus full recompense of expenses "In the light of this, on top of the compensation and reimbursement outlined above, we expect an ex gratia payment of €200as recompense for the stress caused by your failure to staff adequately. We recognise that this demand is not covered by the directive, however, if you really care about your reputation, we would expect you to make such a payment."
That was sent on 11.1. Since then, silence.
Comments?
Time to chase them up again.
As a ball park a full working week + since you posed your follow up questions is long enough.
Random thought was it explicitly a smaller plane? I assume it was (and is logical) but the extract you shared did not, I don’t think , say that.
Is it at all possible the plane wasn’t technically smaller and means they are not caught by the regulation you were able to quote?
Regardless they need to account for themselves in more detail.
More than a week ago @SporadicAddick asked me on another thread whether we had received any compensation from Iberia yet. I though it best to answer here.
The short answer is "no". And the background to that is further evidence of a company that is only paying lip-service to the regulations protecting customers, and has no interest in doing the right thing. AKA they are taking the piss. The only positive thing I can say is that if you ask Iberia customer care Twitter a question they do respond quickly, far quicker than BA, but they do not deal with these claims themselves of course. I detect some embarrassment on their side as I repeatedly asked them to chase up their colleagues for a response. "Highlights" as follows:
15.12. We submitted the claim on their webform. It asked for a contact email address there. We gave my brother's since SIl would be in Brazil for several weeks and not always with good net access. That kind of tends to happen with long distance air travel...The form said an email would be sent to the address provided.
3.1. After extensive nudging of their Twitter people they came back and admitted that a confirmation had been sent to SIL's address and they were waiting for her to respond in some way "She just has to reply to the email, we send the answer to the email linked to the booking. For security reasons is not possible to send it to other email, but we will check if we can make an exception." Itold them they bloody better. Subsequently SIL reported that she could see no such mail anyway even though the Twitter mob gae ma date and time to check junk mail etc. Tellingly, she reported that she did have promotional mail from Iberia
4.1 At last the mail arrived in my brother's email box. Here are highlights of how sorry they are:
Thank you for contacting us about being denied boarding to flight IB3717 on 9 of December 2023, from London to Madrid. We appreciate that you were inconvenienced by this. On certain occasions, we have to change the type of plane originally scheduled to operate a route, and this is what happened with your flight....We apologize for this incident, and we trust that you will have a satisfactory experience the next time you fly with us"
My brother was worried that they might try to fob us off with lower compensation for the Madrid connecting flight only, but since the letter did ask us to send them the receipts for hotel etc and bank details I don't worry about that so much. However I drafted a reply that pointed to the real complaint - if they had a smaller plane, there are clear regulations about how they should handle such an issue (volunteers for bump off, help with re-booking, refreshment, accom. etc) and SIL got none of that, apparently because there was no desk staffed by Iberia people who could do any of that. So I said that in addition to €600 plus full recompense of expenses "In the light of this, on top of the compensation and reimbursement outlined above, we expect an ex gratia payment of €200as recompense for the stress caused by your failure to staff adequately. We recognise that this demand is not covered by the directive, however, if you really care about your reputation, we would expect you to make such a payment."
That was sent on 11.1. Since then, silence.
Comments?
Time to chase them up again.
As a ball park a full working week + since you posed your follow up questions is long enough.
Random thought was it explicitly a smaller plane? I assume it was (and is logical) but the extract you shared did not, I don’t think , say that.
Is it at all possible the plane wasn’t technically smaller and means they are not caught by the regulation you were able to quote?
Regardless they need to account for themselves in more detail.
I've not read of anything like that happening, and I don't think it matters what the reason was (unless it's weather related, or possibly a strike). It's about arriving late. Anyway, I don't think they intend to swerve it completely because as well as asking for hotel bills etc they asked for bank details - that's pretty much a "guilty as charged" request. I'd guess the delay is either that department is under-staffed, like other areas of their operation, and they have a huge backlog of similar complaints to work through - or possibly they are weighing up whether or not they should accede to my demand for a top up payment. If they had the same approach as Delta (see @Popicon above) this thread would not exist.
This does seem to be taking an inordinate amount of time for what should be a straightforward case.
Your SIL was denied boarding. The reason was not extraordinary circumstance and therefore:-
- They owe your sister compensation under EU (UK) 261 - They were required to get your SIL to her destination (unless she requested a refund) as soon as reasonably possible and provide accommodation / sustenance until that were the case (or cover such costs if not provided.
As previously said, this is solely Iberia, nothing to do with BA.
Asking them to discuss with someone that isn't on the booking and via an email address not connected to the booking is pretty much a non starter. I have no idea if this has slowed it down but they will (or certainly should) only deal with the passenger affected.
You as a 3rd party have also asked for additional compensation. I'd be amazed if they go beyond their statutory requirements - why would they?
I hope it gets sorted soon but it seems more complex than it needs to be...
This does seem to be taking an inordinate amount of time for what should be a straightforward case.
Your SIL was denied boarding. The reason was not extraordinary circumstance and therefore:-
- They owe your sister compensation under EU (UK) 261 - They were required to get your SIL to her destination (unless she requested a refund) as soon as reasonably possible and provide accommodation / sustenance until that were the case (or cover such costs if not provided.
As previously said, this is solely Iberia, nothing to do with BA.
Asking them to discuss with someone that isn't on the booking and via an email address not connected to the booking is pretty much a non starter. I have no idea if this has slowed it down but they will (or certainly should) only deal with the passenger affected.
You as a 3rd party have also asked for additional compensation. I'd be amazed if they go beyond their statutory requirements - why would they?
I hope it gets sorted soon but it seems more complex than it needs to be...
All emails from us go in my brother’s name. His wife has provided Iberia with a power of attorney letter.
If they only want to deal via the email address on the booking, they should not ask for “a contact email address” on the complaint form; they should request the address that was used for the booking.
Anyway their claims department re-sent the email to my brother fairly sharply after we relayed my SIL’s report that no email exisited even in her junk folder for the day and time they claimed to have sent it. Shower.
Why would they go beyond their statutory requirements? How about for the same reason that Delta did for @Popicon mate? Or how about for piling insult upon injury by responding in such a lethargic way? There’s nothing complex about it. Its just deliberate foot-dragging.
I accepted long ago that this is an Iberia matter rather than BA. But both are just business units of IAG. As the Czechs say, “the fish rots from the head”.
More than a week ago @SporadicAddick asked me on another thread whether we had received any compensation from Iberia yet. I though it best to answer here.
The short answer is "no". And the background to that is further evidence of a company that is only paying lip-service to the regulations protecting customers, and has no interest in doing the right thing. AKA they are taking the piss. The only positive thing I can say is that if you ask Iberia customer care Twitter a question they do respond quickly, far quicker than BA, but they do not deal with these claims themselves of course. I detect some embarrassment on their side as I repeatedly asked them to chase up their colleagues for a response. "Highlights" as follows:
15.12. We submitted the claim on their webform. It asked for a contact email address there. We gave my brother's since SIl would be in Brazil for several weeks and not always with good net access. That kind of tends to happen with long distance air travel...The form said an email would be sent to the address provided.
3.1. After extensive nudging of their Twitter people they came back and admitted that a confirmation had been sent to SIL's address and they were waiting for her to respond in some way "She just has to reply to the email, we send the answer to the email linked to the booking. For security reasons is not possible to send it to other email, but we will check if we can make an exception." Itold them they bloody better. Subsequently SIL reported that she could see no such mail anyway even though the Twitter mob gae ma date and time to check junk mail etc. Tellingly, she reported that she did have promotional mail from Iberia
4.1 At last the mail arrived in my brother's email box. Here are highlights of how sorry they are:
Thank you for contacting us about being denied boarding to flight IB3717 on 9 of December 2023, from London to Madrid. We appreciate that you were inconvenienced by this. On certain occasions, we have to change the type of plane originally scheduled to operate a route, and this is what happened with your flight....We apologize for this incident, and we trust that you will have a satisfactory experience the next time you fly with us"
My brother was worried that they might try to fob us off with lower compensation for the Madrid connecting flight only, but since the letter did ask us to send them the receipts for hotel etc and bank details I don't worry about that so much. However I drafted a reply that pointed to the real complaint - if they had a smaller plane, there are clear regulations about how they should handle such an issue (volunteers for bump off, help with re-booking, refreshment, accom. etc) and SIL got none of that, apparently because there was no desk staffed by Iberia people who could do any of that. So I said that in addition to €600 plus full recompense of expenses "In the light of this, on top of the compensation and reimbursement outlined above, we expect an ex gratia payment of €200as recompense for the stress caused by your failure to staff adequately. We recognise that this demand is not covered by the directive, however, if you really care about your reputation, we would expect you to make such a payment."
That was sent on 11.1. Since then, silence.
Comments?
Time to chase them up again.
As a ball park a full working week + since you posed your follow up questions is long enough.
Random thought was it explicitly a smaller plane? I assume it was (and is logical) but the extract you shared did not, I don’t think , say that.
Is it at all possible the plane wasn’t technically smaller and means they are not caught by the regulation you were able to quote?
Regardless they need to account for themselves in more detail.
I've not read of anything like that happening, and I don't think it matters what the reason was (unless it's weather related, or possibly a strike). It's about arriving late. Anyway, I don't think they intend to swerve it completely because as well as asking for hotel bills etc they asked for bank details - that's pretty much a "guilty as charged" request. I'd guess the delay is either that department is under-staffed, like other areas of their operation, and they have a huge backlog of similar complaints to work through - or possibly they are weighing up whether or not they should accede to my demand for a top up payment. If they had the same approach as Delta (see @Popicon above) this thread would not exist.
Apologies. I may have read your post too literally.
I thought you were saying that the regulation states if you are bumped because the replacement plane is smaller they must do x, y and z.
From your reply now I think you just meant if bumped for any reason.
As I said though it was only a random thought.
You sound as though you will get the appropriate compensation but the explanation on process followed / not followed remains outstanding.
Just reporting (from PRG airport coincidentally) that this morning we finally got an email confirming they’d pay the full €600 plus claimed expenses. It was chaos to the very end. Yesterday I told their customer services that we are ready to escalete using both legal and “less orthodox” steps. The response they passed abck was to ask for confirmation of a correct email address. The one they gave was wrong (one 6 instead of two in the name). I told them. They gleefully fired back that this was the address we gave on our original claim. I could not check that because they do not provide copy back of the webform you fill in for claims. Howeve I pointed out that they used the correct address back on 12Jan to ask us for expenses evidence🤣. They went quiet and today capitulated. Utter shower.
If anyone still feels inclined to excuse this as a very rare case I would urge them to visit MoneySavingsExpert forum on flight delay comp. It is horrendous. It is so huge that MSE staff desperately work to encourage posters according to airline or region. There is good stuff there re if you have to go to court but otherwise it is overwhelming. I saw someone reporting last week that he’d been repaid by KLM - a claim he had submitted in April.
Just reporting (from PRG airport coincidentally) that this morning we finally got an email confirming they’d pay the full €600 plus claimed expenses. It was chaos to the very end. Yesterday I told their customer services that we are ready to escalete using both legal and “less orthodox” steps. The response they passed abck was to ask for confirmation of a correct email address. The one they gave was wrong (one 6 instead of two in the name). I told them. They gleefully fired back that this was the address we gave on our original claim. I could not check that because they do not provide copy back of the webform you fill in for claims. Howeve I pointed out that they used the correct address back on 12Jan to ask us for expenses evidence🤣. They went quiet and today capitulated. Utter shower.
If anyone still feels inclined to excuse this as a very rare case I would urge them to visit MoneySavingsExpert forum on flight delay comp. It is horrendous. It is so huge that MSE staff desperately work to encourage posters according to airline or region. There is good stuff there re if you have to go to court but otherwise it is overwhelming. I saw someone reporting last week that he’d been repaid by KLM - a claim he had submitted in April.
Oh wellĺ hope this helps some people in future.
Good to hear.
Did they yet account for the circumstances of the ‘bumping’ as I seem to recall you were keen for them to explain how they are compliant with regulatory expectations?
Just reporting (from PRG airport coincidentally) that this morning we finally got an email confirming they’d pay the full €600 plus claimed expenses. It was chaos to the very end. Yesterday I told their customer services that we are ready to escalete using both legal and “less orthodox” steps. The response they passed abck was to ask for confirmation of a correct email address. The one they gave was wrong (one 6 instead of two in the name). I told them. They gleefully fired back that this was the address we gave on our original claim. I could not check that because they do not provide copy back of the webform you fill in for claims. Howeve I pointed out that they used the correct address back on 12Jan to ask us for expenses evidence🤣. They went quiet and today capitulated. Utter shower.
If anyone still feels inclined to excuse this as a very rare case I would urge them to visit MoneySavingsExpert forum on flight delay comp. It is horrendous. It is so huge that MSE staff desperately work to encourage posters according to airline or region. There is good stuff there re if you have to go to court but otherwise it is overwhelming. I saw someone reporting last week that he’d been repaid by KLM - a claim he had submitted in April.
Oh wellĺ hope this helps some people in future.
Good to hear.
Did they yet account for the circumstances of the ‘bumping’ as I seem to recall you were keen for them to explain how they are compliant with regulatory expectations?
As yet they have not offered any explanation , and I doubt they plan to offer one. First we need to see the money - but having seen the scale of non-compliance by so many airlines on the MSE thread, I fear it may be beyond me to extract anything else from them.
Just reporting (from PRG airport coincidentally) that this morning we finally got an email confirming they’d pay the full €600 plus claimed expenses. It was chaos to the very end. Yesterday I told their customer services that we are ready to escalete using both legal and “less orthodox” steps. The response they passed abck was to ask for confirmation of a correct email address. The one they gave was wrong (one 6 instead of two in the name). I told them. They gleefully fired back that this was the address we gave on our original claim. I could not check that because they do not provide copy back of the webform you fill in for claims. Howeve I pointed out that they used the correct address back on 12Jan to ask us for expenses evidence🤣. They went quiet and today capitulated. Utter shower.
If anyone still feels inclined to excuse this as a very rare case I would urge them to visit MoneySavingsExpert forum on flight delay comp. It is horrendous. It is so huge that MSE staff desperately work to encourage posters according to airline or region. There is good stuff there re if you have to go to court but otherwise it is overwhelming. I saw someone reporting last week that he’d been repaid by KLM - a claim he had submitted in April.
Oh wellĺ hope this helps some people in future.
Good to hear.
Did they yet account for the circumstances of the ‘bumping’ as I seem to recall you were keen for them to explain how they are compliant with regulatory expectations?
As yet they have not offered any explanation , and I doubt they plan to offer one. First we need to see the money - but having seen the scale of non-compliance by so many airlines on the MSE thread, I fear it may be beyond me to extract anything else from them.
You have literally quoted on page 4 of this thread the reason why your SIL was bumped!
Just reporting (from PRG airport coincidentally) that this morning we finally got an email confirming they’d pay the full €600 plus claimed expenses. It was chaos to the very end. Yesterday I told their customer services that we are ready to escalete using both legal and “less orthodox” steps. The response they passed abck was to ask for confirmation of a correct email address. The one they gave was wrong (one 6 instead of two in the name). I told them. They gleefully fired back that this was the address we gave on our original claim. I could not check that because they do not provide copy back of the webform you fill in for claims. Howeve I pointed out that they used the correct address back on 12Jan to ask us for expenses evidence🤣. They went quiet and today capitulated. Utter shower.
If anyone still feels inclined to excuse this as a very rare case I would urge them to visit MoneySavingsExpert forum on flight delay comp. It is horrendous. It is so huge that MSE staff desperately work to encourage posters according to airline or region. There is good stuff there re if you have to go to court but otherwise it is overwhelming. I saw someone reporting last week that he’d been repaid by KLM - a claim he had submitted in April.
Oh wellĺ hope this helps some people in future.
Good to hear.
Did they yet account for the circumstances of the ‘bumping’ as I seem to recall you were keen for them to explain how they are compliant with regulatory expectations?
As yet they have not offered any explanation , and I doubt they plan to offer one. First we need to see the money - but having seen the scale of non-compliance by so many airlines on the MSE thread, I fear it may be beyond me to extract anything else from them.
Is there any sort of ombudsman you can also enquire of ?
Whilst I assume the airline have some way of ticking the regulatory box (if not the spirit of the requirements) your concerns might warrant some sort of response from them?
Just reporting (from PRG airport coincidentally) that this morning we finally got an email confirming they’d pay the full €600 plus claimed expenses. It was chaos to the very end. Yesterday I told their customer services that we are ready to escalete using both legal and “less orthodox” steps. The response they passed abck was to ask for confirmation of a correct email address. The one they gave was wrong (one 6 instead of two in the name). I told them. They gleefully fired back that this was the address we gave on our original claim. I could not check that because they do not provide copy back of the webform you fill in for claims. Howeve I pointed out that they used the correct address back on 12Jan to ask us for expenses evidence🤣. They went quiet and today capitulated. Utter shower.
If anyone still feels inclined to excuse this as a very rare case I would urge them to visit MoneySavingsExpert forum on flight delay comp. It is horrendous. It is so huge that MSE staff desperately work to encourage posters according to airline or region. There is good stuff there re if you have to go to court but otherwise it is overwhelming. I saw someone reporting last week that he’d been repaid by KLM - a claim he had submitted in April.
Oh wellĺ hope this helps some people in future.
They didn't "capitulate", they paid your SIL what they were obliged by law to do.
As I've said on another post, I'm not sure why this was so difficult. It was straightforward; bumped off flight, claim compensation, get paid.
On the few occasions I've claimed under UK261 it was wholly straightforward.
Just reporting (from PRG airport coincidentally) that this morning we finally got an email confirming they’d pay the full €600 plus claimed expenses. It was chaos to the very end. Yesterday I told their customer services that we are ready to escalete using both legal and “less orthodox” steps. The response they passed abck was to ask for confirmation of a correct email address. The one they gave was wrong (one 6 instead of two in the name). I told them. They gleefully fired back that this was the address we gave on our original claim. I could not check that because they do not provide copy back of the webform you fill in for claims. Howeve I pointed out that they used the correct address back on 12Jan to ask us for expenses evidence🤣. They went quiet and today capitulated. Utter shower.
If anyone still feels inclined to excuse this as a very rare case I would urge them to visit MoneySavingsExpert forum on flight delay comp. It is horrendous. It is so huge that MSE staff desperately work to encourage posters according to airline or region. There is good stuff there re if you have to go to court but otherwise it is overwhelming. I saw someone reporting last week that he’d been repaid by KLM - a claim he had submitted in April.
Oh wellĺ hope this helps some people in future.
Good to hear.
Did they yet account for the circumstances of the ‘bumping’ as I seem to recall you were keen for them to explain how they are compliant with regulatory expectations?
As yet they have not offered any explanation , and I doubt they plan to offer one. First we need to see the money - but having seen the scale of non-compliance by so many airlines on the MSE thread, I fear it may be beyond me to extract anything else from them.
Is there any sort of ombudsman you can also enquire of ?
Whilst I assume the airline have some way of ticking the regulatory box (if not the spirit of the requirements) your concerns might warrant some sort of response from them?
What is the case?
The passenger bumped has received an explanation as to the reason for the issue and has been compensated as per legal requirements.
Just reporting (from PRG airport coincidentally) that this morning we finally got an email confirming they’d pay the full €600 plus claimed expenses. It was chaos to the very end. Yesterday I told their customer services that we are ready to escalete using both legal and “less orthodox” steps. The response they passed abck was to ask for confirmation of a correct email address. The one they gave was wrong (one 6 instead of two in the name). I told them. They gleefully fired back that this was the address we gave on our original claim. I could not check that because they do not provide copy back of the webform you fill in for claims. Howeve I pointed out that they used the correct address back on 12Jan to ask us for expenses evidence🤣. They went quiet and today capitulated. Utter shower.
If anyone still feels inclined to excuse this as a very rare case I would urge them to visit MoneySavingsExpert forum on flight delay comp. It is horrendous. It is so huge that MSE staff desperately work to encourage posters according to airline or region. There is good stuff there re if you have to go to court but otherwise it is overwhelming. I saw someone reporting last week that he’d been repaid by KLM - a claim he had submitted in April.
Oh wellĺ hope this helps some people in future.
Good to hear.
Did they yet account for the circumstances of the ‘bumping’ as I seem to recall you were keen for them to explain how they are compliant with regulatory expectations?
As yet they have not offered any explanation , and I doubt they plan to offer one. First we need to see the money - but having seen the scale of non-compliance by so many airlines on the MSE thread, I fear it may be beyond me to extract anything else from them.
Is there any sort of ombudsman you can also enquire of ?
Whilst I assume the airline have some way of ticking the regulatory box (if not the spirit of the requirements) your concerns might warrant some sort of response from them?
What is the case?
The passenger bumped has received an explanation as to the reason for the issue and has been compensated as per legal requirements.
BTW the ultimate ombudsman is the CAA.
The story above was that it was felt due process was not followed on identifying who to bump and support offered at the airport.
Further suggested the airline should have been providing more support in person.
Just reporting (from PRG airport coincidentally) that this morning we finally got an email confirming they’d pay the full €600 plus claimed expenses. It was chaos to the very end. Yesterday I told their customer services that we are ready to escalete using both legal and “less orthodox” steps. The response they passed abck was to ask for confirmation of a correct email address. The one they gave was wrong (one 6 instead of two in the name). I told them. They gleefully fired back that this was the address we gave on our original claim. I could not check that because they do not provide copy back of the webform you fill in for claims. Howeve I pointed out that they used the correct address back on 12Jan to ask us for expenses evidence🤣. They went quiet and today capitulated. Utter shower.
If anyone still feels inclined to excuse this as a very rare case I would urge them to visit MoneySavingsExpert forum on flight delay comp. It is horrendous. It is so huge that MSE staff desperately work to encourage posters according to airline or region. There is good stuff there re if you have to go to court but otherwise it is overwhelming. I saw someone reporting last week that he’d been repaid by KLM - a claim he had submitted in April.
Oh wellĺ hope this helps some people in future.
Good to hear.
Did they yet account for the circumstances of the ‘bumping’ as I seem to recall you were keen for them to explain how they are compliant with regulatory expectations?
As yet they have not offered any explanation , and I doubt they plan to offer one. First we need to see the money - but having seen the scale of non-compliance by so many airlines on the MSE thread, I fear it may be beyond me to extract anything else from them.
Is there any sort of ombudsman you can also enquire of ?
Whilst I assume the airline have some way of ticking the regulatory box (if not the spirit of the requirements) your concerns might warrant some sort of response from them?
What is the case?
The passenger bumped has received an explanation as to the reason for the issue and has been compensated as per legal requirements.
BTW the ultimate ombudsman is the CAA.
The story above was that it was felt due process was not followed on identifying who to bump and support offered at the airport.
Further suggested the airline should have been providing more support in person.
That was the gist I think.
Also no explanation was given I interpret.
Email on p4 states that the issue was caused by a change of aircraft type - it happens.
There is no “due process”. Passengers may be asked to volunteer or be removed. The decision making process is unlikely to be “considered”.
an airline is not obliged to provide personal support to the best of my knowledge. That is a commercial decision by the airline. We would like it but it’s not a given. All airlines have appointed “ground handlers” that should represent them, clearly not in this case.
when you book, when you check in, you are made aware of your rights in the event of denied boarding, and the level of comp you are entitled to as well as any other reasonable costs incurred. Typically though clearly not in this case it’s straightforward.
the airline had a duty to compensate and make good on reasonable costs and it reads as if that is what has happened.
@SporadicAddick I’m back in London now so not near a proper computer so I cannot easily get all the links but this one from Which sets out very clearly that having forcibly bumped her off, Iberia should have provided her with refreshments, overnight accom, and transport.
They also obviously should have re-booked her because they otherwise had not fulfilled the contract. I also did not dream up from nowhere the instruction based on the directive that they should have sought volunteers to be bumped, but didnt on that day. But right now I cannot find the reference to that psrt of the EU directive you yourself introduced me to.
I think you downplay the extent of the problem. If you are interested check the MSE forums to see the extent of deliberate incompetence being deployed by airlines. If there are stats to hand , maybe you’ll be surprised by the number of small claims court cases against airlines each year.
Today I took my first flight in 15 months from Prague to LHR, as usual I took BA and paid for a Club ticket. The flight was 100% full. By the time I got on board, there was no room for my case in the lockers. I was far from the only one. The cabin crew then set about finding every nook and cranny to get my and about 15 other bags in. They failed to find a home for 3 such bags. They then made an appeal with exemplary politeness for volunteers for two bags to go in the hold as two passengers with cases unstowed had connecting flights at LHR. Two came forward and received a round of applause from the rest of us.
We all know why this happens, its due to the aggressive extra charging for bags and the frequent baggage handling losses. The people who make these pricing decisions earn big money and get rewarded with promotion for their brilliance in increasing “yield”. Meanwhile the planes only take off anywhere near on time thanks to the professionalism and dedication of the cabin crew in dealing with the consequences of these genius decisions. I always make a point of thanking them, especially so today.
These things happen due to second-rate management decisions responding or reacting to the psychopathic business credo of Michael O’Leary and his counterparts in the USA. No good comes of downplaying the frequency of these incidents, still less accepting them as some kind of normal hazard of travel. That is how they get away with it.
Comments
up again.
Your SIL was denied boarding. The reason was not extraordinary circumstance and therefore:-
- They owe your sister compensation under EU (UK) 261
- They were required to get your SIL to her destination (unless she requested a refund) as soon as reasonably possible and provide accommodation / sustenance until that were the case (or cover such costs if not provided.
As previously said, this is solely Iberia, nothing to do with BA.
Asking them to discuss with someone that isn't on the booking and via an email address not connected to the booking is pretty much a non starter. I have no idea if this has slowed it down but they will (or certainly should) only deal with the passenger affected.
You as a 3rd party have also asked for additional compensation. I'd be amazed if they go beyond their statutory requirements - why would they?
I hope it gets sorted soon but it seems more complex than it needs to be...
If they only want to deal via the email address on the booking, they should not ask for “a contact email address” on the complaint form; they should request the address that was used for the booking.
I accepted long ago that this is an Iberia matter rather than BA. But both are just business units of IAG. As the Czechs say, “the fish rots from the head”.
If anyone still feels inclined to excuse this as a very rare case I would urge them to visit MoneySavingsExpert forum on flight delay comp. It is horrendous. It is so huge that MSE staff desperately work to encourage posters according to airline or region. There is good stuff there re if you have to go to court but otherwise it is overwhelming. I saw someone reporting last week that he’d been repaid by KLM - a claim he had submitted in April.
Whilst I assume the airline have some way of ticking the regulatory box (if not the spirit of the requirements) your concerns might warrant some sort of response from them?
As I've said on another post, I'm not sure why this was so difficult. It was straightforward; bumped off flight, claim compensation, get paid.
On the few occasions I've claimed under UK261 it was wholly straightforward.
The passenger bumped has received an explanation as to the reason for the issue and has been compensated as per legal requirements.
BTW the ultimate ombudsman is the CAA.
There is no “due process”. Passengers may be asked to volunteer or be removed. The decision making process is unlikely to be “considered”.
an airline is not obliged to provide personal support to the best of my knowledge. That is a commercial decision by the airline. We would like it but it’s not a given. All airlines have appointed “ground handlers” that should represent them, clearly not in this case.
when you book, when you check in, you are made aware of your rights in the event of denied boarding, and the level of comp you are entitled to as well as any other reasonable costs incurred. Typically though clearly not in this case it’s straightforward.
the airline had a duty to compensate and make good on reasonable costs and it reads as if that is what has happened.
I’m back in London now so not near a proper computer so I cannot easily get all the links but this one from Which sets out very clearly that having forcibly bumped her off, Iberia should have provided her with refreshments, overnight accom, and transport.
I think you downplay the extent of the problem. If you are interested check the MSE forums to see the extent of deliberate incompetence being deployed by airlines. If there are stats to hand , maybe you’ll be surprised by the number of small claims court cases against airlines each year.