BA going Buy on Board refreshments for short haul...

1234579

Comments

  • pelirocco
    pelirocco Posts: 8,274
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    DanB77 wrote: »
    I realise this is what BA want to do and they are well within their rights to do it and as customers we have a right to go elsewhere for our travel.

    However is it actually legal that they can change the terms of a previously booked flight such as this? If it is legal it actually shows no level of customer service whatsoever and a total neglect for what people may think :mad:


    I would guess so , we had a 'worse' experience with Easyjet when they started charging extra for hold baggage . I had booked and paid for 2 tickets including baggage , when we got to the airport we went sent away to pay for the hold baggage ( I paid under protest ) .On our return journey we were told we had only paid for baggage for the outward journey!!!
    Vuja De - the feeling you'll be here later
  • RHemmings
    RHemmings Posts: 3,424
    Name Dropper Combo Breaker First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    edited 7 October 2016 at 11:45AM
    malkie76 wrote: »
    Thing is, they are offering full refund, or compensation to affected passengers, so you don't really have much of a point beyond that. Your claim that rebooking elsewhere at a greater cost won't hold any water.

    You cannot force someone to provide a service they no longer offer.

    In general, you can. It's called breach of contract. If someone sells you a service to be fulfilled in the future, then withdraws that service, it's up to them to make good the consumer's loss.

    In terms of rebooking elsewhere, then if a passenger was forced to rebook elsewhere they could sue for loss of bargain. (Except, I don't believe this applies in this case. See later.)

    In this specific case, it would depend on whether or not food formed part of the contract formed when someone bought a ticket. That probably depends on fine print.

    I'm not suggesting that anyone would sue for lack of food when the loss is probably the cost of bringing sandwiches on board. As the consumer would be expected to ameliorate their losses. Or perhaps buying similar food onboard would make their loss. Cancelling the flight and booking a more expensive one wouldn't be grounds for a large loss that can be sued for as by not just paying for food (brought onto the plane or bought on the plane) would create a smaller loss, and in breach of contract cases people are expected to ameliorate their losses.

    Speaking from a customer relations, not legal, standpoint, I believe that the airlines are silly not to offer food vouchers to those passengers who have already bought tickets, but will no longer be given a free snack.
  • As the food provided by BA was complimentary, (and this was made clear on their website before they changed it to show the new policy) I can't see any court case succeeding as the passenger hasn't suffered any financial loss due to not being provided with something that they had paid for.
  • RHemmings
    RHemmings Posts: 3,424
    Name Dropper Combo Breaker First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    As the food provided by BA was complimentary, (and this was made clear on their website before they changed it to show the new policy) I can't see any court case succeeding as the passenger hasn't suffered any financial loss due to not being provided with something that they had paid for.

    I was arguing the general case due to a statement that stated a generality. "You cannot force someone to provide a service that they no longer provide."

    I had a quick look, and describing items as 'complimentary' or 'free' cannot be used to avoid legal responsibility if the price of the overall contract has been inflated to cover the 'free' items. Otherwise people could charge £100 for a paper bag into which some 'free' consumer electronics had been inserted. I believe that wouldn't work in a court of law even if this was hidden in the fine print. (Barring judges who are working out their notice.)

    In the specific case of airline food, the argument would have to be whether the contract covered the items or not. I hate to think how anyone would be argue either way given that ticket prices vary wildly on the same plane depending on the time of day they were booked etc.

    But, the legal argument is pretty senseless really as even if someone could successfully argue that the food was part of the contract, no-one's going to sue for the price of a snack bought from Aldi on the way to the airport.

    What's more important IMHO is the bad reviews British Airlines are going to get because they took away a snack that probably cost them £1.
  • RHemmings wrote: »
    no-one's going to sue for the price of a snack bought from Aldi on the way to the airport.
    Maybe not in the UK but in the US, all bets are off!

    http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2015/05/nj_woman_suing_airline_for_5m_after_her_in-flight_video_didnt_work_report_says.html
  • magyar
    magyar Posts: 18,909
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    RHemmings wrote: »
    I was arguing the general case due to a statement that stated a generality. "You cannot force someone to provide a service that they no longer provide."

    I had a quick look, and describing items as 'complimentary' or 'free' cannot be used to avoid legal responsibility if the price of the overall contract has been inflated to cover the 'free' items. Otherwise people could charge £100 for a paper bag into which some 'free' consumer electronics had been inserted. I believe that wouldn't work in a court of law even if this was hidden in the fine print. (Barring judges who are working out their notice.)

    In the specific case of airline food, the argument would have to be whether the contract covered the items or not. I hate to think how anyone would be argue either way given that ticket prices vary wildly on the same plane depending on the time of day they were booked etc.

    But, the legal argument is pretty senseless really as even if someone could successfully argue that the food was part of the contract, no-one's going to sue for the price of a snack bought from Aldi on the way to the airport.

    What's more important IMHO is the bad reviews British Airlines are going to get because they took away a snack that probably cost them £1.

    Your post is spot on.

    Only thing to add is I am fairly sure the Consumer Rights Act makes the food part of the contract irrespective of what their actual contract says: it was a clear advertised benefit.

    Obviously no-one will sue them but what gets me is the brazen way they claim what they are doing is fine when as you say for a modest cost they could send people a voucher and be done with.
    Says James, in my opinion, there's nothing in this world
    Beats a '52 Vincent and a red headed girl
  • magyar
    magyar Posts: 18,909
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    This was an interesting link...

    http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/travel/2016/10/refunds-for-packed-trains-and-broken-toilets-now-a-possibility-following-legal-extension---what-you-need-to-know

    I wasn't aware the Consumer Rights Act *didn't* apply to transport, but it clearly does now. What is not obvious is whether the fact that the flights (i.e. contract) was made before 1 Oct is important - I would assume the important date is when the service was provided.
    Says James, in my opinion, there's nothing in this world
    Beats a '52 Vincent and a red headed girl
  • magyar wrote: »
    What is not obvious is whether the fact that the flights (i.e. contract) was made before 1 Oct is important - I would assume the important date is when the service was provided.
    The relevant date would be when the booking was made as that is when the contract would be formed.
    For bookings made prior to the 1st October, section 50 of the CRA (Information about the trader or service to be binding) wouldn't apply as the law can't be made retroactive so as to cover contracts already in place.
  • Its really really sad to see how BA have declined.

    I have 2 more seperate flights coming up, but it is very apparent that they really could not give less of a turd about economy passengers.. and whilst i am not buying a ton of flights or paying business class prices, i spend about the cost of a business class return flight on the number of BA flights a year. the following changes have narked me greatly: I mean, i get that the guy now running it is a former low cost airline ceo but lets be real. I have never gone NEAR air lingus because i have never heard anything good about them and unless BA are going to charge the same prices as easyjet, then i will be picking the latter for what is essentially the same service on 1-3 hour flights. .. and how is a short haul 5 hours? thats a long haul for me. I am thoroughly disppointed by the airline and i am now going to jump to Delta who have started serving my preferred destination at a lower price.

    The following in the past year have annoyed me:

    1. The changing of avios points. Oh, so because i am not spending as much my loyalty will be rewarded only 1/9th of what it was rewarded before?
    2. The fact that when i got on my long haul flight last month, i was told that the toothbrushes and toothpaste that i previously used before i disembarked the plane were no longer being given. How weird. Virgin atlantic give you a whole pack in economy when you are flying to the east coast. This was removal of the last little luxury.
    3. Now this. It used to be a sandwich and drink on a short haul. Then that got changed to the crappy tiny bags of crisps. Now i have to pay for my tiny can of coke? are you joking?

    Nope.. i would pay the slight extra usually to go on BA. never again.
  • isplumm
    isplumm Posts: 2,204
    Photogenic Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    Its really really sad to see how BA have declined.

    The following in the past year have annoyed me:

    1. The changing of avios points. Oh, so because i am not spending as much my loyalty will be rewarded only 1/9th of what it was rewarded before?

    But that has been like that for ages - they should reward those people who fly with them more - they want to encourage others to fly more with them - I am sure that other airlines do the same?
    2. The fact that when i got on my long haul flight last month, i was told that the toothbrushes and toothpaste that i previously used before i disembarked the plane were no longer being given. How weird. Virgin atlantic give you a whole pack in economy when you are flying to the east coast. This was removal of the last little luxury.

    I have to be honest choosing Virgin over BA because of some toothpaste seems nuts to me - especially in economy - the products are very similar, so I would have thought the main selling point would be price?
    3. Now this. It used to be a sandwich and drink on a short haul. Then that got changed to the crappy tiny bags of crisps. Now i have to pay for my tiny can of coke? are you joking?

    Can understand that - but again you need to factor food costs into your flight. Especially if other airlines do exactly same on the routes that BA fly.
    Nope.. i would pay the slight extra usually to go on BA. never again.

    I can understand not flying BA, but your reasons seem minor.

    Mark
    We’ve had to remove your signature. Please check the Forum Rules if you’re unsure why it’s been removed and, if still unsure, email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards