Ask a Law Question, Get an Answer ASAP!
On 25th April. The scheduled plane was struck by lightning on a previous flight - the replacement aircraft did not have the same number of Club Class seats.I would make the follwoing points:-
1) A court has ruled that problems on previous flights cannot be used
as a reason for declining compensation.
2) BA have rules on downgrading , gold card holders gwet priority,
then sliver then full fare pax , pax using airmiles are down th list.
3) In my view BA did not take reasonable steps to re-route.
The question relaes to whether compenstation (if proved) shpould be 75% of the cost of a Club Class ticket
With respect the Regulation does not state 'purchase' (please see my first communication for wording). In my view it is not for the public to second guess the legislators. They say the compensation is 75% of the price of a ticket as distinct to the price at which the ticket was brought which is the wording used eleswhere in the Reuglation,
In my opinon the Regulations would state 75% of the price at which the ticket was brought or 75% of the loyalty points, if this was the intention.
There is no doubt that I was placed in two classes lower than that for which the tiicket was purchased ( I purchased the ticket with air miles).
Having stated this the Regulation goes on to set out the compensation payable which is 75% of the price of the ticket. This is the crux of the question.
I can see the carrier will argue that in my case the price of the ticket was 100,000 airmiles and that 75% should be refunded. My counter argument is that in other Articles of the Regulation the price is stated to be 'the price at which the ticket was brought.' There is a clearly a difference between this wording and '75% of the price of the ticket'.
I would refer you to http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/air/doc/neb/questions_answers.pdf_reg_2004_261.pdf