The new HFP chat thread – Saturday 28th March

This article is closed to new posts. Discussion continues in the HfP Forums.

• Vit says:

  28 Mar28 March 10:37

  BA just cancelled my outbound flight (ABZ – LHR) mid-April but still have my return flight (mid-May) as operational. Can I claim for full refund in this case? I am trying to call the number provided but no luck. I would like to try to the IT trick shown here by Rob but not sure if I am entitled to full refund. Thanks for any advices.

  • Lady London says:

    28 Mar28 March 14:02

    Yes

• Peter Taysum says:

  28 Mar28 March 10:40

  AmEx have said “some companies are offering vouchers”. It was “in chat” and both the person who responded and “their manager” sent the same; it’s clearly boiled plate text.

  When I pointed out the illegality of that they didn’t seem to care.

  Not rec’d anything back from BA after advising cash refund for one holiday.

  • Nick_C says:

    28 Mar28 March 11:50

    Amex customer service has hit the buffers. Unless you are lucky enough to get through to someone in Brighton.

• James says:

  28 Mar28 March 10:55

  I phoned up to cancel a BA avios booking last weekend – avios and companion voucher are back in my account, but no sign of the taxes on my Amex. Did it take this long for anyone else to receive their taxes back?

  • Anna says:

    28 Mar28 March 11:41

    People are being told up to 10 days but it’s starting to take even longer now they have so many to process.

  • Cathy says:

    28 Mar28 March 18:19

    I spoke to Amex yesterday about a refund and was quoted 5 to 15 working days for refund to be credited.

• Joe says:

  28 Mar28 March 11:04

  Actually receiving refunds for ‘refunded’ flights:
  I’m now waiting on two refunds I’ve been promised are being processed. Lufthansa 1 month ago, and BA two weeks ago. Has anyone actually been receiving cash refunds promised from these carriers?

• Simon D says:

  28 Mar28 March 11:05

  Sorry I’m aware that this must have been asked a few times, but has anyone managed to contact EasyJet to request an update on the refund for cancelled flights. I originally cancelled the booking via the Manage My Booking section of the website and it has been showing as Processing Refund for about three weeks now. Based on what others are hearing I think that I am going to have to prove that I have chased them before I do an Amex chargeback, but I can’t find the “contact us” bit on the website

  Has anyone had any luck?

  • Michael says:

    28 Mar28 March 11:29

    Simon,

    My EasyJet flight from Edinburgh to Berlin on 06/04 has been cancelled. Like most I’ve been unable to get through to EasyJet to request a refund and have no intention of rebooking for different dates so I made a chargeback claim with Amex yesterday. The CSA said it could take 6-8 weeks to be processed.

    • Simon D says:

      28 Mar28 March 12:07

      Thanks Michael!

      I will do the same

• jack says:

  28 Mar28 March 11:11

  Shows the power of personality and brand image I think that some would celebrate Virgin’s demise – cutting off your nose to spite your face. It is very obvious that competition in aviation is a good thing in terms of product, service, value for money and so on.

  • TGLoyalty says:

    28 Mar28 March 11:19

    For me it’s the extent that people would happily celebrate the loss of people’s jobs.

    Perhaps some will be rehired elsewhere immediately like pilots but most won’t be hired elsewhere for a while causing them lots of pain and heartache while they are unemployed.

    Whatever you think of VA business model the fact is they wouldn’t be in trouble if it wasn’t for an enforced government shutdown.

    • Anna says:

      28 Mar28 March 11:35

      Agree with all that but the UK taxpayer should not have to shoulder the burden when there are billions stashed away in offshore accounts.

      • Novice says:

        28 Mar28 March 13:52

        👍 Anna

        • Novice says:

          28 Mar28 March 14:10

          Ok whatever. 😂

        • Lady London says:

          28 Mar28 March 15:37

          @Jamedni don’t always agree with Novice but most of Novice’s indicate a wisdom beyond their years as well as a certain helpful detachment.

          I for one am very glad that Novice is kind enough to comment regularly as I view them as a positive contributor on here.

        • Novice says:

          28 Mar28 March 16:06

          Thanks Lady London.

          I am young so sometimes I probably do come across as not having a clue about the real world.

      • Vin says:

        28 Mar28 March 14:39

        I think that any bailout would result in existing shareholders and existing lenders take a very large loss

        There is a lot of history of the past few years of bailouts. Lloyds, RBS, Chryler, General Motors…

    • Doug M says:

      28 Mar28 March 11:35

      “Whatever you think of VA business model the fact is they wouldn’t be in trouble if it wasn’t for an enforced government shutdown.”
      The speed at which they’ve go in trouble is suggestive of deeper operational issues.
      I’m absolutely no fan of job losses, but it still seems to me me that VS were very short of cash and in no state to deal with any sort of larger problem.
      The problem with branding and Branson is that if you love all the upside, you have to accept the downside. The whole isn’t Virgin a lovable ethical operation at every level, a big cuddly company, will also set you up when things go bad. Suing the NHS was unforgivable as I see it. Whilst nothing to do with the airline directly, if you want the feel good aspects of cross business branding you have to accept the consequences when one of those businesses does something that hurts the entire brand.

      • jack says:

        28 Mar28 March 11:38

        So are you saying Lufthansa, Finnair, KLM etc all have deeper operational issues too? All taking state aid! You’re very naive if you think BA won’t do the same, they just want to eliminate the competition first.

        • Doug M says:

          28 Mar28 March 11:50

          I don’t know the specifics or each case, and I try to remain open minded when people explain what I don’t understand. But I can’t escape the thought that any company that is in trouble 2 weeks into a crisis was in a poor position to begin with.
          If money has been extracted in huge salaries or dividend payments, then that was an ownership decision that put them on the brink. If money is just not there because the business is fundamentally not profitable then propping it up is not a short term save, it’s a long term drain.

        • TGLoyalty says:

          28 Mar28 March 12:48

          @Doug M what business plans for 0 revenue for a prolonged period of time? This isn’t like being closed for summer for two weeks while you go on a planned holiday/shutdown.

          This is all unexpected. Planes need to be parked somewhere, which costs a significant amount. There’s still maintenance to keep up with regardless of miles being put in the clock and there are new planes being delivered. There are still a significant amount of staff being paid in customer services and other none flight related operations.

          I work for a business with a few billion in the bank and a few billion agreed in revolving credit But 0 revenues for a couple months will mean serious trouble without serious cuts to current spend and future plans.

          I think you seriously underestimate the impact this situation is having on cash for many businesses.

        • Lady London says:

          28 Mar28 March 15:40

          Virgin could be screaming early, though, @Doug M. Although seems in much better financial position, seems easyJet is also going extreme quickly now.

      • Lady London says:

        28 Mar28 March 13:38

        Can someone please explain what happened with Branson suing the NHS? I missed that completely and no idea what this was about

        • Chrisasaurus says:

          28 Mar28 March 13:57

          Improper (suggestions of corrupt practice) contract award process:
          https://virgincare.co.uk/blog/why-its-wrong-to-say-we-sued-the-nhs-because-we-lost-a-contract-in-surrey/

        • TGLoyalty says:

          28 Mar28 March 13:57

          Virgin Care called out an NHS trust commissioner for a flawed tender process but the deal was signed so legal action was only recourse. NHS trust settled don’t know what Virgin care used any money for

        • Anna says:

          28 Mar28 March 13:58

          https://metro.co.uk/2018/12/15/richard-branson-sue-nhs-virgin-care-received-undisclosed-settlement-8250870/

          Branson’s company Virgin Care failed to get a contract and sued the NHS for what probably were irregularities in their procurement systems. It’s unclear whether Virgin kept the damages awarded but at the very least the NHS would have been liable for some legal costs. I’m not claiming to be particularly knowledgeable about how these things work but surely there is another way of highlighting bad practice without resorting to expensive legal action?

        • Novice says:

          28 Mar28 March 14:07

          I didn’t know anything about Virgin care but if they provide these services don’t you think this is the time to step up and do something for NHS.

          A lot of companies are doing stuff possibly for their brand image in the long term. I’ve not heard anything Virgin care is doing.

      • Henry H says:

        28 Mar28 March 14:35

        Suing the NHS?

        Why not look beyond the dramatic headlines and into the detail – they were calling out an NHS trust and it’s commissioners for it’s bidding process for being flawed. What’s wrong with them highlighting the fact there’s a dodgy set of people handing out dodgy contracts to their buddies?

        If the commission didn’t sign their new contract without talking to Virgin care it wouldn’t have become about compensation. If the commissioners weren’t wrong they wouldn’t have paid out.

        • Alun says:

          28 Mar28 March 15:11

          I don’t think people understand how this sort of thing works. Public contracts are awarded through typically very complex, EU-mandated procedures. When a supplier fails to win a contract, they may sit down with their lawyers who will look for a ‘flaw’ in the process, say an arguable ambiguity in the assessment criteria for section 19, subsection 105, part 4. Then they sue. This isn’t typically about fairness, or anything like, it’s about a ‘don’t mess with us’ reputation. Especially if there *is* a technical issue with the process, the public authority will often want to settle, because running the procurement again is enormously expensive and time-wasting. (To be clear, I’ve no insight into the specific situation under discussion.)

        • Lady London says:

          28 Mar28 March 15:55

          Thanks to all for the info.

          Yes I have worked in procurement in a large business also.subject to OJEU. There:s lots of awards that actually violate. Lots swept under the carpet though all the time. Suing is s tactic but unlikely to be done without a reasonable case. Other negotiations likely to be tried.

          Not a good time to point this out but for decades people inside the NHS have told me about the appalling waste in the NHS and the overload of useless managers in nonproductive jobs. A former manager told me 2 months ago he got into a job selling to the NHS and it was still cost+massive margins and a complete gravy train. Everyone agrees more money is needed at the clinical end but several have said don’t put any more money into the NHS it won’t go into the clinical end it will just be wasted.

          FWIW it sounds like Virgin had good reason to sue pointing up misadministration that seems rife.

          I’ll come back for the BBC another day. Meanwhile thank you to all on the front line and their directly supporting management chain. NHS supply chain? Looks like you suck.

    • Novice says:

      28 Mar28 March 11:44

      I don’t think the people against bailouts want employees to suffer. But if there are bailouts using taxpayers money then in the long term taxpayers will lose out because we are likely to get no investment in actual infrastructure etc which doesn’t help the ppl who rely on these services as in more austerity.

      Austerity caused a rise in homelessness and food banks etc so if government uses taxpayers money to bailout billionaires then how is it fair?

      You keep talking about employees hardship but in the long term the decisions made now will have consequences.

      • jack says:

        28 Mar28 March 11:49

        I don’t think anyone should get a blank cheque. The govt giving state aid in return for equity/ownership is quite different. Don’t know how anyone could think giving BA even more power is a good thing. And since Lufthansa, KLM, Finnair etc are all taking state aid, only a matter of time until IAG do too.

        • Novice says:

          28 Mar28 March 12:03

          The big difference is if government takes equity of Virgin, the taxpayers still lose out as it isn’t a profitable business.

          BA is profitable business.

          So it’s a big difference.

          Also if Virgin goes under because of bad management of business, whose to say that innovation can’t lead to other small airlines etc in future so less barriers to entry in markets and competition.

          Innovation is needed in this industry anyway due to climate change.

          At least the world can take a deep breath for a few months.

        • jack says:

          28 Mar28 March 12:15

          @novice Of course BA are profitable they were the old nationalised flag carrier, now privatised but retaining a very privileged and dominant position at LHR.

          “whose to say that innovation can’t lead to other small airlines etc in future so less barriers to entry in markets and competition”

          Funnily enough that’s how Virgin came about – and BA broke all sorts of laws to try and put them out of business in their dirty tricks campaign. And obviously before Branson there was Freddie Laker. Extremely unlikely that any competition will emerge if Virgin go under, different times.

        • Novice says:

          28 Mar28 March 12:24

          I believe in innovation. Lbh, the reason ME3 are well regarded is not only because they are state backed but because they have been key to innovation in industry.

          Most people given the opportunity would rather fly on ME3 than any European airlines because of the product.

          And Virgin may have better product, staff than BA but here we are talking business.

          Competition is always good for consumers but propping up failing businesses with bad business plans isn’t the way forward.

        • Doug M says:

          28 Mar28 March 12:25

          BA and Virgin built a price cartel, then Virgin shopped themselves. By doing so they avoided punishment leaving BA to be punished. Laker was indeed a real victim of BA behaviour.

        • Novice says:

          28 Mar28 March 13:37

          I’ll be honest I’m pretty young so I don’t know about what airlines used to do etc but Virgin is no virgin in scandals as well so tbh I’m not bothered if they go under.

          Yes its bad for their employees but businesses go bust on a regular basis and usually the owners don’t care about their employees so I don’t see why taxpayers should cough up for the industries who usually add nothing to the economy other than jobs.

          Shouldn’t y’all be more bothered about the businesses that are small businesses but the backbone of the economy. I’d rather the money goes to those people.

        • jack says:

          28 Mar28 March 14:07

          Virgin were whistle blowers in a price fixing scandal with BA. BA though were guilty of various criminal anti competitive acts throughout their sustained dirty tricks campaign for which they had to compensate Virgin (and they used very dubious means to put Freddie Laker out of business). If Virgin go under and if a new competitor emerged (itself very unlikely) based on past behaviour they can expect BA to use unethical and even illegal means to destroy them. As for the ME3 being innovative, pretty easy when you’re state owned, subsidised and with no pressure to make a profit (in the short term at least). Showing admiration for the ME3 while opposing state aid for European airlines is pretty illogical. With the exception of Australia/NZ flying via the Middle East adds unnecessary time – and obviously results in a much higher carbon foot print, perhaps that is something which will even be taxed in the future hurting their model. I can’t understand people who fly to South Africa for example via the Middle East – I’d rather just get there, and when a direct connection is possible it seems wasteful.

      • Novice says:

        28 Mar28 March 14:17

        James by name, aims to be lame by nature 😂

      • Novice says:

        28 Mar28 March 15:03

        James rhymes with aims phonetically btw and then I added lame if added a s it would rhyme but then can’t use aims…

        Just agree to disagree or whatever 😂

        Also I’m nobody’s sweetheart 😂😂

      • Unsavage gerbil says:

        28 Mar28 March 16:15

        There once was a chap named James
        Who delighted in calling out names
        He upset the young Novice
        Who cried he’s a menace
        but they kissed, left. and became dames!

        I’ll get me coat.

      • Novice says:

        28 Mar28 March 16:25

        😂

    • Ken says:

      28 Mar28 March 14:54

      Virgin Atlantic lost money in 2017, 2018, will lose money in 2019 and that’s before we even get to this year.

      Add to the fact that Branson sued the NHS and tried to sue the department of transport when they disqualified themselves (with Stagecoach) from the west coast line franchise.

      A long term tax exile and avoider of UK taxes using opaque tax havens.

      And he wants our taxes to bail him out ?
      Are you stupid people?
      Stop genuflecting to the rich and famous

• Jim says:

  28 Mar28 March 11:16

  Just had a bad experience with the future travel vouchers – was wondering if anyone have any suggestions?

  -Had a 2-4-1 reward flight to Singapore in April
  -Realised that it wouldn’t be possible to travel in April and decided to move the trip to October instead, as there was still availability on a date that would work for me
  -Online system didn’t let me change without paying £70 – tried to call to change it but wasn’t able to get through, so decided to request the voucher to immediately rebook onto the flight I wanted – this was quite early on so I wasn’t aware that it would take more than a week to receive it
  -Once I realised it would take a week to get the voucher (after requesting it), I tried calling again as I wanted to secure the seat and was able to change the flight after waiting for around 40 mins – I specifically told them that I had requested a voucher but didn’t want it, and that they should put a note or something so it wouldn’t be cancelled. Was told no problem
  -A few days ago I received the voucher and the booking was cancelled
  -Tried calling to use the voucher, but after explaining the situation I was sternly told that they will only deal with customers who have flights in the next 72 hours, so now I’m stuck with a voucher of unspecified value (a combination of avios, 2-4-1 and cash). This effectively means that the voucher cannot be used yet, and probably not until after this entire ordeal is over

  Conclusion: Should have just paid the £70, it’s not worth it

  • Anna says:

    28 Mar28 March 11:38

    It’s crazy that BA are making it so hard to re-book when it’s in their own interests to retain customers in the long term. I am so suspicious of these vouchers I think the £35 pp is worth losing. No guarantee that they will get you the same product you originally booked.

    • Lady London says:

      28 Mar28 March 13:48

      BA has clearly decided to take whatever punishment later. Part of their choosing to break the law now is they think there wont be any punishment later , or they think they can make any punishment less if they delay.

      Previous experience shows BA almost certainly going to be let get away with this.

      Full sympathy with the issues they face right now. But I wish HM Government, the CAA and the EU would grow some, and take recompense in full as soon as it becomes possible.

      • J says:

        28 Mar28 March 13:54

        You’re right, BA know they will probably get away with it like Lufthansa also not processing refunds “until further notice”.

      • Kevin 9876 says:

        28 Mar28 March 16:35

        If I lose my job next week and therefore have no money coming in, can I break the law and steal things from Tesco?

        They law obviously doesn’t apply in the same way to
        these scumbags as much as it does to the general public (I feel sorry for the staff and don’t want them to go out of business etc)

• Pier says:

  28 Mar28 March 11:47

  hi all – so i’m due to fly to Canada 16-31st May. Should I wait for BA to cancel the flights then will i get the refund through My Booking?

  • Lady London says:

    28 Mar28 March 13:50

    Wait for action on their side. Then follow whatever advice is available on HfP at that time.

This article is closed to new posts. Discussion continues in the HfP Forums.