The new HFP chat thread – Friday 12th June

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

• Sunguy says:

  12 Jun12 June 17:00

  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53023563

  Nothing new in this article – but interesting how the BBC are pushing WW/IAG into the mainstream….

  “All of this has left BA looking like a company under siege. A great deal of anger also seems to be aimed at Willie Walsh, the chief executive of parent company IAG, widely seen as the architect of the planned cuts.

  ….

  But what marks BA out is the response to its actions – and the palpable resentment now directed at a brand that once invoked national pride.”

  • Rhys says:

    12 Jun12 June 18:36

    Not sure how much “palpable resentment” is really being directed at BA given how much Black Lives Matter/statues/Covid/Boris are dominating the headlines. The media is picking the story up but it certainly isn’t stirring up the public conscience as much as I imagine Unite and GMB would like it to.

    • marcw says:

      12 Jun12 June 18:54

      The Unions just want to look after their image. Everyone knows how fcked up the aviation industry is.

      • BJ says:

        12 Jun12 June 19:10

        Wasn’t that just KLM, didn’t they get rid of the Fokers a few years ago?

    • Paul says:

      12 Jun12 June 21:47

      No, not the public but BAEC members are truly hacked off. Late to the party with extension, particularly those who lost status in last 3 months and who get squat didley!

  • Spk says:

    12 Jun12 June 19:21

    No sympathy for them when in the past they greedily went on strike as and when they wanted.

    • Capt Hammond says:

      12 Jun12 June 20:36

      So, because they fought for their employment rights in the past, they deserve to get sacked now? Hmm..

  • Paul says:

    12 Jun12 June 21:44

    It’s been a very very long time since BA invoked national pride. I’d say mid to late 90’s but it’s been down hill since

• Sunshinecoast says:

  12 Jun12 June 17:24

  Lufthansa section 75 with Amex revoked.

  So I had 2 cancelled flights with Lufthansa for 3rd April, they were for LHR to Vancouver on Air Canada. I couldn’t get through to Lufthansa and they were only offering to move flights anyway so I contacted Amex to make a section 75 claim. Amex only asked for a few details and refunded the money within a couple of weeks, so I presumed it was all sorted.

  Today I got a message from my mum saying that Amex are charging her for the flights now as Lufthansa are saying we are not entitled to a refund. I haven’t seen the letter yet but I will get it over the weekend, but apparently because our tickets were non refundable we are only allowed to change the flights and we have to rebook by the end of August. We can’t travel until next June anyway and these tickets need to be used by April, which is useless to us. Add in that you have to pay the fare difference too which means we could end up paying hundreds extra to change the dates for our cancelled flights.

  I thought that if your flight was cancelled you were entitled to a refund whether it is a non refundable ticket or not? Does anyone have any advice? I will call Amex once I have the letters, it’s my mums account but I booked everything so I am dealing with it.
  Thanku

  • Pangolin says:

    12 Jun12 June 17:41

    If the cancellation was done by the airline then you absolutely have the right to a refund, regardless of whether the ticket itself was Flex. The recent EU clarification on this was very unambiguous.

  • GeorgeJ says:

    12 Jun12 June 18:01

    Look at competition and markets authority (CMA) guidance of 30 April and quote it to them. Also just fly a case against the airline and Amex (separate cases).

    • Rob says:

      12 Jun12 June 18:11

      I know a reader who opened a Money Claim Online against SWISS and they paid up immediately.

      • Sunshinecoast says:

        12 Jun12 June 18:44

        Thanku everyone, at least I know where I stand. I will be taking it further over the weekend.

        • pauldb says:

          12 Jun12 June 22:24

          I think EU261 is a red-herring for S75. S75 makes the card provider jointly liable for the contract; EU261 is not part of the contract.

          IF the contract with LH says that, if they cancel the flight, you must accept a later flight, you have no S75 claim because the contract has not be breached. That’s not to say you don’t have a complaint of unfair terms against LH or an EU261 claim, but these are not things on which the card provider will take the place of a judge.

          It’s nothing like the case of a bankrupt carrier where it is clear they won’t be fulfilling the contract.

        • Adam says:

          12 Jun12 June 23:51

          LadyLondon – I think you’re missing a subtlety in the point Paul is making.

          Section 75 CCA is pretty clear on its face that it makes a credit card provider jointly liable for claims “in respect of misrepresentation or breach of contract”. That’s it. They are not liable for other claims against the party providing the goods or service (in the case here, the airline) that a person might have.

          As a result, you’re only entitled to bring s75 claims if your claim is contractual or in respect of a misrepresentation. Rights under EU 261/2004 are neither; as you point out, they’re a creature of statute. Solely statutory rights are not covered by the wording of s75. (As you also point out, the point is a bit moot here. LH cancelled the flight and so is likely in breach of contract anyway.)

          Your comparison to the Sale of Goods act is a good one too – but there’s an important difference in how the Sale of Goods Act works versus EU 261/2004 that means there are different outcomes for whether a credit card company is jointly liable. The consumer rights in SOGA work by implying certain terms into contracts, and making it impossible to contract out of those. So if, as in your example, the electrical appliance is faulty – that will breach an actual term of your contract with the retailer – the term that the goods would be of satisfactory quality, last for a reasonable about of time, etc. It is a term implied into contract by statute. So their liability is contractual to you, not a standalone statutory liability (as with EU 261/2004 which as far as I’m aware does not provide that it’s terms are implied into contracts).

          This is not a point I’d ever considered before this very minute so thanks to Pauldb for raising – it is quite interesting (at least on a technical legal level).

  • Paul says:

    12 Jun12 June 21:52

    Amex did this to
    Me with 2 united tickets. My complication was I used Amex travel who resisted the S75. I will not use Amex travel again.
    I appealed but got a rather blunt, unhelpful corporate claptrap reply so claimed on travel insurance

• AndyK says:

  12 Jun12 June 17:42

  Has anyone cancelled Europcar prepaid booking recently?
  How long did it take them to refund?

  • Charlieface says:

    12 Jun12 June 18:48

    Historically, if you cancelled it online it was refunded automatically in a few days, I don’t think manual intervention is required.

    • AndyK says:

      12 Jun12 June 21:21

      These are not normal times. Conditions are clear that I am due a full refund. Cancellation email they sent contains no reference to a refund or any timeline.

  • Neil says:

    12 Jun12 June 21:55

    26 days last month!

    • AndyK says:

      13 Jun13 June 00:31

      Thank you Neil

• Aston100 says:

  12 Jun12 June 18:16

  ” Points + Cash bookings are charged immediately in USD, and cancellations are refunded in points only.”
  This is what it says when booking an IHG hotel on points.
  How does it calculate the points value of the cash element for the refund?

  • BJ says:

    12 Jun12 June 18:46

    Number of points refunded is the number you buy at point of reservation + number you redeemed at point of reservation.

  • Rob says:

    12 Jun12 June 18:55

    Your options when booking are something like:
    40k or
    30k + $50

    If you book 30k + $50 and cancel, you get 40k back + $0.

    • Aston100 says:

      12 Jun12 June 19:06

      Ah I see.
      So it gives the number of points difference between the full points-only price and the points + cash price. So in your example, IHG have felt that 10k points are worth $50.
      I presume this valuation changes constantly?

      Thanks.

      • Aston100 says:

        12 Jun12 June 19:07

        Or rather, for the purposes of my original question, IHG feel the $50 cash element is worth a 10k points refund.

        • BJ says:

          12 Jun12 June 19:15

          Obviously a newbie since you seem blissfully unaware of the much loved IHG book and cancel trick 😉

        • Brian W says:

          12 Jun12 June 21:14

          Hermes have tried to deliver the book umpteen times but he never answers the door 😂

        • Rob says:

          12 Jun12 June 21:46

          Element is usually fixed but IHG runs occasional trials to see what happens.

• Charlieface says:

  12 Jun12 June 18:54

  Is this a first to not actually have any articles because of 3 the day before? I recall the least ever was 1.

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