British Airways leaves stranded passengers all over world, jacks up prices on tickets home

pendraphen

This is just the free market at work, isn’t it? If no one paid the premium prices for those flights home, then the airlines would be forced to schedule the rescheduled flights a little earlier.

Daniel

What about Travel Insurance? Don’t tell my you took your whole family overseas with no travel insurance.

Within days of the problems my insurance company emailed me setting out how it would pay for hotels, flight rebooking excess charges, how it would advance cash into my account if I was low on funds ……

Rule 1 – don’t travel without insurance (with a reputable provider)

Grind

This is so typical of the BS in society & business.
People stranded should be picketing so that others stay off the airlines that dont have any decency.

shadowfirebird

In theory, all european carriers (and that certainly includes BA) have a legal obligation to provide you with accommodation and three meals a day if they can’t put you on a flight.

So you would think they were shooting themselves in the foot by not getting people home ASAP. I wonder what is behind this.

Anonymous

While I agree that BA should be giving tickets to the stranded passengers who hold return tix, I think it may be disingenuous to say they are “jacking ticket prices” if they are just keeping in place their existing price structure for short notice ticket purchases. They are sorry SOB’s for not reducing the price for stranded passengers, but unless they are actually price gouging in this situation, let’s use some more accurate and objective language.

That said, I’m not sure there are that many people who could afford an extra week of hotel stay and an extra week off of work if they didn’t budget for that. The story of the family stuck in India for an extra three weeks sounds like an absolute financial nightmare.

Rob Knop

So, you could take the pure capitalist point of view on this, and say, hey, those who can afford it will eventually get back, and they’re not going to be charged again for the flight back because of the cancellation, and yes there is a cost to BA for doing that, so they’re not being screwed. And if BA charges a whole lot short term for flights for those who can pay for them, well, it’s suppy and demand, and that’s how the world works, so yay.

And, it’s all legal and true.

But is it really *moral*? Are the pure forces of capitalism really *right*? Even if they’re legal, is that really the humane thing to do? Or would more of a “now we have capacity, let’s first get back the people who have been most delayed rather than the people who can pay most” approach be more humane and moral?

This isn’t about what BA can do. This is about thinking about how they ought to behave, were they interested more in doing what was right than what would best increase (or preserve) their bottom line. Alas, we’ve so convinced ourselves that whatever is most capitalist is most moral, so you see lots of comments about how what BA is doing is fine and the people who get screwed over by this should just shut up. But, c’mon folks, the cold war is long enough over that we can think more deeply than that. We don’t have to adhere to capitalism as a religion because it’s the only alternative to the expansionist and dangerous socialist USSR. We can question whether this system we’ve built up has flaws, instead of allowing cognitive dissonance to lead us to think that the economic system that’s worked better than most must be the One Pure Way.

January

I have been boycotting BA for years because of their bad treatment of customers. The other airlines aren’t much better but BA is the most consistently bad experience I’ve ever had.

Nelson.C

Looks like I lucked out. While I’m stranded in one of the most expensive cities in the world â€” Tokyo â€” for nearly two weeks, not only did my airline offer to pay my hotel bill (up to Â¥12,000 a night) and some food money, but when I phoned my bank, they reminded me that I get automatic travel insurance with my account.

Mind you, I don’t get to see that money until I get back home and submit the receipts, so if I didn’t have a bit of money in my account (and an overdraft facility), I’d be staying in a capsule hotel, or a cardboard box under the local metropolitan government building with the other Tokyo homeless.

johnnyaction

It is sad to see so little sympathy for people stranded. People are being financially raped by BA and so many here are resentful of the victims.

The main point I got from this is that BA is royally screwing over their passengers and as such don’t fly with them unless you have to. Also people can be pretty heartless. I really should skip reading the comments. The stupid, it burns.

knoxblox

I get the sneaky feeling that if some of these places with stranded passengers were Miami/Homestead during Hurricane Andrew, and it were lumber instead of plane tickets, it would be considered price gouging.

Cory Doctorow

What a lot of victim-blaming we have here.

I’ve had not one but *two* travel insurers tell me that they’re not covering me while I’m here.

“Three weeks’ extra vacation” is a lot less enjoyable when you’re missing wages, your kids are missing school, you’re having to eat in restaurants three meals a day at great expense, etc.

This isn’t “capitalism 101.” British Airways sold these passengers tickets, cancelled them, and then lied to them, saying they couldn’t get home before May 10 because “all the planes are full.” Rather than rebooking their stranded passengers on the next flight out, they’re leaving them stuck around the world for weeks, dribbling them home in ones and twos, while selling off the other seats in the plane at enormous premiums to the super-rich.

If you believe in “capitalism 101,” you believe in businesses honoring their sides of the contract. Real capitalism isn’t about businesses promising you a service, taking your money, not providing the service, and asking you for more money. That’s fraud, not business.

Lookforthewoman

This!

It seems everyone forgot that all the stranded people have ALREADY paid for the services they now being refused, at great cost to themselves and their families, not to mention their employers.

JohnnyOC

On the one hand, it’s morally reprehensible IF the airlines are actually doing this and jacking up the price of seats and dribbling in people who are stranded all over the world..

On the other, as other commentators said, this has to be the most benign stranding I ever heard of.

It’s not anarchy, you aren’t in the middle of the Sahara or the North Pole in the elements and wild beasts,
you and yours aren’t kidnapped and held for ransom at gunpoint or tortured,
and there aren’t bullets flying over your head in a warzone.

You are a privileged few in this world with the ability to even fly, compared to MILLIONS, maybe billions of people who are in much, MUCH, worse shape than you.

In a few weeks you’ll remember this as a bad time, but you’ll be back in your (relatively) privileged life.

The outrage of a company that is being crappy is understandable and of course someone is going to sue the crap out of them so maybe you’ll feel better if they are taken down a peg.

But, I’m sorry, this is unpredictable life. Who knows, on the bright side, maybe couples that would of never met are meeting through this misfortune of being stranded or new found friends..

Micah

I’m not that familiar with BA, but most airlines have a policy that their most frequent customers are guaranteed a seat on any flight if they pay full fare. On full flights, that can result in overbooking which is actually beneficial to poor people, because they get compensation (often worth more than the price of their ticket) for giving up their seats.

pendraphen

I didn’t mean for my comment to come across as victim-blaming; I was more just trying to get across the point that, in capitalism, money talks, and if people didn’t pay those premiums for shorter flights, then BA would have no choice but to schedule the flights for the stranded passengers sooner.

And let me be clear: If I were in a position where I had been stranded and ignored by my airline, then I would be royally pissed off. In addition, I’m not saying that BA is in the right by making these decisions.

Anonymous

Cory writes: “..screwing its union by trying to unilaterally impose a contract on its workers without negotiation”

That statement is absolutely unfounded (it has no foundation). Please substantiate.

My knowledge is that BA made several very fair offers to UNITE, all of which were turned down. They are obligated to negotiate with an agreed process and BA did so.

And it seems the strike did not have the desired effect as many cabin crew worked anyway, and flight crews volunteered to keep the airline flying.

Anonymous

We got stuck in Britain on 9-14-2001. Air Canada laughed at us and said we dont fly to your presidents country. Travel insurance paid. Now if you travel, Buyer beware!

When trave decines 45% this summer, the recession will come back.

phillamb168

Re Travel Insurance:

Most companies have a “Force Majeur” or “Act of God” clause that basically says when shit hits the fan, they don’t have to pay anything. You could probably hire a good lawyer and sue the insurance company to pay the money anyway, but if you’ve got the money and time to do that, you’ve probably already taken a BA flight home.

Usconcepts

Stop complaining people. Not one of you deserve hotels or meals for a Volcanic eruption. The EU may have created new rules, but the airlines should not be responsible for things out of their control and should NOT be flipping your hotel bills. If you take a taxi from London to Edinboro, and the roads become impassible for some natural disaster for a few days, do you expect the taxi driver to put you up in a hotel, and feed you till it clears? HECK NO. The airline is responsible for getting you from point A to point B, and in your contract of carriage , times are not guaranteed. How can you expect the airline to feed and house you for a natural disaster? If there was a mechanical, sure. If there was an airline created problem, absolutely. If there is a snow storm, earthquake, tornado, or volcano, never. Next, if they chose to sell a few of their seats to their premium travelers, hurray for them. Again, this is not a BA or airline induced problem. So, while thousands of people may need to get home, BA and others still have an obligation to their most frequent passengers to provide them transport to their business meetings and make space for them. The airlines don’t make their money from the 90% of travelers that fly once a year. They make it from the loyal travelers that fly many times a year, and the loyalty for the last few remaining seats being held open should go to them, anyway. Apalling!

Gloria

“BA and others still have an obligation to their most frequent passengers to provide them transport to their business meetings and make space for them. The airlines don’t make their money from the 90% of travelers that fly once a year. They make it from the loyal travelers that fly many times a year, and the loyalty for the last few remaining seats being held open should go to them, anyway.”

Your last paragraph veers into odd territory. BA isn’t offering the seats at priority to frequent fliers; they’re offering them to anybody who can afford them.
Anonymous

Once again this completely misses the point. The point raised by the article is that the airline is intentionally prolonging this crisis by not making every effort to get get ticket holders home immediately but giving them weeks long delays even as they hold seats open for people with the potential to pay exorbitantly. Your example and line of thinking seems to be that the courier (airline or taxi) is not responsible for natural disasters, fair enough. But when the taxi driver takes your money, tells you he can’t get you home then turns you out and picks up somebody else to drive the same route I think that is a different scenario.
Cory Doctorow

You clearly didn’t read the article or the following commentary, as you are wrong on several points of fact.

The reason people need their hotels covered is because BA *isn’t* taking them home, even though there is room on their planes. Instead, they’re leaving people stranded all around the world for *weeks*, while they sell off seats on their planes at enormous markups. And what’s more, they’re *lying* to stranded passengers about whether there are seats on those planes.

What’s more, I *am* one of those stranded passengers. I am a BA Gold Flier. I fly more than 100K miles/year on BA. This isn’t about servicing their best customers, it’s about extorting money from desperate, stranded people.

Antinous / Moderator

As an incumbent airline, BA had grandfather clause to around 40% of all landing and taking off flight slots at Heathrow, many of which are used for the lucrative transatlantic market. Some competitors, such as Virgin Atlantic and bmi, assert that this stifles competition and some political think-tanks recommend an auction of slots.

Yup, BA is free market all the way.

jacques45

Wow, there must have been a lot of people urinating in breakfast cereals this morning….

Be a friggin person. If you’re jealous, or angry, or bitter, go right ahead. But don’t project onto people who have gotten stuck in a quagmire of canceled transportation plans.

It’s real simple – there are lots of people throughout the world who may not be rich, but are well-off enough to be able to afford occasional travel. And mostly, those people plan on a travel budget and can, after saving or loans, be able to take a trip. And yes, if they planned on only doing “Europe on $5 a day” and nothing more, unexpected items may come across and force them into spending money. That’s the joy of realistic financial planning.

But you can’t expect people who have budgeted for a week, or two weeks, or even a month vacation to then have to worry about extending their vacation past what they planned, dealing with lost school, work, etc to suck it up and enjoy watching their money dwindle while the airlines make them wait up to 3 weeks from now (plus the time up to today).

If you want to begrudge people for spending some money on a habit or hobby that makes them happy, maybe you should look at what you’re spending money on that others aren’t.

pinehead

The comments in this thread are beyond sick. But I see at least one or two of you slipped-up and admitted why you’re so resentful: you admitted that you can’t afford to go overseas. That’s what your illogical hatred is really all about. You can’t have what those people have, so you hope with all your heart that they suffer for what they have. You resent anyone who appears to be more successful. What a mindless way to go through life.

The situation with BA is very simple. They’re defrauding their customers simply because it’s profitable to do so. They’re behaving unethically and in a way that ought to outrage anyone who’s ever been more than a couple hundred miles from home. Heads should roll because of this kind of thing, and there’s still a good chance that they will later.

But for now, a lot of what we see here are the petty and bitter little people among us, squealing like enraged rats because somebody else in the world was able to afford a plane ticket. You losers can’t even formulate a clear understanding of what BA is doing to people because you’re so dazzled by the idea of leaving your backwater little swamp hovel in the first place. Good god, people. Try to have a little wider view of the world.

jacksoncannery

I feel for anyone who’s stranded. It’s got to be soul destroying. But not sure the ‘union’ remark is valid here. BA are getting kicked for the wrong reason. They tried to negotiate with Unite/crew. But were rebuffed. What do these people want an airline that ‘can’ fly them home (at cost) or an failed company and 1000′s of job lost?

a_user

Capitalism only compass is what it can get away with without losing money. This is the only rule.

Cory Doctorow

No. That’s criminality. Capitalism is based on freely forming contracts and honoring them.

Anonymous

I got an email from discount airline Easyjet this morning explaining that they had added extra flights to clear the backlog of stranded passengers. Included in the email was a coupon code for 10 pounds off each ticket on my next booking as a thanks to me for my patience during the whole volcano crisis. And I was not even stranded!

And major airlines like BA wonder why they’re getting their asses kicked by the discounters….

EarthtoGeoff

Could this be considered price gouging? That wouldn’t be a help to people currently being screwed, but would be illegal and could be prosecuted later.

maturin

BA didn’t cancel the flights….BA had THEIR flights canceled. Now they are responding to supply and demand. Yes…it IS Capitalism 101

Cory Doctorow

In what form of capitalism is it legitimate to lie to your customers about the availability of upcoming flights? Where in the capitalism rulebook is it legitimate to take money for a service, form a contract, then break the contract because another customer comes along willing to pay more?
- nox
  
  Cory,
  
  You talk of forming a contract. Have you read it? Mine says that flight schedules can change and the airline is not liable. What does yours say?
  
  When I had a severely delayed flight a few years ago I remember something about regulatory-mandated compensation if a flight was delayed over 8 hours.
  
  Beyond that, unless they’re violating the contract the airline owes you nothing. If they are violating the contract you have a hell of a class-action lawsuit on your hands.
  
  I get that it’s popular to hate on airlines but perhaps you should be upset with your insurance companies rather than demanding BA to cover out of contract costs and ultimately destroy shareholder value. Sure, it would be nice for BA to send you back ASAP. Perhaps it would generate some positive buzz. But do they owe it to you? I doubt it.
  
  Meanwhile, maybe a father-to-be will choose to pay the jacked-up price, get ahead of you in line, and see his child born. That’s capitalism.
  - A Nonny Moose
    
    …demanding BA to cover out of contract costs and ultimately destroy shareholder value.
    
    I’d be interested to see the line of reasoning or actual facts that led you to draw this conclusion. It seems to me that going above and beyond to do the right thing would be better for long-term shareholder value than the PR nightmare that they’re facing now.
limepies

you’re still missing the point.

sure, it’s capitalism. sure, they have a fucking reason for doing it. but that doesn’t make it RIGHT, or moral or any of a thousand decent things. they’re fucking people over needlessly, in the name of money. and that’s what seems to be the main tenet of your so called ‘capitalism’ in the last few years.

Sekino

That’s not the issue here. People aren’t raising hell for being stranded a few day because of a volcano. Travellers have actually been good sports under the circumstance and most accept that, yes, it is an act of nature in an unpredictable world. They’re not even complaining about having to wait, if it is for legitimate reasons (safety, backed up service…).

What people are complaining about (in this article, anyway) is that their airline company is giving priority to newly purchased, jacked-up tickets OVER the people who have already paid and have been told for days that there are no seats available. How an ‘unpredictable life’ (or starving children in Africa for that matter) justifies blatant dishonesty or fraud anywhere, I have no idea. But I’m sure companies love that outlook.

By that same token, maybe next time someone gets their wallet snatched on the street, the cops should just shrug and tell the high maintenance crybaby who reports it that they’re lucky they’re not in the Congo? Fair enough, I guess…

JohnnyOC

“By that same token, maybe next time someone gets their wallet snatched on the street, the cops should just shrug and tell the high maintenance crybaby who reports it that they’re lucky they’re not in the Congo? Fair enough, I guess..”

So, you’re saying that outright physical theft of a personal item and potential physical harm is the same as the so far unproven, unsubstantiated, bad-faith ticket replacement of airlines that you just read online (with the author also being biased with the inflammatory headline) and it’s fragmentary testimony of a bunch of piss-offed air travelers?

There is reality and there is…

I’m saying it’s bad but it could be a WHOLE lot worse. and people need to get some perspective..

If it’s proven that the airline is in bad-faith and being terrible, prove it in court, tear them down and sue the pants off of them to put them in line but as for now? No one knows for sure what’s is going on..

Sekino

That was in reply to JohnnyOC, by the way (I got logged out as well).

AirPillo

Folks, giving this the “capitalism 101″ handwave ignores the fact that capitalism falls to pieces if businesses aren’t required to adhere to a contractual obligation. Capitalism without strictly enforced contracts is anarchism.

The people who are waiting for the later flights were the first-come passengers, who have paid for tickets that the airline is still under a paid obligation to honor. They are entitled to be the first served when new flights become available, because they already HAVE tickets.

You’d hardly be calling this so fair if you and everyone else on a plane showed up for it to take a trip, and were told you’ve been moved to a flight a week or two later because the airline rebooked every seat on YOUR flight at a higher price, renegging on their promise to you that you would be occupying it.

The airline is short selling seats, of course people have a right to be outraged.

Have you ever reserved an expensive item at a store, and paid up-front for it… then had the store sell that reserved item off instead? Did you walk away smiling, feeling warm and tingly to participate in capitalism at work?

Now, imagine the sold, reserved item was the only thing keeping you thousands of miles away from home.

A shockingly large number of people seem to think that capitalism automatically means an anarchic market. That’s really kind of sad.

The Chemist

Well capitalism isn’t an ideology- so it’s sort of a nonsensical question. It’s a system, and not even a cohesive one at that. It’s not even something that narrows down to contract law or pragmatics. People trying to ascribe moral force to a system that was never conceived to deal with morals are quickly stymied by the futility inherent to the activity.

When we talk about what people should do and whether or not something is right, capitalism is a poor invocation, and one that should not be entertained in an intelligent discussion since it inevitably becomes a matter of the blind leading the blind.

The Chemist

That comment was addressed to Cory’s most recent comment, but I forgot to hit reply again when I had to sign in after my session expired mid-composition.

t1wl3t

pretty sure they have to pay for flight back and hotel cost, like ryan air does. It’s European law.

eccentriffic

I feel bad for everyone who is stranded, missing home, work, school, etc. I hope you all are able to get home soon. ):

Still, despite horrendous costs, it might be kind of cool to make the best of it and turn it into an adventure. At least that would keep things a little bit positive.

…Does that sound too Disney-ish?

P.S. Lying about flights, seat opening, etc. seems so commonplace with airlines now. I had to fly on a small jet from Denver to Farmington, N.M. last year, and we were put on standby because the airline overbooked the flight (~17 seats with ~25 bookings).

Anonymous

Look, what we really need/needed was Tommy Lee Jones

http://www.kinoweb.de/film97/Volcano/pix/vo7.jpg

ChiarasDad

My understanding is that BA, besides being a business with the responsibilities of a business, is also the designated flag-carrier airline of the United Kingdom. Whether or not one believes that BA is correctly fulfilling its business obligations by these actions (I’m on the ‘not’ side of that argument), it seems to me that the flag carrier of any nation, and particularly one that tends to pride itself on high-mindedness, should be weighing the customer-relations and public-image side of the equation much more heavily than BA seems to be.

Anonymous

I’d be interested in knowing what percentage of the flights are being booked with newly issued tickets. The reality is that not all air travel is planned weeks in advance. Some travelers only find out they need to travel with only a few hours advance. There is generally a high correlation between the importance of travel and the lack of notice. Usually, these customers don’t mind paying very high premiums over longer planned travel because their need is so great. Usually these kinds of travelers are subsidizing those of us who have the luxury of being able to plan. The existence of hundreds of stranded travelers does not in any way eliminate this need for travel.

All airlines are under mandate by regulation to get delayed customers back as quickly as they reasonably can. The crux in this debate is “reasonable”. I, personally, don’t find it reasonable to expect that airlines would be forced to turn away all short-notice travel for weeks until they first sort out their stranded passengers.

I don’t think that policy is in society’s best interest. There are passengers that we simply want to be able to fly on short notice because their not being able to travel will cause more harm than the inability of others to return. You might disagree. In the end, it’ll be up to the regulators and courts to settle and I’m sure that we’ll have an answer, and accompanying adjustments to corporate policy, soon enough.

If you agree with me, though, that a disaster like this can’t halt all essential short-notice travel for weeks, then the next question is by what mechanism should priority be established. I don’t view the high price on these tickets as profiteering from a disaster as much as I see it as striking a balance between the need to get people home and the need to make available travel on an ongoing basis. Short of some kind of travel triage nurse, I’m not certain there is a more elegant alternative than strongly disincentivizing people to purchase those tickets. It’s not a perfect correlation, but there is a high one between need to travel and willingness to spend.

To return to my first point, I think one indicator of how serious the airlines are at getting people back is the percentage of seats that it actually is selling instead of awarding to stranded travelers. If that number is closer to 100% then I could see Cory’s point. If it’s closer to 10% and they are establishing a market for high prices for the remaining 90%, then I’m not sure I agree that this violates a reasonable attempt at timely return.

Anonymous

One of the best aspects of free markets is that pricing leaves capacity, even in times of extreme shortage. So BA holds some seats to get big $…what that means is that anyone with a reason to spend those big $ (because the flight is an emergency, the person is rich, whatever) has availability. I’d rather be able to make a flight if there were a death in the family or medical emergency by paying big $, than be told there were no seats and I would have to wait my turn.

This is the same reason there was no gas during the gas crunch of the 70′s…artificial price controls lead directly to consumption of every drop of the resource left. Rising prices actually preserve valuable resources for those who can afford them, yes, but also for those who have a need great enough to justify the cost.

This isn’t “Capitalism 101″ it is “Economics 101.”

JWM

ericmartinex1

It makes me wheep for all of these jet setting, carbon offsetting hipsters. Someone decided to go off to India for the weekend and didn’t bring enough money. The Ramada in India doesn’t take credit cards?

By buying a ticket, am I the customer, under the expectation that by having a natural disaster that no one can control and an overly cautious pan european body EuroControl that stopped all airflights in theater, the airlines are still expected to cover all the hotel costs?

If that is the case, then who would compensate the airlines? The governments or the consumers by higher future ticket prices?

Gloria

“It makes me wheep for all of these jet setting, carbon offsetting hipsters. Someone decided to go off to India for the weekend and didn’t bring enough money.”

Issues, much? I like how your sympathy requires a very specific social background and attitude.

@54: Tap water is not recommended for consumption in India.
- Nonentity
  
  “Tap water is not recommended for consumption in India. ”
  
  Heck, it’s generally not recommended to drink tap water when visiting a foreign country, at least until you’ve had a chance to acclimate. There’s often local things that can cause you serious issues if your body’s not used to it. Some countries create more of a problem of this than others, but when you’re trapped in a foreign country, with rapidly dwindling money and no end in sight, taking a risk of getting sick isn’t a great idea.

Guesstimate Jones

Force maejeure, Cory…they might not even be obligated to honor your return ticket, at all.

Fly some other airline, next time, if you don’t like it…

polarized_range

In the US, at least
RE: lying
unless it is a material aspect of some future deal made between BA and the customers and therefore fraud or misrepresentation, it’s covered by free speech and not actionable through Contract law (though there may be specific British consumer protection laws, in CA it might be a valid claim). All lies are not actionable, and it would chill free speech if they were. However, it is obviously quite immoral.

RE: breach of contract, when a contract is formed, there is either an explicit or implicit assignment of risk by the parties. In this case, I’m sure the contract said, although in small print (problematic, but ubiquitous), that the contract is void in the case of a natural disaster. Furthermore, almost all contract have this clause, so it’s not quite like they were trying to sneak it in there. Whether all service contract should offer full insurance is an interesting question. If you were to schedule a speaking tour to which I bought tickets, and you broke both of your legs and ruptures your spleen in a freak ballooning accident, do you owe me more than a refund? Or if an earthquake leveled SF a few days beforehand? Or if you were banned from the US using an obscure provision of ACTA? Do you owe me my subjective valuation of the experience if it had happened? Even if you owe me a speaking experience, does it have to be as soon as you are physically able? Do you have to cancel other gigs to come speak to me? How about if I’ve moved to India (if you say then that you agreed to speak in the US, not India, BA agreed to provide a flight at a given time, now past)? Should there be a way for you to control that risk if you give me notice beforehand?
On the other hand, in the US we have non-disclaimable strict product liability for most physical goods in most states, and it hasn’t driven prices through the roof. In general, we have different expectations from businesses than private parties, and often pass laws to that purpose. However, unless such a law was in place, there is no way BA could have prepared for the risk and legally imposing the risk goes into the relm of ex post facto laws which is a dangerous path. So yeah, it’s definitely pretty skeevy to lie about it, but it was a natural disaster and there’s a lot of harm to go around, so it’s debatable what part of that harm is BA’s legally obligatory share.
Btw, first year in law school if you couldn’t tell, in no small part because of the exposure to the EFF i got through BoingBoing, so thanks for that.

penguinchris

I don’t agree with what the airlines are doing, and I’m not siding with them… but I do question some things about the passengers’ story here.

In places like India, there are two common ways to live (both for locals and visitors) – the middle-class way (which may be more expensive than middle-class wherever you’re from), and the way everyone else lives – the exceedingly cheap way.

Which way do you suppose tourists choose? The mildly-expensive middle-class way, of course.

They are exaggerating that they can’t afford bottled water. What they probably mean is that they can’t afford to drink the bottled water the hotel puts in their mini-fridge at a huge mark-up. I would be wiling to bet a lot of money that if they stepped outside and maybe walked a couple blocks (to get outside of the highly touristy area surrounding the hotel) they can get perfectly good bottled water for 10-20 cents (US) or less – big bottles, too, like liter-sized. Except for the truly destitute, bottled water is a necessity in places like this, not a relative luxury like it is in the west, and it is priced accordingly.

Similarly, food should be available for nearly as little money. Not, obviously, in the hotel restaurant or the fancy restaurants aimed at tourists.

I don’t mean to blame the victims here – I am on their side, and there’s no way they could have predicted they’d be in this situation – but after a couple of days you’d think they would have realized that they can’t afford to continue eating and drinking expensive stuff for much longer, and that maybe they should look for the cheap alternatives that I guarantee exist.

I enjoy world travel myself, and I am a grad student with almost no money. I think it’s great that people like me, and middle-class families as quoted here, can realistically travel the world these days. You have to be really careful and smart about how you spend your money, though, when you don’t have much to work with.

olivegreen

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8639287.stm

A reply, from BA, via BBC News.

marco antonio

I can’t believe the self-righteousness and discrimination that people are showing on this thread towards people who are stranded.
Basically saying that if you can afford to fly, you can afford to be screwed. *really??*
As it has been mentioned earlier (and is my case too), we *can’t* afford to fly. And yet, I live in Amsterdam and my family in Australia. And every 5-6 years I take what little money I have and *apply for a loan* to be able to see my family. And oh silly me, I have also taken money to travel somewhere further than my neighbouring countries looking for a new job or a new destination to take my family to live. Or to meet my father in Chile whom I’d never known growing up.

I make my own sandwiches to eat in the plane, I don’t buy anything because my money has already been spent on the flight. And as I travel I can assure you I’m not the only one.

So when you’re saying ‘if you can afford to fly you’re well off’ you are oh-so-wrong I don’t even know where to begin. Well, *sorry* for making the effort to fly. That will teach us, right? Get what we deserve, for trying. Should stay put and go nowhere like y’all and that’d avoid me getting screwed.

I am quite disappointed at the level of depondency, self-righteousness and callousness in this thread. Seriously infuriating. And i don’t even think I can contribute anything towards changing the mind of those who think we deserve to be screwed for flying.

I simply hope that if you ever find yourself in such a situation you’ll have the brain capacity to realize that jealousy is a nasty treat to have.

Terry

And i don’t even think I can contribute anything towards changing the mind of those who think we deserve to be screwed for flying.

Fear not! You changed my mind (not that I recall saying or even implying that people who fly deserve to be screwed).

I’m going to take the money I had planned to give to a homeless shelter and instead send it to stranded international travelers.

ian71

the fact that BA are selling -any- tickets when they have an -obligation- to get those people to their destinations is absolutely, utterly disgraceful.
Let’s go right past class action lawsuit territory and go right to the Thumb Hang!

Thumb Hang!

Anonymous

“SINGAPORE Airlines is mounting extra flights in the next one week, to clear the backlog of travellers who could not fly because of the recent airport closures in Europe.”

Next time, you will know who to fly with!

imipak

BA have made repeated public statements that they’ve deliberately priced all /open/ tickets to the maximum possible fares specifically so that PEOPLE WON’T BUY THEM, which leaves the seats vacant and therefore available to carry the stranded passengers (who have obviously already paid for their tickets and don’t need to pay again.) I’ve no idea whether it’s true or not, but that’s what they’ve been loudly and publicly saying. See, e.g., here. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/23/stranded-britons-british-airways-seat-prices .

Rather surprised no-one’s mentioned this yet, even if only to debunk it.

polama

Nobody is jumping in joy that strangers are stranded in foreign nations. But, look, there was a natural disaster. And as far as natural disasters go, this one was very benign. We’ve got ten thousand people stranded, not dead. It’s not that we think people should be screwed, but people get screwed when disasters strike. Death. Destruction of property. Inability to get home.

The airline system wasn’t designed to handle a week’s backlog of flights. It’s a chaotic situation. People are going to have to wait one way or another, there’s only so many pilots, only so many hours in a day. If the airlines claim having open seats lets them be more flexible and get people back faster, I’m willing to believe them. If they say they don’t have the authority to keep these seats open but not for sale, I can believe that too. That’s the downside of regulations, they limit flexibility.

Life is full of risks, volcanoes are one of them. If you’re stranded in another nation, look at the bright side: usually victims of natural disasters are dead. And learn a lesson from this: if there’s a possibility you just won’t be able to deal with, insure against it.

jackie31337

I worked in Northwest Airlines’ call center when their pilots went on strike in 1998. It was pretty much guaranteed that every caller would be frustrated, and it didn’t help that at the beginning, Northwest was only canceling and rebooking flights up to a certain date. We had a lot of callers whose flights had not yet been canceled, so we could not rebook them without a change fee. All we could tell them was to keep checking the status of their flight and to call us if it got canceled.

One of the callers who seemed to be the most serene and accepting of the situation was a Canadian cancer patient who was supposed to be traveling to the USA to participate in an clinical trial of an experimental treatment. Air Canada pilots had also gone on strike, and he lived in a fairly remote area, so alternative routes were pretty much non-existent. I tried everything I could think of, but it just wasn’t possible. It broke my heart to have to tell him there was no way I could get him there in time to participate in the trial.

For most of the callers I assisted, having to reschedule or cancel their trip was an inconvenience, but for this man, it may have meant the difference between life and death. Despite that, he just said that he guessed it wasn’t meant to be and genuinely thanked me for doing my best. It really put the rest of the calls into perspective for me.

wormbaby

Anybody actually read BAs response. They are saying the empty seats with the extremley high prices are just placeholders to keep them open for stranded passengers. They are not actually selling them the high price is to keep folks from buying them lol. Sound like this whole issue boils down to a poor choice of booking software that does not let even BA themselves hold open seats.

Sekino

Yeah, I read it. Sounds to me like another case of “Teh computers made me do it, so I’m not responsible”. If they admitted that they want to recoup some money and won’t refuse any extra money thrown their way, I wouldn’t have much more respect for them but at least they wouldn’t sound like they believe people are completely stupid.

Yes, they’ve jacked up the prices, but clearly not with intent to have them remain unsold. A few thousands isn’t that outlandish for a plane ticket in general. If BA were truly working around their omnipotent computer system by posting bogus prices nobody would want, why not charge something really off the wall, like $200,000 a flight (and a big red notice that this is a temporary measure because of the volcano crisis)? Of course not because then the tactic might actually work.

Even though I believe that capitalism and most businesses ought to be based on honesty, fairness and honoring contracts, my experience (and observation) has been that most ‘contracts’ have lots, and lots, and lots, and lots of very, very fine print, and that a large number of business practices rely on the fact that if you can’t afford to skip the line, you probably can’t afford to successfully sue them.

There is a reason why business, as a field, attracts and rewards sociopathic qualities.

Anonymous

Cory, if you’re stranded in the States, you’re welcome to say with us for free, as long as you like. Spring in Iowa, home cooking, wild turkeys in the back yard, spirited discussions on capitalism, and you can sign my copy of Makers.

2hirondelles

While it would be nice if capitalism was about contracts and honoring them, it’s been my observation that it’s about ‘money talks’. For the most part, there is no morality or ethics involved. Most will do anything as long as they have a reasonable expectation that they can get away with it.

If this were not the case, we wouldn’t have the need for an SEC and the likes of them.

Gloria

It wasn’t your arguments that drew that particular attack, but only that particular remark (“smart AND humble!”) towards me. I directly addressed all your arguments up to that point.

I will note that I (and others) could have freely commented on your expenses and lifestyle since you offered *those* up publicly, but I didn’t for most of this thread. I don’t think this is an indication of nobility or largesse, but merely courtesy and an acknowledgement that that’s a dead end road anyway.

Gloria

Well, I thought I hit “reply”, but I think it’s fairly clear I’m addressing you, Terry, @70.

Terry

I’m sorry – I didn’t actually expect or want an answer to that question. I just hoped you’d think a little bit about what you are looking for when you come to these comment threads.
- Antinous / Moderator
  
  Terry,
  
  This is the third or fourth time in a couple of weeks that you’ve poorly expressed yourself and then thrown a huge hissy when other commenters responded to you. You don’t play well with others. I’m going to have to let you go.
- Gloria
  
  “I just hoped you’d think a little bit about what you are looking for when you come to these comment threads.”
  
  I’m sorry — I don’t understand. What I’m looking for … “these comment threads”?

Anonymous

It strikes me that there are two separate things going on here:

1) BA is allowing some people to still buy tickets at substantially higher than usual prices for immediate departure.
2) BA has planes which are returning to Europe which are roughly half-empty.

The first issue doesn’t strike me as that bad. If BA decided to keep 1% of their seats available for those who *really* needed to travel *Right Now*, that strikes me as pretty reasonable – somewhere between 2 and 6 seats on an aircraft depending upon configuration. Everybody would see these as available because very few people (no one?) is purchasing them, which is kind of the point. Then, when no one purchases those seats, BA should be able to take a couple of stand-by passengers and shuffle them aboard at the last minute. In short, this shouldn’t be a Big Deal.

Item two makes me curious, though. There is no reason to fly a plane anywhere near half-empty. When you know you need a bunch of extra flights to take care of contractual obligations, you want to pack the flights as tightly as possible – empty seats means more flights, which costs more money. Maybe they’re trying to save weight for cargo capacity? Maybe people are making alternate arrangements and failing to cancel their existing reservation, leaving half of everybody not showing up? I don’t know.

Given the lack of information, I’m unable to really understand what’s going on. I appreciate the difficulty this causes those who are stuck, but I think that more information is required before we can legitimately put all of the blame on BA.

davidasposted

Incidentally, the amount of air pollution caused by air travel is pretty significant. At what point does a person decide that the consequences of air travel (not to mention the inconveniences) are no longer acceptable?

“Pollution warning on holiday flights”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/732004.stm

Anonymous

Cory,

The solution is simple – force the airlines to pay up front for costs such as hotels, food and communications – they won’t be so quick then to shove them in a hotel until may 10th.

The problem is many people budget for their holiday and take only what they need with maybe some contingency – the added cost of paying for hotels, food, entertainment and communications upfront creates a huge burden on many families.

I think we all know that reimbursement of these costs will be incredibly slow coming as the airlines will undoubtedly introduce red tape to delay these repayments on the chance they can successfully lobby to have these costs offset by government funds or reduced in any way they can.

By adding a huge premium on to all flights between now and then they increase their cash flow which in turn helps them to fund these repayments should their lobbying efforts be unsuccessful.

It is a Grade A scam.

StevenKeithTait

Actually I think it is a good idea for the people willing to bribe their way home to travel first.
If their planes don’t seize up and crash, then let the working people travel.
HHmK (Ha Ha mostly kidding)

Terry

Okay – British Airways sucks. I get that.

But am I supposed to believe that the poor and downtrodden are being screwed because their international flights have been canceled?

Lookforthewoman

Yes, you are.

Not only the rich fly, as evidenced by the people still trapped.

Some people scrimp and save for years to go on their “dream” holiday and were trapped when the volcano erupted. So not only is their well planned vacation budget gone, they don’t have any savings, and more than likely don’t have any income either. So yes, they’re being screwed.

But how dare they complain, they got to take a vacation in the first place! According to you they must be well off.
- Terry
  
  According to you they must be well off.
  
  Yes, they are. The line between ‘poor’ and ‘not poor’ is very easy to see: People who have been hungry because they couldn’t afford food are ‘poor’.
  - The Chemist
    
    Wow, I don’t think I’ve hear a more self-serving, full-of-shit definition than that.
    - Terry
      
      h – pls xpln. ‘m dyng t hr t. r dd y blw yr whl wd n th n (prly splld) sntnc?
    - The Chemist
      
      It’s a typo, try not to cry/cum in your pants.
      
      I believe the word you’re looking for is destitute. Poor means having substantially less than others in your society and varies according to standard of living and relative adaptation. It’s not a perfect definition since no definition is absolute, but yours is completely at odds with history and reality.
      
      Poor, before the age of telecommunications and a global economy, has also very traditionally included travelers who are separated from their means of income or savings- since it’s a temporary state of being and not an identity. If you’re suddenly and unexpectedly stuck in the middle of Botswana without your wallet and no way to access the wealth you have elsewhere- you’re poor. You don’t carry the identity of “middle-class” around with you wherever you go, it’s your imminent state.
    - Gloria
      
      I’ve always been annoyed at people who can’t distinguish a potential typo from a misspelling.
    - Terry
      
      OED:
      
      Poor: Having few, or no, material possessions; lacking the means to procure the comforts or necessities of life; needy, indigent, destitute.
      
      And please don’t try to tell me that those people can’t afford water. It’s bottled water they seem to be having trouble affording. But I may be crazy to assume that the Ramada in New Delhi has running water. I don’t travel much.
      
      Also, your attempt to excuse a misspelling by calling it a ‘typo’ really just tells us that you are lazy and/or sloppy enough to rely solely on a spell-checker when you write. I find it odd that you can’t even be bothered to proofread a sentence before clicking on the ‘submit’ button, yet you still expect the rest of us to take the time to read your comments and consider your ideas.
    - Gloria
      
      “But I may be crazy to assume that the Ramada in New Delhi has running water. I don’t travel much.”
      
      Oh, and right, I’ve never been to India either. I just Googled it.
    - Terry
      
      h, nd rght, ‘v nvr bn t nd thr. jst Ggld t.
      
      Ww. Y’r smrt <>nd hmbl.
    - Gloria
      
      *And* I haven’t even played my “I don’t own a car, let alone two, OR have private health insurance” card yet, because I don’t think I should have to qualify my arguments that way.
      
      Well. I guess I just played it, huh? Damn.
    - Terry
      
      These stranded people are in a bad situation. I’m aware of that, but the simple fact is that I just don’t feel a whole lot of sympathy for them. I generally reserve my sympathies for the people that life has really shit upon.
      
      Why is it that this makes you want to attack me?
    - The Chemist
      
      Okay. I don’t really give a shit what the OED says. Now what?
      
      Seriously? Ever listen to people from the OED get interviewed? The absolute last thing they claim is that they’re the last word in what words mean. Come up with problematic attributes that apply to my definition or come up with a less problematic one of your own, but don’t hide behind a dictionary, that’s preschool-grade argumentation.
  - Lookforthewoman
    
    I didn’t say they were “poor”, I just said they weren’t rich or “well off”. Don’t put words in my mouth.
    
    And if you’d read the whole article they clearly said they can’t afford water anymore. So, by your own definition they’re now “poor” and deserving of the sympathy you have for the “poor”.
    
    As for insurance my friends just got back from London after being trapped there for over a week at the tail end of one of those well planned and saved for vacations. And they did have insurance. Of course it the payable was capped in Canadian dollars not British pounds, so they ran out of insurance money really quick. And their London hotel went up from 150 pounds to 300 pounds a night during the crisis.
    
    Price gouging should be illegal, but it’s not.
    And what BA is doing is price gouging. Not illegal, but so immoral.
    - Terry
      
      Before you get all indignant about anyone ‘putting words into your mouth’, at least have the decency to read back through the conversation. If anyone’s guilty of force-feeding terminology around here, it would be you.
      
      Let me try this another way:
      
      I am married and have a three-year-old son. We are all in good health, which I’m sure is at least partially due to the fact that we have health insurance. It helps that we are all able to see our various doctors on a regular basis. My son attends pre-school two half-days each week. Our refrigerator and pantry are full of food. We own two cars, and they both have gas in their respective tanks. We have some money in the bank, but – even more important (to us, at least) – we are virtually debt-free.
      
      In short, we are rather well off, by pretty much any definition. We generally do not have any trouble affording the things in life that we need.
      
      However, we could not afford to take an international vacation even if we were willing to completely drain our savings to do so. We simply couldn’t do it.
      
      So I’m sorry, but people who are stranded because their international flight was cancelled just don’t fit in to my definition of ‘poor’. Frankly, I find it surprising that I have to explain this.
      
      I do feel some sympathy for the stranded people, but not much. I don’t travel, but even I knew British Airways had a sketchy reputation long before any volcano blew. Make no mistake – the Bad Guys here are British Airways. Blame should be assessed, and it should be placed squarely on BA’s shoulders. But I have to say that I don’t really understand how limited sympathy equates to ‘blaming the victim’.
    - Lookforthewoman
      
      I’m happy that you’re happily married, with kids, a house, two cars and no debt, but a little sad that despite all that you couldn’t afford an international vacation. Because getting out of the country you’re from and visiting other people in other places is probably the best sort of mind opening education there is.
      
      And while the people stranded on their “vacations” who are running out of money, have no income, and are probably going to struggle to pay their mortgage next month, so obviously don’t deserve your sympathy, they don’t deserve your derision either. And that is what Gloria, myself, and others are responding to.
      
      No one is asking you to donate, no one is asking you to do anything at all actually, so why don’t you do that, instead of implying that these people don’t deserve your sympathy simply because they could afford (before the volcano anyways) a trip that you couldn’t.
      
      Or perhaps we’re just responding to your arrogance or your ego the size of Louisiana.
  - Dillo
    
    So, by Terry’s logic, the passengers on the planes on 9/11/2001 shouldn’t have minded being rammed into the World Trade Center buildings because, well, hey, at least they could afford to buy a plane ticket. They were probably just a bunch of rich yuppies all flying in First Class anyway.
  - abstract_reg
    
    By your own definition the people who are stuck in Dubai are poor. They can no longer pay for bottled water! When away you’re generally not supposed to drink the water. So we now have a family going thirsty because BA is not willing to send them home until it is financially sound to do so!

mrfantasy

Hey, the airlines lost billions of dollars due to cancelled flights. They’re just using the marketplace to make some of that back. If you’re poor, and you’ve been delayed a week, an extra week isn’t going to matter too much. If it did, you could afford to pay more.

;-)

Anonymous

That’s the most ridiculous non-logic I’ve ever heard. “If you’re poor and you’ve been delayed a week, an extra week isn’t going to matter too much.” What an idiotic statement. If you have spent all your cash on your holiday, how is it feasible that it ‘doesn’t matter’ you have to splash out another few thousand just to keep going, because your shitty airline would rather ferry its wealthy passengers back and forth at their beck & call instead of getting you home?
jackie31337

“Hey, the airlines lost billions of dollars due to canceled flights. They’re just using the marketplace to make some of that back.”

They’re not even doing that. Most discount fares have advanced purchase requirements, usually between 1 and 3 weeks. If you’re in so much of a hurry that you need to buy a ticket on shorter notice than that, you pay the full, unrestricted coach/economy fare. The same applies to personal emergency situations, such as a death in the family or a family member in the hospital. In those cases, the airlines make an exception and give a compassionate discount on a case-by-case basis. I don’t think it would be reasonable to expect the airlines to do that for every single passenger who has been stranded, though.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t the airlines rebooking people in the order they got stranded? So, for example, the people who were first to have their return flight canceled are rebooked first, and so on. It’s a difficult situation, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the airlines to be selling tickets on those flights, because they are a business. I would not expect the airlines to suspend ticket sales and focus exclusively on getting people home. As I see it, passengers can either wait their turn so that people who have been stranded longer can get home, or pay to jump the queue and get home faster.

eZee

Got screwed with BA three times and counting…
but, buying via the net and the routes I travel they still offer the best prices so…meh.

If I were a petty person like a couple I have seen while flying with them, I would break their earphones and other stuff after using it ;)
(but I’m not, and I dont)

davidasposted

And thus the spiral of crappy service continues its slight downward decline. Until BA’s customers (and patrons of any business that continually mistreats them) stop paying the bargain price for bad service, bad service will continue. What does it matter how many times BA has ‘screwed’ you if you acknowledge that you won’t do anything about it unless they inconveniently raise their ticket sales?
- eZee
  
  Little choice really, its either put up with crappy service and lost/damaged baggage (twice) or pay quite a bit more.
  I’m one of the people who save up for my trips as I cant afford them outright, and when doing that, every penny counts.
  
  Was born with good looks and wit instead of a silver spoon up my behind… cant _really_ complain ;)
  - davidasposted
    
    Or travel to different destinations or via different means. But as someone living in Canada and thus subject to the duopoly of Air Canada and Westjet, I can sympathize. Perhaps we need to re-think our propensity for international travel. There are a lot of semi-local destinations hurting for business these days…

MRKiscaden

Considering how I can barely afford a road trip vacation, let alone air travel, I have a very hard time sympathizing. Just enjoy you’re extra 3 weeks of vacation.

It just a matter of supply and demand. Demand for tickets is high, supply is very very low. BA can charge whatever they want. At least you were re-booked, it would be a different matter if the tickets were canceled and you were expected to pay out of pocket to have any means of getting home.

Gloria

“Considering how I can barely afford a road trip vacation, let alone air travel, I have a very hard time sympathizing. Just enjoy you’re extra 3 weeks of vacation.”

You do realize those “extra 3 weeks of vacation” are completely unpaid? These stranded people are actively *losing* money — not just unplanned expenses they must now incur — but through wages they are not earning.

Just because somebody saved up the money to go on a vacation doesn’t mean they have more money to throw around.

The irony here is that the people being offered the opportunity to go home sooner and save all their expenses are more likely to be the ones who can afford *not* to do so.
- IronEdithKidd
  
  That’s not irony. It’s quite on purpose. Here we see BA actively and obviously conferring privilege (with a bit of profit for themselves) on those who have already reaped the rewards of capitalism (or luck of birth).
  
  Cory is pretty much dead-on calling out BA for this travesty. What they’re doing borders on illegality from a contract law perspective. What he describes in his reply @25 is not just fraud, in less gracious circles it’s called extortion. You know, something underground-economy types are infamous for.
MRKiscaden

Addendum: However I find it suspicious that BA has any open seats left. You would think any tickets for sale would be given to those who had canceled fights.

Anonymous

What’s so unbelievable about that? BA have been struggling for years, this is something I’d EXPECT them to do.

Jenni

My mother’s currently stranded in Paris. She saves up so that she can go somewhere beautiful every couple of years and get away from her high stress job. She can afford to have a one week vacation, but not the expense of the additional week she’s been stuck there. So yeah, some people who have worked very hard for the opportunity to go somewhere nice for a little while are being screwed.

Arys

Wow… I think it’s sad that some people have such a small budget of sympathy that they have to only ration it out for things they truly horrific situations.

I feel bad for the people that are stuck and it sounds like BA is screwing some people over to make some cash. I can’t help these people, but I’m not so cheap with my sympathy budget that I can spare a “Wow, that sucks for them.” in the middle of my day.

ChoccyHobNob

A Friend of mine who works for BA had this to say when I posted the story on FB.

Actually we have been sending out empty 777 and 747 aircraft to get the stranded home!!! On top of that we were the only airline at LHR who paid for hotel accommodation for all its stranded passengers and I know because I was issuing all the vouchers!!! Terminal 3 and I won’t name any airlines shut up shop and left everyone to their own devices!!!
… and if they actually bothered going to the airport it is my understanding they would be put on standby for any unsold seats as it happening at LHR. There are desks set up for standbys – we honour the seats for anyone booked on a particular flight, then fill the remaining seats with anyone from the standby desks. Grrr after working 16 hour shfits to get our passengers safely home, this has really angered me.

Anonymous

Just to add my experience: Stranded in the US by Virgin Atlantic. Call centre on hold time minimum of 4 hours per call. Repatriated onto flight 10 days after mine was cancelled… unless I paid them Â£1750 to return earlier. Or I could always buy an economy single with another airline:

American Airlines : Â£1941
US Airways : Â£3167
KLM : Â£4237
Delta : Â£4267
Continental : Â£4398
BA : Â£4401
United : Â£4796
BMI : Â£6164

The same fares 1 month later were less than Â£400.
Paid for my own hotel and expenses whilst away.

Flew home at my own expense with SAS for less than Â£500. They will get all of my future custom wherever possible for not ripping me off and answering my call within minutes and not days.

crnk

Is there something prohibiting them from going to the airport and trying to fly standby every day until then? I’ve never been stranded by flight cancellations here in the US, but I understand it that they usually rebook you a few days in advance (2 weeks does not seem extraordinary in this case) for when they have open flights. If you want to fly sooner, you can pay full fare for one of the handful of seats they are selling, or you can wait at the airport for standby along with everyone else. I doubt they’ve got a bunch of standby passengers and are still flying with every last seat full.

bascule

My 2 cents worth. BA call centres didn’t seem to know what was happening but…

I was stuck in Bangkok for 3 nights. BA put us up in a quite nice hotel (nowhere close to anything but that’s ok)
- 3 meals a day
- a pool
- told us what was happening everyday or so
- last night put on an extra flight to ‘rescue’ a whole lot of stuck people.

Basically an entire extra plane flew to Bangkok and then back. And I know for a fact that they upgraded a lot of people in economy to higher classes so they didn’t just sell the higher class tickets.

Bangkok was handled quite well given the problems.

Apologies for typos (jet lag plus no internet for 5 weeks)

Anonymous

I saw a headline a couple of days ago about the airlines suing because of all the lost business/revenue. I can’t remember if the airline was BA or not. I laughed because my first thought was “What? You’re going to sue the volcano?!”

KirkWylie

Cory, while I agree with your general sense of indignation regarding BA’s behavior in this particular issue (selling premium-fare tickets while stranded passengers languish), I really do take offence with your connection with the recent strike action.

I know quite a few people who work for BA. I know people who work for BA in Cabin staff out of Heathrow (who voted to strike). I know people who work for BA in Cabin staff out of Gatwick (who did NOT vote to strike). I know people in senior management at BA. I even know people who work in Cabin staff out of Heathrow who voted not to strike and broke the picket line to report to work.

You have no bloody idea what the hell you’re talking about when you say that BA was “screwing its union by trying to unilaterally impose a contract on its workers without negotiation”.

The major contract terms in question were agreed on by *every single one* of BA’s authorized unions, *bar one*. The Heathrow Cabin staff union. And if you bothered to review the terms of the “unilateral” contract, you’d find out that it was actually *more* generous than *any* of its competitive firms.

On the situation regarding stranded passengers, good story. On your little snipey retort, you have no idea what you’re talking about and it shows.

MrsBug

Dang, that takes some cajones

brie987

British Airways the White Star Line of the skies. Continuing its long history of making sure the rich get home faster, safer and alive.

Kyle H

Man, Capitalism 101 is just a son-of-a-gun isn’t it?

You pays your money and you takes your chances, people.

Anonymous

British Airways used to style itself ‘The World’s favorite airline’. Sadly the crown is slipping towards the ‘low cost low care’ model. The good news is that the European Union brought in a law that requires an alternative flight, the old system could have resulted in money back. So there is some progess. The bad news is the loop holes that have grown up around the legislation.

Yesterday regulators signaled to low cost carrier Ryanair that it could not duck its duties to passengers. It was remarkable how the carrier spokesman Mr O’Really did a U-turn when he realised that breaching the law is a criminal rather than civil offence, i.e. prison.

Anonymous

Yeah, it’s a problem. Most people I know save up and budget carefully for international vacations once every 3-5 years, and save money by booking well in advance on the super-cheap airlines, and en extra week or two or three with no income would be a serious problem even if they were at home, let alone in a foreign country with daily travel expenses.

British Airways leaves stranded passengers all over world, jacks up prices on tickets home

More at Boing Boing