can I take BA to court?

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 21:41:47 -0800, "Mr. Travel" wrote:

>John Kulp wrote:
>
>
>> Ombudsman have a valid function in helping resolve valid disputes, not
>> one's manufactured by one party of the other, which is what this is.
>
>I agree. I would rather have ombudsmen devote there efforts and media
>space to real issues. I can actually picture this letter in Conde Nast
>Traveler. BA gets contacted, and explains there side. The writer then
>uses the remainder of the column to tell people what they should have
>done. In this case, he should have stayed in line, or be willing to
>accept a refund on his ticket.

I have some done this way alright and, given all the misconceptions
that passengers have about airlines and situations like this, that
might have some real merit.
 >> Stay informed about: can I take BA to court? 

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 00:54:20 -0800 (PST), "Rupa Bose www.rupabose.org"
wrote:


>> What's the story here? =A0He left on his own without giving the airline
>> a chance to do anything at all, making up all kind of excuses for
>> doing so. =A0He patently violated the terms of his contract with the
>> airline in so doing and ran up just about the highest amount of
>> expenses is so doing, doing nothing at all to mitigate expenses for
>> BA. =A0The only thing I see BA owes him is a refund of the remaining
>> part of his trip and a pat on the back. =A0So where's the story?
>> Ombudsman have a valid function in helping resolve valid disputes, not
>> one's manufactured by one party of the other, which is what this is.
>
>Well, first, why should there *be* a "story"? There's a story in that
>a customer was inconvenienced and annoyed; I think I'd have felt the
>same way in his position, and might well have done the same thing -
>especially as the people at the counter were not actually dealing with
>the issue, and may have been on strike themselves.

Why should there be a story? Because that is what the media is
supposed to, not throw out a lot of people's misconceptions about what
they think their rights are like this guy. Everybody gets
inconvenienced and annoyed practically every day. This is hardly
news. It doesn't matter what you would or would not have done. You
and every other passenger are legally obligated to follow the contract
that you agreed to when you bought the ticket. No company is
responsible for acts outside their control. Just like I told him, you
can do whatever you want in a situation like this but that doesn't
make the airline responsible. Do you think if a tornado hit the
airport and caused the same situation that this strike did that the
airline is responsible for that? That's just silly like this case
was. And you and he have no idea what the airline was doing or was
going to do because he never hung around--as was his responsibility to
do--to find out.

>
>whether this is a valid dispute or not is surely a matter of opinion;
>you and Mr Travel believe it isn't; the OP and several others believe
>it is. Just from the fact that there are already nearly 80 posts, I
>think it might well be something that one of these travel columns does
>take up. I'd like to see the result, for one.

Ignorant fools believe anything they want just like this guy. Why
don't you go read the contract terms that he agreed to abide by? They
are right on BA's site. I did and they clearly cover situations like
this and lay out each party's rights and responsibilities. And it
doesn't matter how many ignorant posts are put up. This is a legal
situation full stop. He didn't abide by his responsibilities full
stop. No case full stop. Just go spend a day at a small claims court
and see how many ignorant fools get laughed out of court once a judge
sees what they are claiming. I did once, where a number of the
defendants in the cases never show up. The judge awarded default
judgments to all of them. They all thought they had won. The judge
then held proving hearings on each case. Gee, you actually had to
prove your case to ultimately win? What a revelation. 90% of the
cases were then thrown out when they had no or insufficient proof.

>
>What's the downside? At worst, the travel columnist will not be
>interested. At best, the traveler will get some or all of the money he
>spent. In the middle case, there'll be an interesting story in the
>column.

Other than pointing out what an idiot this guy is what's interesting?
Just like I pointed out in the small claims case--which is what this
would be in court at least in the US--it's just one more case of
confused airline passengers not liking what happened to them in life
who ignored their legal responsibility. Airlines have to deal with
more of these every day--like lots of other businesses.
 >> Stay informed about: can I take BA to court? 

On Mar 6, 11:53 am, (John Kulp) wrote:

> What guy like this doesn't think he's mishandled as you put it?

> Let him try.  

Quite so. That's what I was suggesting. In the worst case, it goes
nowhere. What's to lose?


> >What you told him is hardly at issue; you're neither in a position to
> >help nor hinder.
>
> Which has what to do with whether the airline is responsible?

It's irrelevant.

>
> >Again, that's your opinion, full stop.
>
> Opinion?  It's all there in plain English.  All anyone has to do is go
> read it, which this guy obviously never did.

Why does that matter?
The issue isn't what the fine print says, or what he did. The issue is
what he can do now.
 >> Stay informed about: can I take BA to court? 

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 08:59:54 -0800 (PST), "Rupa Bose www.rupabose.org"
wrote:

>On Mar 6, 5:22 am, (John Kulp) wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 00:54:20 -0800 (PST), "Rupa Bosewww.rupabose.org"
>
>> >Well, first, why should there *be* a "story"? There's a story in that
>> >a customer was inconvenienced and annoyed; I think I'd have felt the
>> >same way in his position, and might well have done the same thing -
>> >especially as the people at the counter were not actually dealing with
>> >the issue, and may have been on strike themselves.
>>
>> Why should there be a story? Because that is what the media is
>> supposed to, not throw out a lot of people's misconceptions about what
>> they think their rights are like this guy.
>
>Again, I'm not suggesting a newspaper article on the subject. I'm
>specifically suggesting a travel column where they consider exactly
>this kind of situation - where the traveler considers he's been
>mishandled, and the organization may or may not agree. If it's a slam-
>dunk situation, the airline deals with it and it never goes further.
>There doesn't have to be a story, any more than a letters-to-the-
>editor column needs a story.

What guy like this doesn't think he's mishandled as you put it?
Actually, he wasn't mishandled at all since he never gave them a
chance. Let him try. It is very unlikely to go anywhere, as I would
think that this situation has been addressed already.

>
>> Just like I told him, you
>> can do whatever you want in a situation like this but that doesn't
>> make the airline responsible.
>
>What you told him is hardly at issue; you're neither in a position to
>help nor hinder.

Which has what to do with whether the airline is responsible?

>
>>
>> >whether this is a valid dispute or not is surely a matter of opinion;
>> >you and Mr Travel believe it isn't; the OP and several others believe
>> >it is. Just from the fact that there are already nearly 80 posts, I
>> >think it might well be something that one of these travel columns does
>> >take up. I'd like to see the result, for one.
>>
>> Why don't you go read the contract terms that he agreed to abide by? They
>> are right on BA's site. I did and they clearly cover situations like
>> this and lay out each party's rights and responsibilities. And it
>> doesn't matter how many ignorant posts are put up. This is a legal
>> situation full stop. He didn't abide by his responsibilities full
>> stop. No case full stop.
>
>Again, that's your opinion, full stop.

Opinion? It's all there in plain English. All anyone has to do is go
read it, which this guy obviously never did.

>
>And I'm not recommending that he sue, either. In fact, that's exactly
>what I'm *not* recommending.
>
>>
>> >What's the downside? At worst, the travel columnist will not be
>> >interested. At best, the traveler will get some or all of the money he
>> >spent. In the middle case, there'll be an interesting story in the
>> >column.
>>
>> Other than pointing out what an idiot this guy is what's interesting?
>
>Something clearly is. This thread has 82 posts by 18 authors.
>And not everyone agrees with you on the idiot thing.

Only the ones that (a) have no clue and are just anti-airline ranters
and/or (b) haven't read the terms and conditions would disagree.
Those that responded that I know from experience are knowledgable like
Mr. Travel agree with me, probably because it's an open and shut case
by just looking at the terms and conditions. Others that didn't I
also know from experience are anti-airline ranters or blowhards like
Dissen.
 >> Stay informed about: can I take BA to court? 

On Mar 6, 4:06 pm, (John Kulp) wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 14:40:04 -0800 (PST), "Rupa Bosewww.rupabose.org"

> >It's irrelevant.
>
> Then so is this.
>
>>
> What he should do which is go away with this childish nonsense.

The OP is long gone. It's just you and me and maybe Mr T.
 >> Stay informed about: can I take BA to court? 

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 14:40:04 -0800 (PST), "Rupa Bose www.rupabose.org"
wrote:

>On Mar 6, 11:53=A0am, (John Kulp) wrote:
>
>> What guy like this doesn't think he's mishandled as you put it?
>
>> Let him try. =A0
>
>Quite so. That's what I was suggesting. In the worst case, it goes
>nowhere. What's to lose?

Everbody's time.

>
>
>> >What you told him is hardly at issue; you're neither in a position to
>> >help nor hinder.
>>
>> Which has what to do with whether the airline is responsible?
>
>It's irrelevant.

Then so is this.

>
>>
>> >Again, that's your opinion, full stop.
>>
>> Opinion? =A0It's all there in plain English. =A0All anyone has to do is go=
>
>> read it, which this guy obviously never did.
>
>Why does that matter?
>The issue isn't what the fine print says, or what he did. The issue is
>what he can do now.

What he should do which is go away with this childish nonsense.
 >> Stay informed about: can I take BA to court? 

I am not gone, Rupa. I just have no patience (and time) to argue
with people that are unable to read, understand, or simply refuse
to accept reality. You see, some troll for arguments (they have
lots time in their hands) and some are interested in discussion
and giving/receiving advice. Yet, others like to feel/prove they
are right and will fabricate anything to achieve their 'status'.
Let them live in 'la-la land', it's a free world!

Let me put it this way: If you are at a red light with your
Porsche and the driver of the VW Beetle in the next lane wants to
race you when the light turns green... do you need to prove
anything? I would ignore him.

And now to update you: When I decided to file the claim in the UK,
I was given most of my money back plus a credit voucher to use
on BA flights. I want cash instead of vouchers and my claim will
continue until I get it. Cheers.
- gA



Rupa Bose www.rupabose.org wrote:
> On Mar 6, 4:06 pm, (John Kulp) wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 14:40:04 -0800 (PST), "Rupa Bosewww.rupabose.org"
>
>>> It's irrelevant.
>> Then so is this.
>>
>> What he should do which is go away with this childish nonsense.
>
> The OP is long gone. It's just you and me and maybe Mr T.
 >> Stay informed about: can I take BA to court? 

On May 24, 3:42 pm, gA wrote:

> And now to update you: When I decided to file the claim in the UK,
> I was given most of my money back plus a credit voucher to use
> on BA flights. I want cash instead of vouchers and my claim will
> continue until I get it. Cheers.
> - gA


Thanks for updating us!
 >> Stay informed about: can I take BA to court?