British Airways - 2
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Liverpoolish...
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm puzzled - why do we choose mainland Europe airports when NCL, EDI etc. are open - it'd be much easier to coach from there than face the channel crossing?
there may be a longer "window" to get their aircraft away again....
they don't want aircraft stuck anywhere when they can depart and it is still relatively simple to get their pax back from Brussels for example.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In the Chalfonts
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why choose those locations
Yes & no doubt all those on the diverted flights would like to know the answer to that question too ! Especially those on the AbuDhabi flight 72 that only got as far as Athens - it'll be a really long coach journey from there...!!!
Now undertand 1 divert to AMS also to add to my earlier list.
Now undertand 1 divert to AMS also to add to my earlier list.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: southern spain
Posts: 1,987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO it looks like some big cheese (I wonder who that can be) at BA has tried to call the CAA, NATS and the Governments bluff launching all those aircraft for London but it looks like they have not succeeded.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see 4 BA's holding over Ireland, BA84 is over IOM and has been for a good while now, whilst BAW102 from Calgary just flew straight over the top of London at 35000 and looks to be heading for the continent.
http://www.flightradar24.com/
http://www.flightradar24.com/
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In the Chalfonts
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those already on the ground it will depend if their crews have sufficient hours left to get into LON tonight. Given they were all long haul I doubt they'll make it...unless BA having anticipated this happening have already positioned fresh crews to takeover...but I doubt it.
As this one has moved around so much tonight...anything's possible! Given what WW's achieved vs. the rest then it wouldn't surprise me if those currently in AMS, BRU, CDG & SNN all make it in tonight!!!
As this one has moved around so much tonight...anything's possible! Given what WW's achieved vs. the rest then it wouldn't surprise me if those currently in AMS, BRU, CDG & SNN all make it in tonight!!!
Last edited by ChalfontFlyer; 20th Apr 2010 at 20:14. Reason: additional thought...
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA84 (YVR) landed in LHR at 2049z.
BA102 (YYC) diverted to CDG and has just departed CDG for LHR.(ETA 2222z)
BA142 (DEL) shows as cancelled having not left DEL.
BA038 (PEK) diverted to AMS and showing to depart to LHR tomorrow afternoon.
BA102 (YYC) diverted to CDG and has just departed CDG for LHR.(ETA 2222z)
BA142 (DEL) shows as cancelled having not left DEL.
BA038 (PEK) diverted to AMS and showing to depart to LHR tomorrow afternoon.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Belfast, UK
Age: 43
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA pilots call for Government help
BA pilots call for Government help - UK & Ireland, Breaking News - Belfasttelegraph.co.uk
BA pilots call for Government help - UK & Ireland, Breaking News - Belfasttelegraph.co.uk
BA said the staff who stood in for strikers had received a "ringing endorsement" from passengers following a survey which showed satisfaction levels rose in March.
British Airways facing Canadian lawsuit over taxes
British Airways facing Vancouver-based class-action lawsuit over its fares - News1130
British Airways facing Vancouver-based class-action lawsuit over its fares
Suit filed by Poyner Baxter
Amelia John May 14, 2010 14:26:32 PM Be the first to Comment
NORTH VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) - British Airways faces a Vancouver-based class-action lawsuit over its fares. The suit claims the airline is pocketing 'false' taxes.
It was filed by the North Vancouver firm Poyner Baxter - which claims British Airways mixes airport fees with fake taxes that go straight into its own pockets. Lawyer Jim Poyner claims the airline is charging too much in taxes and is pocketing the cash.
He explains there are tax codes on each ticket sold and the initials 'YQ' indicate the company keeps the money. "We know the YQ is not part of the taxes, it's kept by the airline. So they keep that and that's what this case is about."
A Richmond woman claims more than $300 of the so-called "taxes" on her $1,400 ticket went straight to the airline. Lawyers representing the suit say they want to put an end to the practice and are seeking a refund.
Suit filed by Poyner Baxter
Amelia John May 14, 2010 14:26:32 PM Be the first to Comment
NORTH VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) - British Airways faces a Vancouver-based class-action lawsuit over its fares. The suit claims the airline is pocketing 'false' taxes.
It was filed by the North Vancouver firm Poyner Baxter - which claims British Airways mixes airport fees with fake taxes that go straight into its own pockets. Lawyer Jim Poyner claims the airline is charging too much in taxes and is pocketing the cash.
He explains there are tax codes on each ticket sold and the initials 'YQ' indicate the company keeps the money. "We know the YQ is not part of the taxes, it's kept by the airline. So they keep that and that's what this case is about."
A Richmond woman claims more than $300 of the so-called "taxes" on her $1,400 ticket went straight to the airline. Lawyers representing the suit say they want to put an end to the practice and are seeking a refund.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Age: 65
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If only this would succeed... which it won't. The need for transparency the way in which fares are calculated is much needed. The "ryanairisation" of the fare structures, in which ever more obscure elements of the cost are stripped out, is designed to mislead and confuse and ought to be stopped. Just tell us how much it is... how hard can that be?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How is it that a class action suit filed against BA in Canada suddenly becomes Ryanair's fault? Why is everyone so quick to bring Ryanair into every discussion about airworthiness, safety, training, pricing, contracts, transparency etc. etc? Ryanair's ticket price is just that, the price for the ticket. If you want to carry more than hand luggage, you pay, if you want prority seating, you pay, if you want to carry large items of sports equipment, you pay. To say that these 'stripped out' costs are misleading is an oversimplification of the facts, and that is putting it mildly as I don't wish to offend the previous poster.
Most, if not all airlines are now charging for 'extras' even, dare I say it, BA!
Get off your holier than thou horse and get your facts straight before you jump on the 'Let's bring Ryanair into this' bandwaggon.
Most, if not all airlines are now charging for 'extras' even, dare I say it, BA!
Get off your holier than thou horse and get your facts straight before you jump on the 'Let's bring Ryanair into this' bandwaggon.
Several points here.
Firstly it's my recollection that this idea of splitting things out from the fare started when duty free was being done away with in the EU. BA, in particular, was worried this would cause airport revenue to fall and that they would then raise their fees to airlines. This, in turn, would cause the airlines to have to raise their fares. The view was that this would cause back lash against the airlines when (in their view) it should be aimed at the airports. IATA then changed the definition of what had been the "Tax" box on a ticket to become "Taxes/Fees/Charges". Trouble is people still refer to it simply as the "tax box".
YQ (and YR for that matter) were introduced to permit airlines to add their own fees. I don't know what they're being used for in this case but typically airlines have used them for fuel surcharges and/or insurance fees using the argument that such fees go up and down and rather than increasing/decreasing fares it's more transparent to leave the fare alone and implement a surcharge.
The business of stripping out various charges has now moved along even further (baggage charges, pillow charges, reservations fees, ticketing fees, seat fees ........) and some of these are shown using the T/F/C box and others are split out on to a separate document leading to further confusion (if you can show some fees on a separate document, why not all?).
In my view, one of the problems is the continued use of two character codes. If, instead of YQ the document given to the passenger said "Insurance Charge" or even "Additional amount charged by our insurer because of the most recent terrorist outrage" (or similar wording if the airline self insures) things would become clearer.
Firstly it's my recollection that this idea of splitting things out from the fare started when duty free was being done away with in the EU. BA, in particular, was worried this would cause airport revenue to fall and that they would then raise their fees to airlines. This, in turn, would cause the airlines to have to raise their fares. The view was that this would cause back lash against the airlines when (in their view) it should be aimed at the airports. IATA then changed the definition of what had been the "Tax" box on a ticket to become "Taxes/Fees/Charges". Trouble is people still refer to it simply as the "tax box".
YQ (and YR for that matter) were introduced to permit airlines to add their own fees. I don't know what they're being used for in this case but typically airlines have used them for fuel surcharges and/or insurance fees using the argument that such fees go up and down and rather than increasing/decreasing fares it's more transparent to leave the fare alone and implement a surcharge.
The business of stripping out various charges has now moved along even further (baggage charges, pillow charges, reservations fees, ticketing fees, seat fees ........) and some of these are shown using the T/F/C box and others are split out on to a separate document leading to further confusion (if you can show some fees on a separate document, why not all?).
In my view, one of the problems is the continued use of two character codes. If, instead of YQ the document given to the passenger said "Insurance Charge" or even "Additional amount charged by our insurer because of the most recent terrorist outrage" (or similar wording if the airline self insures) things would become clearer.
YQ is indeed the code used to show the fuel surcharge on tickets. BA is by no means the only carrier doing this in Canada - it is custom and practice there to advertise a very low lead-in fare with all sorts of add-ons including taxes and fuel surcharges.
It's much the same on pretty much everything - go into a shop, buy a Coke and the price at the till isn't the price on the shelf edge as they add taxes etc at the till.
Because you can advertise like this, everyone does and until the Canadians legislate in the way that the EU and US have to ensure that at least some common sense prevails, advertised headline prices in Canada will continue to bear no resemblance to what the customer actually pays, whether it's a BA flight or with Air Canada or anyone else for that matter. Perhaps if the Canadians spent some time directing the Ministry of Silly Rules towards putting effective and useful legislation in place (instead of its usual output of useless bureaucractic rubbish) then the problem might go away. But it certainly isn't BA's fault.
It's much the same on pretty much everything - go into a shop, buy a Coke and the price at the till isn't the price on the shelf edge as they add taxes etc at the till.
Because you can advertise like this, everyone does and until the Canadians legislate in the way that the EU and US have to ensure that at least some common sense prevails, advertised headline prices in Canada will continue to bear no resemblance to what the customer actually pays, whether it's a BA flight or with Air Canada or anyone else for that matter. Perhaps if the Canadians spent some time directing the Ministry of Silly Rules towards putting effective and useful legislation in place (instead of its usual output of useless bureaucractic rubbish) then the problem might go away. But it certainly isn't BA's fault.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all, there is a fundamental difference between a "tax" added to a can of coke and a "fee" added to an airline ticket.
Secondly, the problem is that airlines are labeling elements of the fare as "taxes" and "fees" which are, per legal definition in some jurisdictions in which the terminology is used, neither "taxes" nor "fees". As a result, what they are doing is unlawful price advertising and/or price labeling.
Secondly, the problem is that airlines are labeling elements of the fare as "taxes" and "fees" which are, per legal definition in some jurisdictions in which the terminology is used, neither "taxes" nor "fees". As a result, what they are doing is unlawful price advertising and/or price labeling.