Thomson 787 extra legroom

[superq7]

Booked holiday to Jamaica with Thomson last March travelling January 2014, to include extra leg-room. When we boarded the plane we were in seats 12H & J with rows in front and behind. We were informed these were extra - space seats (a whole one inch more!) not what we were expecting. Our booking confirmation states extra space seats are next to an emergency exit or bulkhead, that is what we paid for and expected. Our return journey was the same, with many complaints from fellow passengers along the same lines and the stewardesses saying it was the same every flight with people complaining about the seating. Upon returning the Thomson travel agent I booked with agrees with me I booked extra legroom seats but since my original booking in 2012 they introduced extra legroom and extra space, two different types of seating. Despite the travel agent and myself trying to redress the problem with head office the best I have been offered is a 50% refund on the cost of the extra seats despite the fact I have it in black and white I booked seats next to an exit. All I want is the full refund of the cost of my seats credited to my next Thomson holiday booked later in the year. Any ideas on what to do next ?

[Dash8driver1312]

No offence, but "all I want is everything" when you did actually receive a service, and the 50% refund is possibly giving you more back than you would have saved by taking cheaper seats, is simply indication of a money-grabbing everyone-owes-me mentality.
Perhaps if you could demonstrate the difference in cost at the time of booking between regular, extra space, and extra legroom, your position may be more tenable on this forum.

From my side as an aviation insider, I am disgusted that the seats requiring the highest level of maturity and responsibility from passengers should go to those with the most open wallets. I do recommend you check the small print. Words like "subject to last minute changes" do come up a lot in such text.

[Gibon2]

I dunno Dash8, I'm not sure I'd be so quick to put this in the "money-grabbing-mentality" category. It looks pretty simple to me: superq7 paid for a particular clearly-specified product; that product was not provided. He/she should therefore be refunded the full cost of the specified product.

If the airline wants to offer a different, lesser product as a substitute, the pax should be given the option (before travel starts, or at least before boarding) to accept it (and pay) or decline (and pay nothing). Only the pax can decide if the lesser product represents value for money and is something they wish to pay for - the airline cannot just presume that because the pax was willing to pay X for bulkhead seat they are willing to pay 50% of X for an "extra space" seat.

I don't know how superq7 paid for the ticket, but if it was by credit card, I would lodge a payment dispute with the card provider, as the product paid for has demonstrably not been delivered.

[Hotel Tango]

:= So Dash8, you pay for a clearly advertised product and you're suggesting that you wouldn't be miffed if you didn't get it and got no refund? What a joker you are. I had slightly similar situation with Cyprus Airways some years ago. They advertised their superdooper Business Class seats on their BRU-LCA-BRU service. BRU-LCA was as advertised. On the return sector I got a leased a/c from their sister charter company which had standard economy seats, albeit with the middle seat unoccupied. I complained that they did not provide what they advertised. After several exchanges (and lots of BS on their part) they relented and accepted my argument. The point was that I entered into a contract based on what was clearly and unambigously advertised. If, for whatever reason on the day, the airline can't offer the promised product they should refund accordingly.

Forgive us, Dash8, if we simply just want to have what we paid for! :*

[TFlyguy]

From the Thomson website:

Enjoy a little more room onboard
May be next to an exit or by a bulkhead
Limited availability - book now!

Note the bit that says "may be"

On the 787,those seats have 36 inch legroom,the rest of the cabin has 33 or 34 inch legroom.

Personally, I would prefer these seats to a bulkhead seat as you can stretch your legs under the seat in front of you.

Sorry you weren't happy but,to me,it seems you had what you paid for

[spannersatcx]

May be next to an exit or by a bulkhead

which means, to me, they may be next to an emergency exit OR next to a bulkhead, not elsewhere?

[Gibon2]

TFlyguy, that's what the Thomson website says now - what matters is what it said when the OP booked his/her ticket. The OP claims:

Our booking confirmation states extra space seats are next to an emergency exit or bulkhead

If it does indeed state that, then there's really no argument here: Thomson did not provide the product that was paid for. So they should refund in full.

[ExXB]

Regulation 261/2004 provides for a 75% refund of the fare paid in case of involuntary downgrading. No exceptions, no extraordinary circumstance defence.

While this may not be exactly what happened but it certainly a starting point for superq7's negotiations. Why not remind Thompson of their obligations under EU regulation. If they demure contact the UK's National Enforcement Body, the CAA, and ask for their views. I doubt they would be sympathetic over an airline promising something, and not delivering it.

Thompson, stop lying to your customers. It comes back to bite you.

[rog747]

exxb downgrading as you refer means 'class of travel booked'

ie W downgrade to Y
C downgrade to W

does not apply to optional extras - the OP was not booked afaik in the Thomson premium seating which would likley carry a C or W

all he did was pay for extra leg room in Y

standard seating TOM l/haul is 33'' if he got 34'' i would say they is taking the p***

and he deserves his money back in full- just keep badgering Thomson and tell your credit card company and ask for a full refund back to your card of those charges - by reason of not fit for purpose - found out whether row 12 is designated premium seating and what seat pitch it has

if nothing else works advise Thomson with small claims court lines

[ExXB]

rog747 - I did say that s/he may not have actually experienced a downgrading, but should use the Regulations provisions as a starting point for negotiations.

How do you think a regulator would interpret being given a seat of a lower 'quality' than the one booked, and promised in writing? I don't know but if I was Thompson I don't think I'd want to find out.

The text of the regulation provides:

2. If an operating air carrier places a passenger in a class lower than that for which the ticket was purchased, it shall within seven days, by the means provided for in Article 7(3), reimburse
(a) 30 % of the price of the ticket for all flights of 1500 kilometres or less, or
(b) 50 % of the price of the ticket for all intra-Community flights of more than 1500 kilometres, except flights between the European territory of the Member States and the French overseas departments, and for all other flights between 1500 and 3500 kilometres, or
(c) 75 % of the price of the ticket for all flights not falling under (a) or (b), including flights between the European territory of the Member States and the French overseas departments.

So, if I was superq7 I would say to Thompson, "You know Regulation 261/2004 requires you to reimburse me 75% of the price of the ticket but seeing as I'm such a nice guy I'll accept the better seat surcharge as a credit towards future travel." If they refused to consider my reasonable claim I'd get the CAA involved.

[superq7]

After a lot of dialogue with First Choice and their refusal to accept that they were at fault for not providing the service that we booked and payed for I've reluctantly been forced to accept their offer of an £80 cash refund which equates to half of the cost of the extra legroom seats.

If it wasn't for their near monopoly I wouldn't use them again, Stuart.

[crewmeal]

It seems to me that travel agents and ground staff need to be educated on the product in the first place instead of relying on glossy pictures from a brochure. In this case it may have been difficult as the aircraft hadn't even arrived in the UK when the booking was made.

Definitions on seat pitch and extra room have always been a 'bone on contention' especially these days when operators charge for it.

[lexoncd]

Rather than quote eu 261 which really applies to flight only arrangements the better option would be to use the package tour regulations where you have two or more elements.. ie a package.

A letter along the lines of "The only reason etc" normally gets the attention of someone intelligent enough to recognize they are right to settle quickly and without fuss.

I was involved in an industry submission on the subject many moons ago now and whilst I do believe we shouldn't be rushing to find the slightest fault as a cause of financial celebration I do believe in people getting what the contracted to get..If it says 2 inches but was only 1 it matters not that it wasnt quite as good the simple fact is they failed to inform you.