Coronavirus

[Geoffers]

10 hours ago, SFO said:

Nothing surprising that BA is protecting its commercial interests, it’s not a charity. 
 

my flight was cancelled by BA. You had to call them for a refund. I called about 10 times before I finally got through. They agreed a refund, and amazingly, the cash was in my credit card account in three working days.

Also had my flight cancelled by BA, have tried 4 times calling for a refund & have yet to get through, get cut off every time. Apparently you do have 12 months from the date of your flight to claim the refund.

[C8RKH]

Yup - there is no specified "time" within which the airlines have to give you your cash back as all that is stated is a "reasonable time" and no doubt due to Covid19 the airlines would be given some flexibility here by the Regulators and courts. However, you can also as an alternative submit a Section 75 claim to your credit card company (assuming you paid for your flight or over £100 as a deposit for it on your credit card) as the service or product paid for has not been provided. They may say that they will "recliam it from the suppliers bank and if they don't object in 45 days yadda dadda" but that is fluff. You just say well good luck with that, that's your issue not mine as this is a Section 75 refund request and you (the CC company) are liable to refund me regardless of whether you get it back or not.  Obviously don't then also try to get an airline refund as that would be fraud!

 

[andydclements]

I thought the airlines did have a specified time, I cannot recall which but 7 or 14 days.

[PhilW]

I am trying to claim Canadian flights. Should be there now!  According to Simon Calder on GMTV this morning the airlines should repay in cash. I believe he said within 7 days after the flight this morning on TV.

[Chillidoggy]

12 hours ago, SFO said:

Nothing surprising that BA is protecting its commercial interests, it’s not a charity. 
 

my flight was cancelled by BA. You had to call them for a refund. I called about 10 times before I finally got through. They agreed a refund, and amazingly, the cash was in my credit card account in three working days.

It seems none of them are adhering to the letter of the law. I do wonder whether lawyers will be rubbing their hands with glee.
 

[C8RKH]

2 hours ago, andydclements said:

I thought the airlines did have a specified time, I cannot recall which but 7 or 14 days.

No. There is no defined time limit for the cash refund, it is "reasonable timeliness".

1 hour ago, PhilW said:

I believe he said within 7 days after the flight this morning on TV.

There are different options depending on if your flight was cancelled 7 days, 14 days or more before your expected journey. Basically, outside of 14 days before, you can get rerouted, a voucher or a refund, but inside 14 and then 7 days you can claim an ADDITIONAL level of compensation. But there is no time limit specified for how quickly they need to give you a cash refund.

[andydclements]

10 minutes ago, C8RKH said:

No. There is no defined time limit for the cash refund, it is "reasonable timeliness".

There are different options depending on if your flight was cancelled 7 days, 14 days or more before your expected journey. Basically, outside of 14 days before, you can get rerouted, a voucher or a refund, but inside 14 and then 7 days you can claim an ADDITIONAL level of compensation. But there is no time limit specified for how quickly they need to give you a cash refund.

Just checked , it i  7 days.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32004R0261

Article 8

Right to reimbursement or re-routing

1. Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall be offered the choice between:

(a) - reimbursement within seven days, by the means provided for in Article 7(3), of the full cost of the ticket at the price at which it was bought, for the part or parts of the journey not made, and for the part or parts already made if the flight is no longer serving any purpose in relation to the passenger's original travel plan, together with, when relevant,

[C8RKH]

I stand corrected. Thank you. I had missed that provision.

[PhilW]

To be honest I can see me spending hours fighting them. Ive already been offered a voucher that last 24 months.  Ive looked and could use it to get to Jamaica.  Never been there so they could be the stress free alternative.

One point though - If i chose that solution and the airline went under 1 month before a flight to Jamaica in say 16 months time where would I then stand.  Could I claim against the credit card for non supply of goods?

[PaulCP]

Most vouchers will only be for the value of your cancelled flight, not for the flight to be rebooked at some point in the future.

Be careful, of a voucher is for the value of a cancelled flight you will be liable to pay any increase in fare on rebooking which stops your ability to shop around for a cheaper alternative

[eeyoreish]

And the opinions I hear on the news today are that the cost of flights is likely to go up post lockdown as airlines (maybe) have to fly with partially filled aircraft...

[PhilW]

So from a financial point of view probably better to attempt to push for the cash back now.

[LotusLeftLotusRight]

The airlines are awful. It’s like trying to get blood out of a stone. Lufthansa made it impossible for me to amend a flight to Germany either by website or by phone. In the end I just gave up and the flights lapsed a month ago. I can’t even get my hands on the Government taxes everyone is entitled to when a ticket isn’t used. Website’s hopeless: always “technical difficulties”. Similar story with an advance cancellation with an Indian domestic carrier. At least I got confirmation from them that I would get £46 back within 2 weeks. That was back on 11.03.20. I didn’t get the money within 2 weeks. I’ll check my next credit card statement to see if it turned up belatedly. The thing is, it’s a lot of hassle for not much money: say £100 in my case. But if you multiply that by the many thousands of passengers in a similar situation and we’re talking vast sums of cash. At least with BA I got to re-book my long haul flight free of charge. I’m just hoping the flights are back on by then, or else I’ll be going through the same episode all over again.

[Chillidoggy]

I read that if you accept a voucher, you may not have the same protection as the original booking, although quite why, I'm not sure. And we all know how easy refunds are to get right now, don't we?

Something has to happen soon, the Ombudsman must be inundated with complaints.

 

[Sparky]

You'll get a Miscellaneous Charges Order (MCO) for the value of your flight and taxes on the original day of travel, with a validity of 1 year.  I agree that fares may increase, so the MCO is unlikely to cover same flights, same season one year later.  Taxes may also increase.  Possibly better to hold out for cancellation and refund.

[LotusLeftLotusRight]

According to a report published today in all the major media into 17,000 UK CV-19 hospitalisations, 33% of Coronavirus patients admitted to UK hospitals die. That includes general wards. The figure rises to 45% if transferred to Intensive Care. If you then need intubating onto a ventilator, your chance of dying is well over 50%. In fact at the time of publication only 20% of this category of patients had recovered sufficiently to be discharged back home. 27% were still being treated.

These are very sobering statistics. No matter how much ICU capacity we create, it won’t make any difference to over 50% of those admitted.

 

[Mysterae]

 

[mayevora]

[C8RKH]

8 hours ago, LotusLeftLotusRight said:

According to a report published today in all the major media into 17,000 UK CV-19 hospitalisations, 33% of Coronavirus patients admitted to UK hospitals die. That includes general wards. The figure rises to 45% if transferred to Intensive Care. If you then need intubating onto a ventilator, your chance of dying is well over 50%. In fact at the time of publication only 20% of this category of patients had recovered sufficiently to be discharged back home. 27% were still being treated.

These are very sobering statistics. No matter how much ICU capacity we create, it won’t make any difference to over 50% of those admitted.

 

The only statistic I trust is that 100% of the people born will die.

No idea where those stats come from but they don't correlate with what I have heard. The Lancet is probably regarded as reliable and there article here does not support the stats you presented.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30165-X/fulltext

[LotusLeftLotusRight]

Sorry for not providing the links. I needed to get back to my laptop. Here's 3 media reports that carried the story yesterday: left wing, middle and right wing press.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/apr/29/study-finds-a-third-of-uk-covid-19-patients-taken-to-hospital-are-dying

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52473524

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8269427/How-British-coronavirus-patients-admitted-hospital-die-major-study-finds.html

[andydclements]

10 hours ago, LotusLeftLotusRight said:

According to a report published today in all the major media into 17,000 UK CV-19 hospitalisations, 33% of Coronavirus patients admitted to UK hospitals die. That includes general wards. The figure rises to 45% if transferred to Intensive Care. If you then need intubating onto a ventilator, your chance of dying is well over 50%. In fact at the time of publication only 20% of this category of patients had recovered sufficiently to be discharged back home. 27% were still being treated.

These are very sobering statistics. No matter how much ICU capacity we create, it won’t make any difference to over 50% of those admitted.

 

I see where you are coming from, but that's not necessarily the case. If capacity exists then you can relax the overall hospital admittance criteria, which may increase survival for those who would have otherwise been rejected.Similarly, if greater ICU capacity is created (and has been) it means criteria for admittance there can be relaxed and more of those who would otherwise be hospital general population, may survive. Then the next level, more ventilator capacity may mean less decisions over who to intubate and who not, so more of the ICU population have a chance at survival. I'll also just call out that " over 50% of those admitted" seems to be statistically incorrect analysis, your earlier figure contradicts it as 33%.

None of it is a magical cure-all solution, but virtually no medicine is, it's just about improving survival/recovery rates. 

[LotusLeftLotusRight]

Over 50% of ICU admissions, not hospital admissions.

[Chillidoggy]

54 minutes ago, LotusLeftLotusRight said:

Sorry for not providing the links. I needed to get back to my laptop. Here's 3 media reports that carried the story yesterday: left wing, middle and right wing press.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/apr/29/study-finds-a-third-of-uk-covid-19-patients-taken-to-hospital-are-dying

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52473524

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8269427/How-British-coronavirus-patients-admitted-hospital-die-major-study-finds.html

Left wing, left wing and right wing, more like!

[ramjet]

I must admit to being slightly annoyed at the news I am currently watching on the tv where they are reporting how they are going to tell us how we will come out of the lockdown, how travel will restart etc. 

Afraid I’ll listen to the authorities before I listen to a reporter. 

[C8RKH]

1 hour ago, andydclements said:

I see where you are coming from, but that's not necessarily the case. If capacity exists then you can relax the overall hospital admittance criteria, which may increase survival for those who would have otherwise been rejected.Similarly, if greater ICU capacity is created (and has been) it means criteria for admittance there can be relaxed and more of those who would otherwise be hospital general population, may survive. Then the next level, more ventilator capacity may mean less decisions over who to intubate and who not, so more of the ICU population have a chance at survival. I'll also just call out that " over 50% of those admitted" seems to be statistically incorrect analysis, your earlier figure contradicts it as 33%.

None of it is a magical cure-all solution, but virtually no medicine is, it's just about improving survival/recovery rates. 

 

56 minutes ago, LotusLeftLotusRight said:

Over 50% of ICU admissions, not hospital admissions.

See, the problem with stats - Also you said 50% ICU admissions just now but before you quoted a rise to 45% if you are transferred (therefore admitted) to ICU.

I like to stay away from stats and use facts. But even then you  can get facts wrong or make the inference to support your PoV.

Best just to say if you get it, you might live, or you might die. You are more likely to die if you have a knackered respiratory system (heart and lungs) or another long term condition. You are more likely to live if you don't have any of those.

You may, depending on the facts you believe, have a greater chance of living/not getting COVID19 if you gargle and inject yourself with disinfectant. But then again, this may cause additional health issues that may reduce your chance of surviving if you do get COVID19.

Wearing a tinfoil hat will reduce your propensity to get COVID19 from the effects of 5G radio waves. That was a fact someone told me. They also said they had been abducted and impregnated by Aliens. So a pretty sound source as I've seen and met their kids! 

So the problem with statistics is facts, and the problem with facts is statistics. Best just to have a gin. Keep a healthy mental attitude. And don't plan too far ahead any major events.