I assume that the number(s) to which you aluded to are 01509 686690/89. These are the only alternatives we have for BMI Baby so there is none to replace them with.

If a suitable replacement was to be provided, then maybe they will be removed and that new number put in their place.

idb wrote on Feb 11^th, 2011 at 12:15pm:

And of course, the sheer fact that you're posting about people ringing the number listed here is because they object to be ripped off with premium phone numbers. Referring callers back to the 08 number merely gets our backs up.

So please provide us with a geographic or 03 (or freephone) number alternative to the premium ones operated by bmibaby.

I read the original posting as providing useful information about the status of the published "alternative" number, i.e. asserting that it was not a usable alternative. This could be fairly read as implying that there is no suitable alternative offered.


The following posting has been addressed to me in another thread.

loddon wrote on Feb 11^th, 2011 at 11:06pm:

I have responded with reference to Ofcom and its consultation in the appropriate thread.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 12:59am:


I understand the purpose of a "low cost" airline as being to eliminate overhead costs and extras, so as to keep the basic ticket price as low as possible. This necessitates charging for services the cost of which might have been expected to be covered by the ticket price. (The fact that "regular cost" airlines also use NGCS numbers could mean that bmibaby does not even need to use this argument in defence of its decision to use 090 and 0844 numbers.)

That does not excuse misrepresentation of prices and in the present environment it is virtually impossible to give a clear indication of the cost of calling a NGCS number. All that users can do is to indicate the premium which they charge (essentially the BT rate in the case of PRS and 0844 numbers) and leave it to callers to find out how much their provider adds.

Before berating bmibaby for having failed to make a further contributing to the discussion, it would probably be courteous to approach it by letter (or email) asking for suitable alternative numbers and whatever explanation of the present situation is deemed appropriate. I do not think it fair to forum members to assume that participation in, or initiating, a thread implies a willingness to fully and promptly respond to every point made by other contributors. Some would go even further in this improper assumption by suggesting that anyone who posts in this allegedly "open" forum should not only respond to points addressed at them, but is also obliged to comply with every request made. Use of the word "audacity" implies that some see this forum as anything but open, i.e. restricted to those who hold certain opinions and wish only to engage in support of each other's views, rather than open discussion.


We may disagree over whether it will ever be possible for the cost of calling NGCS numbers to be sufficiently clear for their use to be tolerable in a free economy. I would argue strongly that bmibaby should be now declaring the cost of calling its 0844 number as "5p per minute, plus whatever is added by your own telephone service provider".

I am however seriously concerned that SayNoTo0870 is content to continue to publish an "alternative" number which is said to be unsuitable, without even adding a comment to the effect that this is what bmibaby has asserted.

idb wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 2:46am:

If there is a problem with customers contacting airlines from overseas by telephone because they fail to provide accessible numbers, this is (whatever we may wish) not Ofcom's responsibility. Ofcom is failing to fulfil quite enough of the duties which it does hold, and already tries to extend its role too far. I do not believe that there is any purpose in trying to persuade it to take on cases in the interests of consumers of the airline industry.

The only proper role for Ofcom in this matter would be to encourage more countries and providers to enable calls to +44 8 numbers. If it is failing to do so, then that is a valid basis for criticism of Ofcom.


idb wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 2:46am:


If the approach of bmibaby and TfL is simply as suggested, then why are we engaging with them? Do we enjoy wasting our time, or perhaps just get a kick out of complaining for no useful purpose?

I am heavily focussed on trying to get Ofcom to do the job that it is required to do, by statute - all of it and no more. That requires it to specifically serve the interests of all users of communications services, including airlines and public bodies. It also, and separately, has a duty to citizens in general with reference to communications matters. The latter is commonly forgotten, neglected or misunderstood, as Ofcom focuses too much on its role as a regulator with very specific regulatory powers. These powers certainly do not include any capability to compel an airline to provide any particular form of telephone access for specific purposes.

Whether we like it or not, Ofcom sees a justifiable benefit in use of telephone numbers that generate subsidy or income for the person called. It concludes, quite rightly in my opinion, that the problem is with the visibility of the charges. If one could argue that there is no way that this problem could ever be satisfactorily overcome, then one could oppose its proposal that use of NGCS may continue.

There is no question that the present situation is utterly unacceptable. Given Ofcom's conclusion, there is little point in trying to use particular current issues such as the absence of a full overseas access number for some companies, the impropriety of the use of a particular number for a particular purpose or the "character" of a company as the basis for saying that all NGCS should be ceased. Specific remedies have been proposed; constructive engagement with the issues has to be with reference to them, if addressing the role of Ofcom.

That is not to say that one has to be constructive.

I also believe that there is nothing that Ofcom or anyone else can do to stop companies treating customers with contempt. If that is how they think, then no change in some relatively petty regulation about telephone numbers will make any significant difference. We have Halls of Shame and Fame in the forum; please do not anyone try to tell me that it is the underlying philosophy of a company that determines where it sits.

idb wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 2:46am:

The cat is known for its ability to adapt to situations and find the best way forward. It is generally untroubled by considerations of who is good and who is bad; it is a pragmatist.

Although not drawn to them as companions, I do have a respect for cats.

idb wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 2:07pm:
The regulator with responsibility for the way in which bmibaby provides and charges for its services is the CAA.

I make this point more generally as I replicate relevant comments and respond in the Ofcom consultation: ... thread.

CJT-80 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 7:40pm:

bmibaby itself selects the number. Ofcom makes the numbers available and regulates the industry which determines the charges for calling them.

The CAA:

Quote:

I feel confident in suggesting that it is the CAA rather than Ofcom which would have the duty to regulate on the matter of whether bmibaby must fund its customer services operations through receipts from ticket prices, rather than premium charges on telephone callers.

It is not unlikely that the CAA would say that this is a matter which it leaves to the market. The question about the availability of telephone access from overseas is perhaps more likely to engage the CAA.


Ofcom could of course deny bmibaby, and everyone else, the opportunity to use numbers that provide subsidy at the expense of callers. Some would argue that it should set a minimum level for such charges, so as to eliminate current abuses with the lower rate ranges. It is currently advancing proposals intended to enable the various market mechanisms to work more effectively.

idb wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 12:09am:

Indeed so.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 8:28pm:

The questions posed are: firstly, whether the comments relate to bmibaby's use of both 0905 and 0844 numbers, or only the latter?

Secondly, are there, or rather could there be, any uses of the mechanism that is suggested for removal that do not amount to improper exploitation?
(all business is exploitation of demand to generate profit,  to some degree).

Ofcom has determined that it is in the widest public interest for these mechanisms not to be removed. It proposes changes to deliver greater transparency, thereby diminishing the potential for improper exploitation. If someone is prepared to knowingly pay at least 66.381p a minute plus a call setup fee of 11.5p (not 65p a minute) to contact an airline call centre by telephone, or someone else is prepared to knowingly charge less than £15 for an international flight, then it is hard to know what a regulator may do about either, no matter how unreasonable they may be. If one supports a competitive market, then situations like this must be allowed to arise so that the market can find its proper level.

bmibaby explicitly warns callers that call charges other than the BT rates quoted "will be considerably more" and offers a specific contact point for complaints about the cost of calling. This tends to suggest that it does not seek to conceal what it is doing, nor be unprepared to receive criticism. I am therefore inclined to wonder if bmibaby is not seeking to exploit its customers to earn extra revenue, as is alleged. It is perhaps actually seeking to minimise the cost it incurs in handling telephone contact. This is achieved partly by subsidy, but also by discouraging calls.


There are very strong arguments for wishing to see the end of "low-cost" airlines, for a variety of reasons. Whilst removal of the mechanism to provide subsidy through telephone calls would damage the business model, forcing up ticket prices (if telephone contact was retained), I do not believe that such damage would be fatal.

There are indeed many ways in which NGCS are abused. The same argument may of course be applied to many other aspects of life - "the telephone" in total could be seen as such a case. The potential for abuse is not, of itself, a sufficient argument to justify abolition. A wider view should be taken before implementing radical changes to the status quo.