orbitmic

As brunos says this has been discussed as nauseam and it will be easy for the op to trace the full debate if required and decide for herself how she feels about it. Irishguy28 has provided very clear reference as to where the "cautious" side I'm part of starts from.

ok986

I'm in a situation comparable to the OP, just that my ticket was booked with Eco restricted for the outbound leg (class V) and Eco fully flexible for inbound (class B) and now I need to cancel the return leg (change of travel plans).

Am I likely to have any problems with KLM because of that? Can I expect even a refund for the return leg?

Thanks!

orbitmic

Basically, no. The difficulty in your case is that usually in the case of tickets mixing booking classes the fare conditions of the most restrictive class is applied in which case you would be entitled no refund at all. However it is possible Klm might accept to recalculate your fare on the basis of a fully flex single (ie technically let you upgrade the full ticket to B and then cancel return part) which would allow you some minimal refund (more or less half the V fare). This is the best you can hope for and certainly not guaranteed.

carnarvon

This has been indeed discussed at length here, but with due respect, can you document this statement?

For example : a court ruling (I would sue any airline wanting to charge me for not using a service I have paid for; and sure others would do the same and courts would have said who is right and who is wrong ), a letter from an airline, an invoice, anything in writing other than rumours on the Net that "some" airlines have "fined" a passenger that did not fly the return leg of a ticket he bought.

Thank you.

irishguy28

A court in Austria issued rulings just a few months ago that went against both Austrian Airlines and Deutsche Lufthansa AG, saying that such clauses (requiring additional payment when the flight coupons were not flown in full and in order) were unlawful.

(Which implies that at least Lufthansa and/or Austrian have been known, in the past, to exercise these clauses in Austria).


This is perhaps now why Lufthansa gives you an option to pay more to use the flight coupons "in any order" - though whether they do this for sales in Austria, or not, I can't say:



If one chooses not to accept the ability to use the coupons out of sequence, you are left in no doubt as to what may happen (though the wording "fare will be recalculated" implies more than just "may") if you do not use all the coupons in sequence:



By making it clear what the consequences are, and giving the passenger the option to purchase the flexibility, they can now argue that it is no longer "unexpected" should they come back and fine the passenger.

carnarvon

Hi Irishguy,

Interesting ruling, BUT does it apply to our conversation here?

All airlines have been known to cancel/reprice tickets if one would skip one of the coupons other than the last one.

What I am asking for is a proof that ONE airline has ever dared trying to get money from a customer that bought a return ticket and did not fly the return leg.

irishguy28

The ruling, and the clauses, and the entire discussion in this thread covers that aspect.

It is not just that the tickets must be used in the correct order - they must ALL be used.

It is FAR more common that people buy returns rather than one ways, and then throw away some or all of the return, rather than the instance you refer to (skipping an early sector and then try/expect/beg to be allowed to fly the rest of the ticket).

carnarvon

This is indeed the rule.

However, the question remains : has ANY airline EVER tried to get money from a customer that did not fly the return leg of a return ticket?

If so, can anyone document this?

brunos

Try to do a search and you will find that several airlines have.
This has been discussed extensively on many forums.
LH has done it and a court ruling in Germany specifically stated how the ticket should be repriced. BA does it regularly for tickets issued by TAs. They just issue a repricing debit to the TA. Unless, the TA is willing to stop dealing with BA, it has to pay. Of course, the TA is then free not to charge the client for it . BA is also known to have canceled the BAEC accounts of repeat offenders.
SQ has done it in the past, but got a lot of negative pres coverage. If you search, you can also find discussion on this topic for US airlines.

irishguy28

This is precisely the reason that the Austrian Verein für Konsumenteninformation brought the case against AUA/Lufthansa:

"Although the customer had already paid for both flights, they would be required to pay for a more expensive one-way ticket for the outbound flight if the return flight was skipped".

If you require the actual names of passengers, and the dates and routes of the flights, and the amounts involved, I'm afraid I can't provide you those precise details. But I don't think the VKI would have brought a case unless it had been contacted by at least one passenger who had found themselves penalised for the stated reason.

ok986

Can you provide advice where to look for this in KLM's Conditions of Carriage? I read the English version back and forth and couldn't find it.

Also, it wouldn't make sense to allow customers to buy tickets with widely differing conditions and then make them to stick to the most restrictive one.

NickB

AFAIK, this not 100% accurate. The issue with LH was in relation to using coupons out of sequence/missing a segment in the middle. I am not aware of any case in which LH would have sought to recover a fare from a passenger for failing to fly the last leg ore return half of the itinerary.

carnarvon

Nah ja, aber....

I read the article and do not see that LH actually tried to reprice the ticket because the return leg was left unused.

What I read is a ruling against the T&C of the tickets (comparing them to ordering a menu and having to pay extra for skipping the soup; in the case of our conversation it would be better to say the desert, since we are talking of the last leg of the ticket).

Do you know if the dispute was about the T&C in general or an ACTUAL attempt of the airline to reprice because the last leg was left unused?

carnarvon

Sorry Brunos, but I cannot agree with you (even though I often do ).

It is the one who says "this happened many times" to show the material that supports the claim; not the opposite.

For the sake of pleasing you, what if my answer were:

"Thanks Bruno; I searched and could not find anything other than "he said, I heard, I know that etc" kind of information about airlines repricing a return ticket because the return leg was left unused. Everything I found was about multiple segment tickets with one or more coupons unused"? Can you direct me to the source of information with actual cases?"

Court cases are public, so if an airline tried to do that, sure someone must have sued them.... (I would).

Often1

OP's question relates to whether anyone has knowledge of this carrier pursuing a pax for the add/collect when the last segment is not flown.

All of the above is easy enough for the carrier when there are segments remaining because the carrier simply cancels them, forcing the pax to buy a new ticket. But, when you skip the final segment, the question is whether the carrier could:

1. Sue for the difference
2. Issue a debit to the CC used (pursuant to the standard CC agreement)
3. Issue a debit to the TA if a TA, leaving it to the TA to collect from his customer.

#3 is the most likely because it's really hard for a TA to tell the next customer that he can't book on a given carrier because the TA owes them money. It's also not the kind of collection dispute which would make it into the media (TA sues customer) or be reported by any court anywhere.

So, the question of the day is, does anyone know of an attempt by KL to collect on a final segment missed?