Air France Frequence Plus - Air France ripoff

I was booked on Air France from Orly to Biarritz yesterday. My flight from JFK to CDG (on AA) was 3 hours late due to weather. I missed the Air France flight. When I finally got to Orly, Air France had cancelled my entire round trip ticket. I was obliged to purchase a completely new round trip ticket at twice the price of the original one. Either that or take the train. So I bought the ticket, feeling completely ripped-off. What can I do to get some kind of reimbursement for the double billing?

Sounds like your AF ticket was a separate PNR from AA flight?
If so, AF wasn't to know you were coming from CDG on a delayed flight.
You're a no-show to AF by not turning up in time.
It's frustrating. But it's no ripoff. That's the risk you take by purchasing two separate tickets.
Also, AA would do the same to you. With your Platinum status, you might not have to pay so much to get flight(s) reinstated. But it's SOP by airlines to cancel an itinerary if you don't show for the first leg.

Thanks for your reply. Perhaps the problem was with American. When we got off the plane the so-called ground personnel gave us a complete brush off. I tried to ask them (in both French and English) to contact Air France and tell them about the delay, but they claimed they couldn't help us. And we have platinum status, flying on a paid business class ticket.

As said by poster #2, if you were on separate tickets, you get no protection at all in case of delay of the 1st flight. Any "nice gesture" from the 2nd airline is at their entire discretion, and clearly they have no obligation as you have no status in their alliance and were coming on a flight of a competitor alliance.

Thanks for your reply. Perhaps the problem was with American. When we got off the plane the so-called ground personnel gave us a complete brush off. I tried to ask them (in both French and English) to contact Air France and tell them about the delay, but they claimed they couldn't help us. And we have platinum status, flying on a paid business class ticket.

Sorry - but this has nothing to do with AA either. Even if AA had called AF, wouldn't have mattered. AA knew that and was not being unhelpful, just pragmatic.

If you were on a single itinerary, AF would have known that you were misconnecting, not cancelled and would have rebooked you on the next flight w. availability.

Your travel insurance should cover the extra costs under its trip interruption provision.

If the AA delay is the fault of AA, you can claim the damages resulting from this delay according to the Montreal convention. Note that weather and strikes are considered force majeure which relieves AA from compensating damages resulting from delays.

Then, on AF side, you should have invoked force majeure since the delay is not of your fact. Of course you should have planned enough time between both times, which could reasonably be the MCT Minimum Connecting Time between AA in CDG and AF from ORY. The best is then to have 1 hour more than the MCT, that proves you exercises care and attention to make up for usual delays or traffic on the highways. AF would have then issued you an MCO you could have used to buy your new ticket.

AF conditions of transport:

3.3. Force Majeure invoked by a Passenger

If a Passenger possesses a Ticket, as described in Article 3.1 (d) above, which they have not used or have partially used, and if it is impossible for them to travel for reasons of Force Majeure, as defined in Article 1, the Carrier shall issue the Passenger with a credit note corresponding to the Gross Fare for their non-refundable and/or non-modifiable Ticket, which is valid for one year, for a subsequent journey on the Carrier's flights and subject to the applicable Administration Fees, provided that the Passenger informs the Carrier as soon as possible and provides proof of such instance of Force Majeure.


AF definition of force majeure:

"Force Majeure"
means circumstances that are external to the party citing them and who can provide evidence of them, that are abnormal and unpredictable, the consequences of which could not have been avoided despite all the care and attention exercised.

Then, on AF side, you should have invoked force majeure since the delay is not of your fact. Of course you should have planned enough time between both times, which could reasonably be the MCT Minimum Connecting Time between AA in CDG and AF from ORY. The best is then to have 1 hour more than the MCT, that proves you exercises care and attention to make up for usual delays or traffic on the highways. AF would have then issued you an MCO you could have used to buy your new ticket.

AF conditions of transport:

3.3. Force Majeure invoked by a Passenger

If a Passenger possesses a Ticket, as described in Article 3.1 (d) above, which they have not used or have partially used, and if it is impossible for them to travel for reasons of Force Majeure, as defined in Article 1, the Carrier shall issue the Passenger with a credit note corresponding to the Gross Fare for their non-refundable and/or non-modifiable Ticket, which is valid for one year, for a subsequent journey on the Carrier's flights and subject to the applicable Administration Fees, provided that the Passenger informs the Carrier as soon as possible and provides proof of such instance of Force Majeure.


AF definition of force majeure:

"Force Majeure"
means circumstances that are external to the party citing them and who can provide evidence of them, that are abnormal and unpredictable, the consequences of which could not have been avoided despite all the care and attention exercised.

Frankly, I can't see any court validating the force majeure clause if invoked by the OP against AF.

I allowed 4 and a half hours to make the transfer. Minimum connecting time is 3 hours. It's usually more than enough time. As to "force majeure" , it really was but go prove it! I still think its a ripoff, though maybe not technically.

As said before it's not a ripoff.
You cannot blame AF for you not showing up on time!
If you had been more careful you would have purchased an unrestricted ticket and you could have changed the booking at CDG airport before even leaving for ORY
If anyone is responsible here it's either AA or yourself, don't blame AF, who couldn't sell the seat for which you were booked originally and that you did not even care to cancel.

It is an industry rip-off, not specific to an airline. But that is why frequent travelers either make trips on 1 PNR or have good insurance.

AF is obviously not responsible for the situation but they have a force majeure clause that balances the one that exonerates carrier for liability in case of force majeure. Rather fair in my opinion. In this situation:

- either AA is responsible for the delay and should pay for damages (cost of the new ticket).
- either it is a case of force majeure on AA side, so a case of force majeure on your side and AF should credit you the value of the ticket for the purchase of a new one. Since the OP took all reasonable precaution to arrive on time at destination.

No need to go to court usually, information about flight delay at CDG should be easily retrievable at ORY, there is a reasonable margin taken over the MCT => the pax did what he should have reasonably done to travel from NYC to BIQ. It is not normal neither predictable that a flight is 3 hours late, unlike 15-30 minutes delay which is much more likely to happen, force majeure should kick in.

Totally agree that OP is SOL. AF hasn't done anything wrong. AA brought you to your final destination 3 hours late.

I would never do this - if I do have to do 2 separate tickets, I'd go for the same alliance. If you have had flown with DL and interline your bags, then you have a better chance to avoid the full fare ticket IMO.

Frankly, I can't see any court validating the force majeure clause if invoked by the OP against AF.Why? I must say that in had never noticed that clause in the CoC but I cannot see why in principle it could not be invoked here. There can be some discussion on avoidability of the damage if the passenger does not plan for ample time between flights. But if there is enough time, then it seems to me that the clause should kick in.

The gross fare is not likely to be much, though but the OP should be able to get the taxes back separately so the only thing left that would not be recoverable is the YQ. Now, obviously, the credit note will not be of much use to the OP if (s)he does not plan to use AF in the next 12 months unless it can be used for tickets on other carriers that are of use to the OP.

Personally, I would write to CR, explain the force majeure situation, ask for a credit note and see what they say.

I allowed 4 and a half hours to make the transfer. Minimum connecting time is 3 hours.

MCT usually refers to travel all on a single ticket. It also assumes everything runs on time. If everything works to plan, you could perhaps just make a 3-hour connection.

Personally, I wouldn't have even booked separate tickets connecting at CDG with a 4.5 hour gap, let alone having to also try getting from CDG to ORY.

Frankly, I can't see any court validating the force majeure clause if invoked by the OP against AF.

Why?



Doesn't force majeure refer only to circumstances that can not reasonably be expected or anticipated - strike, riot, outbreak of war, terrorist attack, sabotage, etc. The delay of an international/transatlantic/long haul flight is a routine, everyday occurrence that occurs hundreds of times a day and can not be said to be unusual or unexpected when it happens, even if it adversely affects the OPs travel plans.

Personally, I wouldn't have even booked separate tickets connecting at CDG with a 4.5 hour gapFor a DOM connection on a leisure trip? I would without hesitation.

Now if what was at stake was a crucial meeting, job interview, funeral, etc... I might react differently if there were no alternatives in case I miss it.

Similarly, if I was connecting to a very expensive, non-changeable ticket, I would also be more wary.

However, for a connection to an intra-France flight, I would not hesitate for a second if the worst that will happen will be having to buy another plane or train ticket. While last minute tickets are expensive, it is not the end of the world with a domestic ticket. Put another way, I am happy to "self-insure" on these.

I would even do it on a CDG-ORY connection like the OP, although 4.5 is near the limit of what I would consider. But I would be ready to assume the consequences in case things go awry.

Doesn't force majeure refer only to circumstances that can not reasonably be expected or anticipated - strike, riot, outbreak of war, terrorist attack, sabotage, etc. The delay of an international/transatlantic/long haul flight is a routine, everyday occurrence that occurs hundreds of times a day and can not be said to be unusual or unexpected when it happens, even if it adversely affects the OPs travel plans.A 3 hr delay is beyond normal. Let us put it this way: airlines cannot have it one way when they invoke it and another when the pax invokes it. Airlines will routinely claim that delays due to weather or ATC are "extraordinary circumstances" that cannot be foreseen, hence why they do not have to pay Reg 261/2004 compensation when such things happen.
If these events cannot be foreseen by airlines, I struggle to see how one could possibly argue that they are foreseeable by passengers.
That is why I wanted t distinguish between short-term delay and longer delays. It would be unreasonable for a passenger not to put a reasonable amount of padding between flights as some delays are fairly routine. 3 hr delays are NOT routine even thought they happen, in exactly the same way as riots, motorway crash pile-ups, strikes are NOT routine even though they happen.

A 3 hr delay is beyond normal. Let us put it this way: airlines cannot have it one way when they invoke it and another when the pax invokes it. Airlines will routinely claim that delays due to weather or ATC are "extraordinary circumstances" that cannot be foreseen, hence why they do not have to pay Reg 261/2004 compensation when such things happen.
If these events cannot be foreseen by airlines, I struggle to see how one could possibly argue that they are foreseeable by passengers.
That is why I wanted t distinguish between short-term delay and longer delays. It would be unreasonable for a passenger not to put a reasonable amount of padding between flights as some delays are fairly routine. 3 hr delays are NOT routine even thought they happen, in exactly the same way as riots, motorway crash pile-ups, strikes are NOT routine even though they happen.

I would say that planning for a 1.5 hour padding beyond what would have been the MCT, had the OP booked a single ticket, for a connection between ORY and CDG does not strike me as exercising necessary caution. I routinely experience delays over 1 hour due to a suicide, the late ending of planned works or an electrical failure on the RER B, or a traffic jam on the A3/A86.

In any case, it will be up to AF to decide how it addresses the OP's claim and to the courts to review AF's decision, if the OP so chooses.

It is an industry rip-off, not specific to an airline. But that is why frequent travelers either make trips on 1 PNR or have good insurance.
Exactly. Many years ago, I was booked to fly JFK-LHR on DL and LHR-EDI on BA. Left myself four hours in between flights figuring that was plenty of time. The DL flight was cancelled, I was protected on another flight that left me just missing the LHR-EDI flight. BA made me buy another ticket on the next flight. Learned a good lesson and have never bought two separate tickets again.

Doesn't force majeure refer only to circumstances that can not reasonably be expected or anticipated - strike, riot, outbreak of war, terrorist attack, sabotage, etc. The delay of an international/transatlantic/long haul flight is a routine, everyday occurrence that occurs hundreds of times a day and can not be said to be unusual or unexpected when it happens, even if it adversely affects the OPs travel plans.

Yes, but if the operator of the feeder flight (AA in this case) invokes force majeure, then all the pax on that flight should be able to as well. In a way the written statement from AA saying it was a case of force majeure, is the proof he needs for his case against AF.

So either:
- AA invokes force majeure, which should allow the OP to invoke force majeure for his connecting flight.
- AA does not invoke force majeure, which allows the OP to claim damages from AA due to the delay as per Reg 261/2004.

That's all in theory though. In practice one needs quite some luck to make it stick. Or go to court of course.

AA due to the delay as per Reg 261/2004.

EC 261/2004 does not apply to a non-European carrier for flights not departing from the EU.

I would say that planning for a 1.5 hour padding beyond what would have been the MCT, had the OP booked a single ticket, for a connection between ORY and CDG does not strike me as exercising necessary caution. I routinely experience delays over 1 hour due to a suicide, the late ending of planned works or an electrical failure on the RER B, or a traffic jam on the A3/A86.Except that the 3 hr MCT already contains padding in it. Planning on 4.5 hrs for a CDG-ORY connection is hardly hugely generous but not insane either. You'd normally expect to be able to do it in two-ish hours if everything runs normally.

Either way, it was not so much the individual case as such, where there is room for discussion as to whether the passenger displayed enough prudence by only planning for 4.5 hrs between the flights, but the very idea that you could not invoke that clause as a pax for a mis-connect on separate tickets. i cannot see any reason why you should not be able to.

Within the US, most airlines would book you on a later flight for free (due to an unofficial "flat tire" rule). Of course, there are times when all the flights are full for the next three days and other times when you get a nasty airline agent who won't change your ticket.

Outside the US, I'm not sure that I would purchase a separate ticket unless the airlines were in the same alliance or I had travel interruption insurance.

I agree that this is anything but a rip-off. Why should anyone pay for other peoples ignorance (other than insurance companies insuring against these things)? When the ticket with AF was purchased it is stated what happens to the whole itinerary if your're a no-show and it's as simple as that.

A few weeks ago I missed a KL flight from GVA as the train service from where I live to Geneva was suspended (as it had hit a number of cows) and I had allowed for a good few extra hours which then wasn't enough for me to be in on time. Anyway, the airline didn't care why I was late which is fully understandable and I accepted it full out as at the end of the day it is my sole responsibility to be at the airport on time. I had a semi flex ticket so had to pay a little extra to get on a later flight and that was that.

To the OP, this is why you can buy tickets which are flexible with regards to how much flexibility you want (changeable for a fee / without a fee before and/or after departure etc). This is without a question something you MUST do as others have said when flying on separate PNR's. Ergo, it's anything but a rip off as you choose a specific type of ticket...

For a DOM connection on a leisure trip? I would without hesitation.
[...]
However, for a connection to an intra-France flight, I would not hesitate for a second if the worst that will happen will be having to buy another plane or train ticket. While last minute tickets are expensive, it is not the end of the world with a domestic ticket. Put another way, I am happy to "self-insure" on these.

But that's it, intuitively, you would consider it as you taking a risk. To be honest, I find a 4.5 hour on a CDG-ORY transfer borderline: the coach trip between the two airports routinely takes about 1 hour, luggage delivery at CDG can sometimes be excruciatingly slow as can immigration so with bus waiting times, if your planes lands at t0, you could routinely arrive at ORY at t+2, just an hour before your flight or even a bit later than that. If your first flight arrives a couple of hours late, you could easily miss your flight, and these are not such unusual delays on flights ex-US.

The question of force majeure is interesting. I agree it could be tried but am not sure it would work. The reason is that it does not pertain to the same object, i.e. for flights it is a question of whether a flight delay or cancellation could reasonably be expected, for pax invoking force majeure, it is a question of whether it is impossible for a passenger to travel. I might well be over-reading into it, but to me, the phrasing (impossibility to travel, rather than missing departure) suggests that this condition was most certainly created to cover passenger who are effectively not in a position to travel at all (e.g. severely ill in a way that could not be expected at the time when they booked the ticket). Of course, again, it is perfectly possible to try and make the argument in case of an unpredictable missed departure but a judge is likely to exert discretion in many jurisdictions (in this case, it was not 'impossible for the passenger to travel' indeed, he very much was travelling at the time when he was supposed to be checking in!) and assess whether the passenger had really taken every step to avoid the possibility of missing his flight, which I personally do not think he has (he had made 'some effort' to make the connection possible but certainly not every effort - e.g. arriving the day before). Moreover, even in the TOC, passengers for whom it is impossible to travel can only be issued the travel certificate if they inform the airline at the earliest opportunity prior to travel date. In this case, it is irrelevant that the passenger 'asked AA' to inform AF, technically, when they said they would not, to comply with what we assume to be his reading of AF COC if known, he should have informed them himself (phone boxes, internet, etc) when flight delay was first known [text of the paragraph: "provided that the Passenger informs the Carrier as soon as possible prior to the date of the flight and provides proof of such instance of Force Majeure." ]. If I read the OP's statement correctly, he neither informed the airline of his likely missed connection at the earliest opportunity the day before (which would have much strengthened his case), nor even when he arrived at CDG, but only expected for a solution to be found when he arrived at ORY. This, to me, is clearly not the spirit of the CoC.

Finally, as you suggest earlier, even if the OP was offered a travel certificate on the non refundable part of the ticket, this would likely represent a laughable amount. YR is no longer reimbursed, and AF-KL have significantly increased the admin fee they charge to reimburse taxes since May. The OP would probably end up getting a few euros at most.

Anyway, I do take your point that it is perfectly fair game for a passenger to try to use the legal framework of his ticket to try and minimise his financial losses and entirely agree with it. Nevertheless, for what it's worth, I find it ethically wrong to accuse AF of a 'rip off' attitude in this case. Ultimately, Flight 1 was late, pax had planned time between two tickets which should have been perfectly fine in case of an on time first flight but was clearly incompatible with any major delay, and all AF did was close its flight on time and notice that one of the passengers booked on it was a no show and cancel his itinerary. They might not have been very sympathetic once the passenger arrived and explained, but I think we have enough cases of airlines' rip off's not to call this one of them.

ust completed 13,304 mile trip with Air France, but received credit for only 3,326 air miles or 25%. I was not informed of limited mileage when Eticket was purchased. Complaints to Air France and Expedia produced no results.

ust completed 13,304 mile trip with Air France, but received credit for only 3,326 air miles or 25%. I was not informed of limited mileage when Eticket was purchased. Complaints to Air France and Expedia produced no results.

If you purchased a discounted fare, a complaint most likely will not produce any positive results. Right before you purchase a ticket, there is a button that calculates the mileage based on the purchased fare.

But that's it, intuitively, you would consider it as you taking a risk.Connecting on separate tickets is ALWAYS a risk, however much padding you put between flights. The question is having a measure of the risk. Some people say that they would never ever consider that. This is either a rather extreme form of risk-averseness or a miscalculation of the risk. There are times where it is plainly sensible to book separate tickets. Indeed in some cases, you simply do not have the choice at all. Consider inter-modal connections, such as flight followed by boat to reach an island. You will find very few such combined tickets (unless you get it packaged by a tour operator and thereby transfer the misconnection risk to them). COnnections between planes are no different and have exactly the same risk.

The question of force majeure is interesting. I agree it could be tried but am not sure it would work. The reason is that it does not pertain to the same object, i.e. for flights it is a question of whether a flight delay or cancellation could reasonably be expected, for pax invoking force majeure, it is a question of whether it is impossible for a passenger to travel. I might well be over-reading into it, but to me, the phrasing (impossibility to travel, rather than missing departure) suggests that this condition was most certainly created to cover passenger who are effectively not in a position to travel at all (e.g. severely ill in a way that could not be expected at the time when they booked the ticket). Of course, again, it is perfectly possible to try and make the argument in case of an unpredictable missed departure but a judge is likely to exert discretion in many jurisdictions (in this case, it was not 'impossible for the passenger to travel' indeed, he very much was travelling at the time when he was supposed to be checking in!) and assess whether the passenger had really taken every step to avoid the possibility of missing his flight, which I personally do not think he has (he had made 'some effort' to make the connection possible but certainly not every effort - e.g. arriving the day before). [/quote]. It seems to me that you put an excessive onus on the passenger, which is higher than the one you would put on an airline (and bear in mind that this is a consumer contract, whether the expectations are difference from the professional and consumer parties). There is always something more than an airline can do to prevent a delay or cancellation. It could have more standby airplanes and crews. It could station standby planes at out-stations, etc...
So the question is never whether EVERY theoretically possible effort has been made but a factor of reasonableness always comes in. When someone plans a reasonable amount of padding, taking into account delays that can reasonably be expected to occur, it seems to me that this condition is likely to be satisfied. I do agree, though, that it is debatable whether 4.5 hrs between CDG and ORY satisfied that requirement.

Moreover, even in the TOC, passengers for whom it is impossible to travel can only be issued the travel certificate if they inform the airline at the earliest opportunity prior to travel date. In this case, it is irrelevant that the passenger 'asked AA' to inform AF, technically, when they said they would not, to comply with what we assume to be his reading of AF COC if known, he should have informed them himself (phone boxes, internet, etc) when flight delay was first known [text of the paragraph: "provided that the Passenger informs the Carrier as soon as possible prior to the date of the flight and provides proof of such instance of Force Majeure." ]. If I read the OP's statement correctly, he neither informed the airline of his likely missed connection at the earliest opportunity the day before (which would have much strengthened his case), nor even when he arrived at CDG, but only expected for a solution to be found when he arrived at ORY. This, to me, is clearly not the spirit of the CoC.On the day before, it might not yet have been clear that the connection would be missed. On arrival at CDG, if it was already clear that he would miss the connection, yes, he should have spoken to AF. This is certainly what I would have done had I been in the OP's shoes. If there was a vague chance of making it if rushing to Orly in time for the flight, I would have tried my luck. Remember that here too there is a reasonableness dimension.

Nevertheless, for what it's worth, I find it ethically wrong to accuse AF of a 'rip off' attitude in this case.Agreed. To be honest, when I see the phrase "rip off" in the title of a thread/post, I expect to be used inappropriately, an expectation which is confirmed 99% of the time.

If you purchased a discounted fare, a complaint most likely will not produce any positive results. Right before you purchase a ticket, there is a button that calculates the mileage based on the purchased fare.
It sounds like the ticket was purchased via Expedia so there would have been no such button.

That said, the FB rules makes it crystal clear that you should not expect to receive 100% miles on all tickets and that the amount of miles awarded depends on the reservation class. The onus is on the passenger to check in which reservation inventory the ticket is booked to determine how many miles are earned.

The complaint is bound to go absolutely nowhere, imo.

On the day before, it might not yet have been clear that the connection would be missed. On arrival at CDG, if it was already clear that he would miss the connection, yes, he should have spoken to AF. This is certainly what I would have done had I been in the OP's shoes. If there was a vague chance of making it if rushing to Orly in time for the flight, I would have tried my luck. Remember that here too there is a reasonableness dimension.



Fully agree with you on separate tickets connections being both often necessary (or indeed preferable for cost reasons) and always a risk. Also agree with the whole question of force majeure, if attempted, being an interpretation of reasonableness and satifsying the contract conditions. I was not saying anything different, just that it could be worth trying but I wouldn't assume it will necessarily work in this case (and I'm not in the least suggesting reasonableness is not applied in airlines' conditions, the difference is that in that latter case we are starting to get a pretty good sense of what courts tend to consider good enough or not, while in the impossibility to travel case, it's probably harder to anticipate and again, I don't think airlines' cancellations practice is any more relevant than force majeure in the many other contracts where it is mentioned, in fact, it is more likely that travel insurance conditions could be more relevant).

I don't fully agree on the question of contacting the airline though. After all, the contract explicitly says before the travel date, and since AF is not obeying any regulatory obligation to allow the reimbursement (of sorts) of otherwise non-changeable/refundable tickets but just setting a contract clause then I would imagine that if it sets a deadline for the clause to be eligible (before the travel date) then this condition should be acceptable in principle, and it seems to me that to ask for a suspension of that particular condition would always be a risky venture. Indeed, you could manage to convince a judge if it was absolutely impossible to warn on time (e.g If the plane had been delayed by hours on the tarmac without mobile phones use being allowed for instance), but my guess is that if the delay was weather-related then at least the risk of impossibility to be at ORY on time for the plane would make it worth calling AF. As for the CDG situation, wouldn't you say that if the OP considered the situation bad enough to want AA to deal with AF, then it would have been bad enough for him to contact AF directly? Apart from the legal side of things, I do think that the OP would have had a better chance to get some partial or total resolution if he had contacted AF earlier rather than later. On the legal side, I would argue that the obvious lack of attempt by the OP to contact AF at any point before it was too late (regardless of when you set it, surely there was "a" point when op realised flight would be missed) would not satisfy the 'reasonableness' condition you mention if it came to that.

I agree (again) on rip off often being used in 'loose' ways on FT! :)

As for the CDG situation, wouldn't you say that if the OP considered the situation bad enough to want AA to deal with AF, then it would have been bad enough for him to contact AF directly? Apart from the legal side of things, I do think that the OP would have had a better chance to get some partial or total resolution if he had contacted AF earlier rather than later. Agreed. Although, saying that, the experience of my parents at CDG in a similar situation of misconnect between UA and AF albeit on the same ticket rather than separate tickets was not that encouraging: an elderly couple with mobility problems (at least as far as my mother is concerned) arriving at CDG2F after having made their way from CDG1 and missing their connection due to the delay to the UA flight being told by AF that they had to go back to T1 because the delay was not AF's fault but UA's.

Technically, they are right: UA should have sorted it. However, you would have thought that sending an elderly couple back to T1 in such a situation was not the most helpful and customer-friendly gesture to take. They did eventually agree to sort it out, though, after much insistence on the part of my mother (she may have reduced mobility but the determination to insist and get things done is undiminished ;)...)

There's no "best" way to do this. Every fact pattern is different. It all amounts to risk tolerance vs. insurance vs. cost.

OP presumably bought two tickets because it saved him money and he presumably bought discounted tickets with limited/no flexibility because that saved him money too.

Limited or no flexibility is a gamble that something won't go wrong. When it does, you eat the cost. But, how much? If there's an LCC alternative with dirt cheap fares, it's probably worth the risk. If, as ocurred here, the walk-up fares are expensive, it may not be.

This is what insurance companies do. They sell trip interruption insurance and the risk is then split among all pax who buy it. It's dirt cheap, would have clearly paid out here and was likely worth it.

But, OP chose not to spend a little bit extra to save a lot. That's his choice. But, neither carrier screwed up here and both carriers delivered what they promised to deliver.

Agreed. Although, saying that, the experience of my parents at CDG in a similar situation of misconnect between UA and AF albeit on the same ticket rather than separate tickets was not that encouraging: an elderly couple with mobility problems (at least as far as my mother is concerned) arriving at CDG2F after having made their way from CDG1 and missing their connection due to the delay to the UA flight being told by AF that they had to go back to T1 because the delay was not AF's fault but UA's.

Technically, they are right: UA should have sorted it. However, you would have thought that sending an elderly couple back to T1 in such a situation was not the most helpful and customer-friendly gesture to take. They did eventually agree to sort it out, though, after much insistence on the part of my mother (she may have reduced mobility but the determination to insist and get things done is undiminished ;)...)

Sadly, AF ground personnel range from best (who'll get out of their way to be creative, take initiative, and help) to worst (system bureaucrats who just can't be a**ed). I have seen those types on many (possibly all) other airlines but the contrast on AF between the best and worst is particularly striking for some reason. In that case, that the original delay is UA's fault should in no way mean that AF should send your parents back to T1 to sort it out themselves! They have phones and ways of inputing costs to the other airline in the case of a single itinerary. Their whole attitude in that case just sounds like a disgrace and one more anecdote about how common sense should always prevail on an airline's part. Re-OP what I had in mind was that if he had called earlier, at the very least, even if they did not bulge on allowing changes they would at least have protected the return segment (my take on 'partial resolution') despite the first one being missed which would at least have limited the OP's additional expenses.

PS: ah, mothers!! ;)

[QUOTE=edwardmaya;18983531]ust completed 13,304 mile trip with Air France, but received credit for only 3,326 air miles or 25%. I was not informed of limited mileage when Eticket was purchased. Complaints to Air France and Expedia produced no results.



Your complaint is the equivalent of 'I took home insurance, the other day burglars came into my house after I left the door open and the insurance company refused to reimburse me but nobody informed me of the limited cover'. It's all very clear in the FB regulations, has been the case for 3 1/2 years, and your complaint stands no chance of going anywhere.

The original post was about a missing connection on 2 separate AA and AF tickets.

Now, what if you book 2 separate tickets on the same airline (say AF) with a connecting time larger than the Minimum Connecting Time between the arrival of the first flight and the departure of the second flight, and miss the connection due to the 1st flight being late?

In that case, would AF rebook you for free, given that it is their fault you couldn't catch your 2nd plane?

Thank you

No. You book 2 separate tickets, you take your chances.

They might not rebook you for free, but then you can apply Montréal convention and the AF conditions of transport. From what I remember, they are exempted from paying you damages on delay if they took all reasonable provisions to avoid the damage (not the delay). Flight 1 is delayed => it is AF fault. You miss flight 2 and your damage is to buy another AF ticket or pay a change fee => AF could reasonably put you on the next available AF flight "standby" and waive all fees. If they don't, even if flight 1 is delayed because of weather, you can claim them damages as far as I remember. Time between both flights needs to respect minimum connecting times of course. Damages are limited to the amount specified in the Montréal convention.

I'm the OP, and have just had a surprise from Air France. When I purchased the second round-trip ticket the agent never mentioned anything about getting a refund of the tax on the first ticket. I had no idea you were entitled to that. Several days later I happened to call Air France to change the Biarritz-Paris return flight. That nice agent was surprised that the first agent hadn't refunded the tax. She said she would take care of it. I thought Ha Ha! Yesterday I got the refund on my credit card--108 euros for 2 tickets! If I didn't have to change my flight I would never have gotten that refund. So I guess you have to read all the fine print--yet again.

Good point on tax refunds.

Speaking of travel insurance, is it included if the ticket is paid with an AmEx or Chase card? What is the cost in the US and is it worth it? Some posters say it is dirt cheap but the prices I find are about $50 per ticket, which is not worth it compared to the few occurences where I could claim compensation (and the hassle it may be).

Speaking of travel insurance, is it included if the ticket is paid with an AmEx or Chase card? What is the cost in the US and is it worth it? Some posters say it is dirt cheap but the prices I find are about $50 per ticket, which is not worth it compared to the few occurences where I could claim compensation (and the hassle it may be).

I thought most premium credit cards included travel insurance/assistance. The amount of expenses covered would vary, but certainly be enough for a train ticket (which was one of the options available to the OP to complete his trip).