Miles & More (Lufthansa, Austrian, Swiss, and other partners) - New court decision concerning using only back portion of ticket

There is a new court decision of a german court against LH, saying that LH may not refuse passengers to fly the back portion of their ticket, regardless of the use of the first part of the ticket.
It is only a decision of a "Amtsgericht" (AG Erding, decision dated 27.3.07, Az.: 4 C 129/07), so Lufthansa will probably not change their behaviour.

The decision concerns a flight MUC-FLR-MUC. The reason for the decision is that the court thinks that the passenger bought the seat, also on the flight FLR-MUC. If the airline refuses to transport him, they gain an economical advantage as they can sell the seat once more, although somebody has already paid for it. Also the passenger has an unacceptable disadvantage, as he is forced to buy a new ticket, although he has already done so before.

Unfortunately most likely LH will accept the decision in order to avoid a decision by a higher court, which would probably decide the same way.

Here you can find the german text: http://www.fliegen-sparen.de/cms/news/meldungen/2007_04_20_84292247_meldung.php

There is a new court decision of a german court against LH, saying that LH may not refuse passengers to fly the back portion of their ticket, regardless of the use of the first part of the ticket.
It is only a decision of a "Amtsgericht" (AG Erding, decision dated 27.3.07, Az.: 4 C 129/07), so Lufthansa will probably not change their behaviour.

The decision concerns a flight MUC-FLR-MUC. The reason for the decision is that the court thinks that the passenger bought the seat, also on the flight FLR-MUC. If the airline refuses to transport him, they gain an economical advantage as they can sell the seat once more, although somebody has already paid for it. Also the passenger has an unacceptable disadvantage, as he is forced to buy a new ticket, although he has already done so before.

Unfortunately most likely LH will accept the decision in order to avoid a decision by a higher court, which would probably decide the same way.

Here you can find the german text: http://www.fliegen-sparen.de/cms/news/meldungen/2007_04_20_84292247_meldung.php


Can you explain more about what an Amtsgericht is? and why this won't make them change their policies?

An "Amtsgericht" is a small claims court and quite a bit of their decisions are not even appealable. A verdict of a German court is in general not binding for another court and other courts will in general not be very much impressed by an Amtsgericht's verdict.

Based on what I have seen, the verdict is based on the German rules on general terms and conditions and it says that the said GTCs (TOS) of Lufty are not acceptable.

My humble opinion:

The verdict is fully correct
LH will not change its opinion
The case has nothing in common with Ex-Cairo tickets and skipping the first cupon.

My understanding of the whole thing is that the ticketing system used by most traditional/legacy/flag carriers in becoming quickly obsolete. The pressure of point to point airlines is probably going to eventually force a change, and finally one way tickets will become cheaper, too. Open skies might play a role in this... as some airlines might want to become more competitive over the Atlantic by offering convenient one way trips. Many airlines do that already: I've been monitoring prices for a while now. Singapore often offers excellent one way fares JFK to FRA even the day before the flight (around $425). Aer Lingus and LTU do the same at around $480-700. And Virgin is on the same page on one way flights from the US to LHR ($380 from JFK, 500 from ORD and so on). Not to mention LOT, which sometimes play the game. The pressure is on.

My understanding of the whole thing is that the ticketing system used by most traditional/legacy/flag carriers in becoming quickly obsolete. The pressure of point to point airlines is probably going to eventually force a change, and finally one way tickets will become cheaper, too. Open skies might play a role in this... as some airlines might want to become more competitive over the Atlantic by offering convenient one way trips. Many airlines do that already: I've been monitoring prices for a while now. Singapore often offers excellent one way fares JFK to FRA even the day before the flight (around $425). Aer Lingus and LTU do the same at around $480-700. And Virgin is on the same page on one way flights from the US to LHR ($380 from JFK, 500 from ORD and so on). Not to mention LOT, which sometimes play the game. The pressure is on.

I fully agree. Even today, Lufty offers E class one ways in Germany for a fare price (about) of a return but without the taxes for the return flight. So it is not a problem at all to get eg a 60 Euro oneway for TXL - DUD in Germany. I was surprised that they even sell routings like DUS-BCN-MUC in E or W Class. On the domestic and european market Air Berlin puts quite a bit of pressure on them.

Yes, and London is already very bookable as one way. Air Transat from YYZ at $300. Not to mention EOS, Maxjet and all those all business class airlines. And within Europe even BA offers lots of one ways. It's just a matter of time, and the clock is ticking.

.....

My humble opinion:

The verdict is fully correct
LH will not change its opinion
The case has nothing in common with Ex-Cairo tickets and skipping the first cupon.

Why you always pronounce that ex XXX has nothing to to with that cases ?
In general that's the same thing ! Only that we here not have only 2 segments ( where one is not flown ), There you have some more segments and the pax has not flown one or more. But the legal framework is more or less the same. Customer pays for something, and don`t use part of it.
I know you see it otherwise, your argument is, that this are special market fares.
How do you see it if someone books an ex TIP to SYD rt. for around 2200 Euro in F, and only use the rturn portion of that.? This should at least be the same as a simple FRA-PAR-FRA, where one only use the return.

Why you always pronounce that ex XXX has nothing to to with that cases ?

I knew this would come and my remark was especially meant for you:p

Saying the framework is the same is by far too easy. You forget that all of this is about general terms and conditions and the one and only issue is whether or not these T&C worded clearly in favour of the airlines' positions constitute an "inadequate disadvantage" for the customer. This leaves quite a bit of discretion for the judge in his/her verdict and allows to evaluate all circumstances and to ask the decisive question, who is the "crook".

1) The the cases we see, German customers are buying a ticket in Germany ex Germany and skip the outbound flight and want to use just the return flight back to Germany. These guys just wanted to get home and there is no sign at all that they missused the system. Easy to say that this an "inadequate disadvantage".

2.) Prima facie your example TIP - SYD - TIP is similar. It even might be, that a German court (however it should become competent) rules in favour of somebody from TIP skipping the outbound flight and stranded in Oz for his/her return to the middle east. But I really want to see your argument in court for the following situation: "A travel agent from Germany with a ticket issued in TIP and ex TIP (but fedexed from TIP to FRA) does not use the outbound flight and appears in Oz with the return portion of the ticket and wants to check-in to TIP (but requests the luggage to go to FRA only). The airline refuses to accept the ticket based on the T&C" It is up to YOU to explain and to make evidence that this is an "inadequate disadvantage" and you never intended you missuse the system. Hard work to do.

3.) Your example TIP - FRA - SYD - FRA - TIP and skipping the first segment is something totally different. In this case, you do not buy a flight from TIP to FRA and another flight from FRA to SYD (does no exist anyway) but a flight from TIP to SYD via Frankfurt. I am somehow confident that a court will accept that TIP and FRA are different markets and different products and will not accept this game by rendering a verdict that this is an "inadequate disadvantage" for the customer. Though, a court might see it different if the ticket was bought in TIP by somebody based in TIP and this guy took the boat or the camel to get from TIP to FRA.

What you, Bertheike, are not willing to accept is the fact that there is not a generally valid definition of "inadequate disadvantage" when judging on general T&Cs. The T&Cs of the airlines are clear and you simply are not allowed to use cupons out of the sequence. Period.

The only and decisive question is, whether or not the T&Cs are applicable in a certain contract or not. Though, you always have to ask whether it is a "inadequate disadvantage" for the relevant contract and situation. And the results can be as distinct as situations are.

Cheers
Thomas

What a great place to get a good legal opinion free of charge !

I think we should focus more on the ex Germany tickets and not so much on the ex-TIP tickets. This is probably only really interesting for people who have received huge bills from an airline for these dodgy tickets.;)

If you really want to go ex-TIP I would suggest to:
a.) get the necessary transit visa
b.) get to TIP somehow
c.) buy a ticket on ticket stock with an airline that will actually let you board in TIP
d.) make sure to include an open segment back to TIP so that HIP does not apply

Happy hunting ! :D

I knew this would come and my remark was especially meant for you


My compliments, you know how to make me happy :p



What you, Bertheike, are not willing to accept is the fact that there is not a generally valid definition of "inadequate disadvantage" when judging on general T&Cs. The T&Cs of the airlines are clear and you simply are not allowed to use cupons out of the sequence. Period.

The only and decisive question is, whether or not the T&Cs are applicable in a certain contract or not. Though, you always have to ask whether it is a "inadequate disadvantage" for the relevant contract and situation. And the results can be as distinct as situations are.

Cheers
Thomas

The last passus of your posting is the most important one !
The only and decisive question is, whether or not the T&Cs are applicable in a certain contract or not
This I have to find out, and the only way to do so, is going to court !
And the results can be as distinct as situations are.
If that would not be, we would not need any lawyers, because everything would be clear and easy.

1) The the cases we see, German customers are buying a ticket in Germany ex Germany and skip the outbound flight and want to use just the return flight back to Germany. These guys just wanted to get home and there is no sign at all that they missused the system. Easy to say that this an "inadequate disadvantage".
What is a missuse of the system ?
you assumed that the guy just skiped the outbound to get home.
what is , if he bought the ticket with the intention not to fly outbound, but he did so because the rt. ex Germany was much cheaper than the ow. ex France.
In one of the other " Amtgerichturteile" the district court judge argued, that it is one of the passangers rights to search for the " cheapest " offer which suits him, and if it is cheaper to buy a return ticket, the customor is not forced to use all of the achievements he payed for !

What is a missuse of the system ?

This is exactly the issue behind the scenes. The structure is easy:

- you accepted the TOS
- you do not live up to the TOS
- you argue that the result of the TOS is a "inadequate disadvantage".
- you have to make evidence of this
- and you will have problems if the case "stinks"
- and a case stinks if your routings or sitations are "too creative".
- and to creative routings may easily be understood as a missure....

Cheers
Thomas

This is exactly the issue behind the scenes. The structure is easy:

- you accepted the TOS
- you do not live up to the TOS
- you argue that the result of the TOS is a "inadequate disadvantage".
- you have to make evidence of this
- and you will have problems if the case "stinks"
- and a case stinks if your routings or sitations are "too creative".
- and to creative routings may easily be understood as a missure....

Cheers

All of this is correct, but it does not touch the real point in my opinion. The real point is if it is OK for an airline to sell a flight A-B and B-A (or B-C) and then only let you fly B-A (or B-C) if you have flown A-B. (And I want to explicitly exclude the situation where the airline sells A-B via X and the customer wants to fly X-B only -- that's something different in my book.).

In my opinion that's the equivalent of you ordering a menu in a restaurant and the waiter refusing to serve the second course if you don't eat the soup the soup. I think the restaurant can make up T&Cs as much as they want, they wouldn't get far in court.

HTB.

This is exactly the issue behind the scenes. The structure is easy:

- you accepted the TOS
- you do not live up to the TOS
- you argue that the result of the TOS is a "inadequate disadvantage".
- you have to make evidence of this
- and you will have problems if the case "stinks"
- and a case stinks if your routings or sitations are "too creative".
- and to creative routings may easily be understood as a missure....

Cheers
Thomas

I can not have accepted any TOS, which I have never seen bevore !
And now a question to you : Have you ever seen a TOS, when you buy a Ticket from an Travelagent, ( specially if it is a YY fare )?
The only thing I remember is, if I buy a LH fare here in Germany, I get a special LH ticket cover, sometimes stickered with a lable " you are traveling under special restrictions" and this ticketcover contains parts of the TOS.
BUT I NEVER SPOKE ABOUT SUCH TICKETS !!!
The YY fare tickets came in a IATA cover, contain one site conditions of contract ( only in english ), and there I can not find one word about using all segments .......

In my opinion that's the equivalent of you ordering a menu in a restaurant and the waiter refusing to serve the second course if you don't eat the soup the soup. I think the restaurant can make up T&Cs as much as they want, they wouldn't get far in court.

That is what my mum always said: You will not get your pudding if you don't eat your main course. And I did not go to court. I stop joking, we can discuss as long as we want. You have to go to court or to the EU commission or whatever otherwise you will not get Lufty to follow your opinion.

I can not have accepted any TOS, which I have never seen bevore !
And now a question to you : Have you ever seen a TOS, when you buy a Ticket from an Travelagent, ( specially if it is a YY fare )?
The only thing I remember is, if I buy a LH fare here in Germany, I get a special LH ticket cover, sometimes stickered with a lable " you are traveling under special restrictions" and this ticketcover contains parts of the TOS.
BUT I NEVER SPOKE ABOUT SUCH TICKETS !!!
The YY fare tickets came in a IATA cover, contain one site conditions of contract ( only in english ), and there I can not find one word about using all segments .......

So what? You can accept any TOS as long as you had the reasonable possibility to read them. If you buy YY tickets and the ticket says it is gouverned by the TOS printed on the ticket you actually have the possibility to read it. If you do not care about English, your bad. You are not forced to buy a product you do not understand, are you?

Some guys here have really interesting opinions... :rolleyes:

Although this "I buy segments, I want to use them like I want to do" nonsense will never come, I would love it. Theoretically, if it comes, all the cheap tickets would go away obviously. This could easily result in more average prices (everdody pays the same in a cabin), means all the full fare prices (F, C, Y) may decrease. That would save me money. ^

Unfortunately a local "Amtsgericht" decision is as important as the discussion in this board for the matter of subject. :eek: :p ;)

...Although this "I buy segments, I want to use them like I want to do" nonsense will never come, I would love it. Theoretically, if it comes, all the cheap tickets would go away obviously. ...

I dont see why wanting to use anything that I paid for in a way that I want to is nonsense, but when you assume that "all cheap tickets would go away" you forget competition and the market in general. For german domestic tickets and also european tickets Air Berlin and others would love the situation if LH took away all of their cheap tickets. So it's very unlikely to happen IMO.

Stop joking, we can discuss as long as we want. You have to go to court or to the EU commission or whatever otherwise you will not get Lufty to follow your opinion.

I wasn't joking, and I agree with you: LH will not agree (after all, much of their business is based on selling restricted tickets designed to maximize LH's gain by applying comical restrictions on the usage of such tickets.

For SleepOverGreenlands "I want to use them [the segments] like I want to do": that's not what I'm saying. It makes perfect sense to sell a fixed discounted return ticket A-B (e.g. via X) on March 1st and return on March 6th. You obviously can't use the return part before the outgoing part because the dates are fixed. But it's just comical nonsense to say you can't use the return part because you didn't use the outgoing part. However, I don't see why the airline should let you check in in X -- you don't have a contract for using the check-in and baggage facilities in X.

The only thing that's going to happen is that those comical one-way-fares that cost more than a return fare are going to go away. And it's already happening without the help of courts because of competition.

HTB.

As a matter of fact, I don't see what's wrong with using the return without the outbound.

The argument for not allowing skiping segments is price differentiation between markets. And this makes perfect. Just because nominal income is lower is lower one part of the world, should not prevent this part from being able to fly. And skiping segments of course would. LH would have to raise prices b/c every smart german would buy his FC tickets ex Cairo and just skip the first leg. So it's quite obvious why the segment skiping part does not work.

Using the return without the outbound would therefore be ok, if the price discrimination is less than two tickets starting in the target country. Not sure if that exists but I would not be surprised. Maybe defining regions in which skiping returns and maybe even legs is allowed. F.e.: In western europe you are allowed to skip as many legs and outbounds as like. Sounds sensible to me...

Using the return without the outbound would therefore be ok, if the price discrimination is less than two tickets starting in the target country. Not sure if that exists but I would not be surprised. Maybe defining regions in which skiping returns and maybe even legs is allowed. F.e.: In western europe you are allowed to skip as many legs and outbounds as like. Sounds sensible to me...

I'd so love to see that. This would save me two segments per interncontinental itinerary.

As a matter of fact, I don't see what's wrong with using the return without the outbound.
..

It's my understanding that Virgin allows this as long as you call beforehand and cancel the outbound.

There may be something to be said that not allowing skipping the first leg is anticompetitive behavior. Airlines are in fact dumping unsold seats in other countries that can't be sold in their home market for a much higher fare.

That said, IMO most airlines will want to keep the status quo - and I wouldn't hold my breath for it to be decided any time soon.

It's my understanding that Virgin allows this as long as you call beforehand and cancel the outbound.

There may be something to be said that not allowing skipping the first leg is anticompetitive behavior. Airlines are in fact dumping unsold seats in other countries that can't be sold in their home market for a much higher fare.

That said, IMO most airlines will want to keep the status quo - and I wouldn't hold my breath for it to be decided any time soon.

at least for intraeurope you don't even to cancel.

So what? You can accept any TOS as long as you had the reasonable possibility to read them. If you buy YY tickets and the ticket says it is gouverned by the TOS printed on the ticket you actually have the possibility to read it. If you do not care about English, your bad. You are not forced to buy a product you do not understand, are you?
You always assume in the ticket cover is a TOS regarding that the ticket is only valid if used.......! To show you what my ticket says I just scanned the whole ticket cover. Please let me know, where I accepted to use the ticket only with all segments ?
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-8/1067869/ticket01.jpg
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-8/1067869/ticket02.jpg
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-8/1067869/ticket03.jpg
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-8/1067869/ticket04.jpg
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-8/1067869/ticket05.jpg
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-8/1067869/ticket06.jpg
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-8/1067869/ticket07.jpg
The only thing you find is the last sentence from site 1
Carrier reserves the right..........
But there is no violation of applicable law !
With a YY ticket one has no specific carrier tariff !
And the YY rules don`t say any word about using all segment, or in the right sequence !

I read the very first document and the ticket is subject to the applicable tariffs of the relevant carrier and the carrier's conditions of carriage. Both are for sure general terms and conditions and in there you will certainly find a ton of restrictions.

German law (which might not even be applicable) requires the resonable possibility of the consumer to get to know these T&Cs. I am pretty confident that every travel agent will be happy to provide you with a printout as this is accessible during the booking process. Furthermore it is offered that you will get the the T&C at the carriers' office (which might not always be sufficient to incorporate T&Cs under German law).

Nonetheless: You are grown up and not forced to enter into a contract on a legal basis your are not sure about. If you do so, your bad.

I read the very first document and the ticket is subject to the applicable tariffs of the relevant carrier and the carrier's conditions of carriage. Both are for sure general terms and conditions and in there you will certainly find a ton of restrictions.

German law (which might not even be applicable) requires the resonable possibility of the consumer to get to know these T&Cs. I am pretty confident that every travel agent will be happy to provide you with a printout as this is accessible during the booking process. Furthermore it is offered that you will get the the T&C at the carriers' office (which might not always be sufficient to incorporate T&Cs under German law).

Nonetheless: You are grown up and not forced to enter into a contract on a legal basis your are not sure about. If you do so, your bad.

once again NO SPECIFIC CARRIER !!!

sent by PM

once again NO SPECIFIC CARRIER !!!

At least a specific carrier has issued the ticket, hasn't it?

In my mind there are two main interpertations when it comes to the enforcability of these contract terms and how courts interpret such a case would be hard to predict with any certainty - nonwithstanding the terms of the contract.

a. Passengers can decide which coupons to use (and where to buy the ticket) as not aloowing this would be anticompetitive and in violation of consumer protection law. most consumer organizations and some experts agree with this statement.

b. The terms are valid because airlines should be able to differentiate their markets - consumers get a lower price because they fly a more inconvenient route. Airlines and IATA favor this.

The EU seems to favor interpretation B when it comes to not using the first coupon - and favor A when it comes to only using the return or back-to-back ticketing. It seems unlikely that the EU will legislate against these provisions (some of the reason being that European air travel is liberalizing quickly making some of these terms more difficult to enforce). A high level court case may however settle the matter.

In my mind there are two main interpertations when it comes to the enforcability of these contract terms and how courts interpret such a case would be hard to predict with any certainty - nonwithstanding the terms of the contract.

a. Passengers can decide which coupons to use (and where to buy the ticket) as not aloowing this would be anticompetitive and in violation of consumer protection law. most consumer organizations and some experts agree with this statement.

b. The terms are valid because airlines should be able to differentiate their markets - consumers get a lower price because they fly a more inconvenient route. Airlines and IATA favor this.

The EU seems to favor interpretation B when it comes to not using the first coupon - and favor A when it comes to only using the return or back-to-back ticketing. It seems unlikely that the EU will legislate against these provisions (some of the reason being that European air travel is liberalizing quickly making some of these terms more difficult to enforce). A high level court case may however settle the matter.

I agree to that assumption.

The most financially most relevant type of cases, though, have no relation to the EU as they are about tickets bought outside the EU market. I do neither see a competence nor a real interest of the EU to deal with tickets bought in Tripolis or in Cairo.

Back-to-back is not a real issue and only using the return is in most cases not a commercal issue as the ticket prices are longer that different if it comes to travel between member states. At least for tickets ex Germany the "Sunday return rule" is no longer that important and o/w availabilty got by far better (due to the market developments) as it was some years ago.

I do not believe that the EU will interfear in consumer relations on other markets than the EU, especially not in the mid East. And I have a strong feeling that the EU sees no real need to protect consumers buying tickets in Tripolis for use ex FRA.

I agree to that assumption.

The most financially most relevant type of cases, though, have no relation to the EU as they are about tickets bought outside the EU market. I do neither see a competence nor a real interest of the EU to deal with tickets bought in Tripolis or in Cairo.



I think this is correct for non-EU originating tickets. But it is still common for LH and other to sell tickets (in all classes) much cheaper in other EU countries - so I still eagerly await a legal opinion (as I would like to see some of the provisions tested - in my view they are totally skewed in their favor).

I think this is correct for non-EU originating tickets. But it is still common for LH and other to sell tickets (in all classes) much cheaper in other EU countries - so I still eagerly await a legal opinion (as I would like to see some of the provisions tested - in my view they are totally skewed in their favor).

I am not quite sure what you want to express: I do not believe that carriers sell the same ticket (at least: much) cheaper in other EU countries. What is cheaper, are tickets originating in other other EU countries (eg. ex ATH). But isn't that pretty normal? Prices for, eg, one and the same car are different too in different member states, even worse: Petrol was 3 cents per litre cheaper tonight in Duisburg than it was in neighbouring Düsseldorf. Different markets, different competition, different customers.

I am not quite sure what you want to express: I do not believe that carriers sell the same ticket (at least: much) cheaper in other EU countries. What is cheaper, are tickets originating in other other EU countries (eg. ex ATH). But isn't that pretty normal? Prices for, eg, one and the same car are different too in different member states, even worse: Petrol was 3 cents per litre cheaper tonight in Duisburg than it was in neighbouring Düsseldorf. Different markets, different competition, different customers.

Actually - tickets from other EU countries are often a lot cheaper, especially in premium classes. If you do a search (e.g. LH originating in Athens or Zurich) you'll find a lot of examples - even on this board.

Actually - tickets from other EU countries are often a lot cheaper, especially in premium classes. If you do a search (e.g. LH originating in Athens or Zurich) you'll find a lot of examples - even on this board.

what flying laywer probably ment was: its not cheaper to buy a FRA-LAX-FRA in ATH than buying it in FRA. it is cheaper though to buy ATH-FRA-LAX-FRA-ATH... which is a whole different story because you have to actually start your travel in ATH...

now back to the start with the "skip one segmetn upfront" discussion... ;)

much cheaper in other EU countries

tickets from other EU countries are often a lot cheaper

This makes the difference. It is not "in" but "from" other EU countries. And certainly BA tickets from FRA via LHR to JFK are much cheaper compared to LHR - JFK and FRA via CDG to JFK is much cheaper compared to CDG to JFK. But this has nothing to do with the EU but it is simply the market: To get pax into the hubs, Lufty, AF or H.M. Wonderful Airline BA have to give me cheaper fares to compensate me (as a German) for the inconvenience of flying not via MUC, DUS or FRA but via LHR or CDG and Lufty has compensate pax in the Netherlands or in London the same way. This is what we call competition.

There is only one big cake of (especially) premium pax and getting extra pax into my hub in FRA, LHR or CDG is easily worth a substantial discount. I, as a carrier, will still make enough money on the ticket.

This makes the difference. It is not "in" but "from" other EU countries. And certainly BA tickets from FRA via LHR to JFK are much cheaper compared to LHR - JFK and FRA via CDG to JFK is much cheaper compared to CDG to JFK. But this has nothing to do with the EU but it is simply the market: To get pax into the hubs, Lufty, AF or H.M. Wonderful Airline BA have to give me cheaper fares to compensate me (as a German) for the inconvenience of flying not via MUC, DUS or FRA but via LHR or CDG and Lufty has compensate pax in the Netherlands or in London the same way. This is what we call competition.

There is only one big cake of (especially) premium pax and getting extra pax into my hub in FRA, LHR or CDG is easily worth a substantial discount. I, as a carrier, will still make enough money on the ticket.
Good and extremely easy to understand explanation. ^

Still, you may fight against windmills. If people are not willing to understand they will not understand. :rolleyes:

I understand this fully well. As I explained clearly, whether or not airlines can refuse passage if you skip the first leg is not set in stone. There are arguments for and against (legal as well as otherwise). Most of these in the EU context are based on anticompetive behavior (dumping of tickets in another market) or consumer protection laws (the customer should be able to decide how to use the product and this can't be contractually prohibited).

On a related note - Virgin had in place a nationality restriction (i.e. UK citizens could not buy a ticket in Paris and fly Paris-London-JFK to reduce their fare). Though this was part of the contract, VS was forced to abandon this practice as it was not in compliance with EU competition law. This may not happen any time soon when it comes to skipping the first leg - but there's no way of knowing how a judge would decide.

I'd love to see a case like this end up in court because in my view consumer protection in the airline industry is extremely weak and I'd be curious to know the outcome.

I understand this fully well. (...)
Could be, but we have a different opinion about the product. IMHO the service I buy from an airline is a A-B-C-B-A transfer, and not a A-B, a B-C, a C-B and finally a B-A transfer. I could buy all those single transfers (or segments), but not as cheap as the complete A-C-A transfer via B. So, it is not about segments, it is about the transfer service bought from an airline. When A-B-C is bought I see no reason at all to assume this is the same, as A-B and B-C independently.

The comparison with VS is a different one, because this was kind of discrimination. Of course, UK people should be allowed to start their trip in Paris, and of course everybody is free to start his trip in either ATH or ZRH or CAI or even Lybia. But buying a CAI-FRA-SIN and starting in FRA is not the bought product. Buying a CAI-FRA-CAI and doing the FRA-CAI portion (2nd segment) only is not the bought product either. If one decides to buy a CAI-FRA-CAI and doing the CAI-FRA only (1st segment), this is a different story.

Some guys here have really interesting opinions... :rolleyes:


Yes, it is a very interesting thread. Thanks to Flying Lawyer for the answers !!

......................
I'd love to see a case like this end up in court because in my view consumer protection in the airline industry is extremely weak and I'd be curious to know the outcome.
comming soon ! Against LH and TG :)

......................
Buying a CAI-FRA-CAI and doing the FRA-CAI portion (2nd segment) only is not the bought product either. If one decides to buy a CAI-FRA-CAI and doing the CAI-FRA only (1st segment), this is a different story..

Please explain what is different on buying CAI-FRA-CAI and doing the FRA-CAI portion (2nd segment) only with the actual case buying FRA-PAR-FRA and only doing the PAR-FRA ??? ( that's the case LH lost in Hamburg ). Iam to stupid to see that on my own.

Please explain what is different on buying CAI-FRA-CAI and doing the FRA-CAI portion (2nd segment) only with the actual case buying FRA-PAR-FRA and only doing the PAR-FRA ??? ( that's the case LH lost in Hamburg ). Iam to stupid to see that on my own.
It is not different. Because both examples do a B-A only and passing the A-B portion, when bought a A-B-A RT. Again, buying A-B-A RT is not the same product, than buying A-B and B-A separately or buying B-A-B RT. It is the good right of each carrier IMHO to offer different prices for different transportation requests in different markets. This will not be changed by a small little "Amtsgericht" judge.

Yes, LH lost a negligible case at a unimportant court hold by a judge without any clue. Similar things happen a couple hundred times a week in Germany. :eek: No reason to create huge expectations out of it.

....This will not be changed by a small little "Amtsgericht" judge.

Yes, LH lost a negligible case at a unimportant court hold by a judge without any clue. Similar things happen a couple hundred times a week in Germany. :eek: No reason to create huge expectations out of it.
You are right, this was only a little "Amtsgericht" judge
But LH spent big $$$ in advocates, do you think if they would see a chance to win a revision, they wouln't do so ?? They are not interested in a case decidet by a "Landgericht " or Oberlandgericht, because then this decision is binding for other cases ! And this Lufti want's to avoid under all circumstances.

You are right, this was only a little "Amtsgericht" judge
But LH spent big $$$ in advocates, do you think if they would see a chance to win a revision, they wouln't do so ?? They are not interested in a case decidet by a "Landgericht " or Oberlandgericht, because then this decision is binding for other cases ! And this Lufti want's to avoid under all circumstances.
As the responsible managing officer in my company I remember at least 3 cases in the last couple years, where we decided to stop after a crazy "Landgericht" judgement. Although our chance to win at "Oberlandesgericht" was considered about 85% positive we (a couple lawyers supporting the cases for us and myself) decided to stop, because of the remaining risk and the time needed still do prepare all the needed stuff to proceed. Beeing right and getting right are two different things. Sometimes it is easier to pay, even that we were right.

And I have a certain feeling that the Hamburg case was not appealable due to the low amount under dispute. And SOG - you get fooled by Bertheike and his crusade. Of course there is a substantial difference between the return flight of FRA - PAR - FRA and CAI - FRA - CAI.

The FRA - PAR ticket is under German law and under German law you can argue with very good reason that the contractual obligation of an outbound flight and an inbound flight is divisble. Or as Bertheike prefers to express it: "This are two different Werksvertrags." And anyway: Under German law the court is free to review the T&C and to decide whether certain fare rules can get enforced or not because the rules constitute an "inadequate disadvantage". But CAI - FRA - CAI is for sure not under German law so these arguments will not work.

Explaining something to Bertheike what he doesn't want to hear is a little bit like preaching to wall. I said earlier:

What you, Bertheike, are not willing to accept is the fact that there is not a generally valid definition of "inadequate disadvantage" when judging on general T&Cs. The T&Cs of the airlines are clear and you simply are not allowed to use cupons out of the sequence. Period.

The only and decisive question is, whether or not the T&Cs are applicable in a certain contract or not. Though, you always have to ask whether it is a "inadequate disadvantage" for the relevant contract and situation. And the results can be as distinct as situations are.

Every court is free to decide whether or not the implementation of general terms and conditions constitutes an "inadequate disadvantage" under the relevant circumstances of a given set of facts. And it may very well be that the German guy who can explain that he missed the outbound, took the train and wanted to fly back from Paris suffers an inadequate disadvantage and the court rules in his favour whereas poor Bertheike with his CAI - FRA - CAI ticket fedexed to Germany will kept stranded in Frankfurt as he just tries to use to return flight. I and plenty others would not understand it as an inadequate disadvantage under the specific cicumstances if he is not allowed to use the return flight of a ticket he never intended to use for outbound travel.

On a related note - Virgin had in place a nationality restriction (i.e. UK citizens could not buy a ticket in Paris and fly Paris-London-JFK to reduce their fare). Though this was part of the contract, VS was forced to abandon this practice as it was not in compliance with EU competition law. This may not happen any time soon when it comes to skipping the first leg - but there's no way of knowing how a judge would decide.

Sorry but this is not a related note but a clear cut case. Virgin breached EU law by discriminating UK subjects by not allowing them to fly ex Paris to JFK.

But nobody is discriminating or even "dumping" tickets in certain markets. Currently I see three different situations in Europe:


Tickets on Lufty are cheaper in remote markets like Greece or Poland. Lufty sells the D or Z fare to the US ex WAW via DUS/FRA/MUC for about 1950 Euros. The reason is easy: LOT sells Business Class on its direct flight for about the same price. So what do you expect Lufty to do? Forget about Polish market or play to these rules?
Tickets on Lufty are cheaper in highly competitve markets with plenty of premium pax but without a stong national carrier like Luxemburg. I would love to know how many Bankers and EU officials and lawyers fly C ex Luxemburg. Lufty, KLM, AF and others try to get their piece of the cake. As everybody has to detour and to change somewhere they try to make it via the price.
Tickets on Lufty are cheaper in markets with a strong national carrier like the UK and France. To get the British and French people on Lufty and make them accept a detour via FRA/MUC/DUS of about four hours, Lufty has to be cheaper than the others. Works the same wonderful way for us Germans in the Netherlands (KLM), France (AF) or the UK.

This is not about anti competition but it is nothing but competition.

Let me give you a car example: The SEAT you buy in Spain will be by far cheaper than the same SEAT bought in Germany. But try to buy that SEAT in Spain and go to the SEAT dealer next door in Germany and tell him: I bought a Seat for cheap money in Spain and I now I want you to deliver it to my doorstep. This will not work. You bought on the Spanish market and this is where you get your product (or have the Spanish dealer to export it to you). That is what you do when skipping the first segment: You buy a product in market A and want to have a product in market B. You will have to take the SEAT from Spain to Germany and you will have to fly from wherever to Germany on the first segment.

......
Every court is free to decide whether or not the implementation of general terms and conditions constitutes an "inadequate disadvantage" under the relevant circumstances of a given set of facts. And it may very well be that the German guy who can explain that he missed the outbound, took the train and wanted to fly back from Paris suffers an inadequate disadvantage and the court rules in his favour whereas poor Bertheike with his CAI - FRA - CAI ticket fedexed to Germany will kept stranded in Frankfurt as he just tries to use to return flight. I and plenty others would not understand it as an inadequate disadvantage under the specific cicumstances if he is not allowed to use the return flight of a ticket he never intended to use for outbound travel.
You always assume that the court only decidet pro customer, because he may be could made it reliable , that he missed the outbound ........
In another case against Lufthansa with the same concern , the court defenetly brought the substantiation " It is a customers right to buy the ticket where he get it cheapest, and if the rt. ticket was cheaper XXX-YYY-XXX , than just the oneway YYY-XXX, it's up to the customer not to use the first part of his paid achievement "
***THIS WAS REALLY SUBSTANTIATION WITHIN THE PROCLAMATION OF SENTENCE ***

You always assume that the court only decidet pro customer, because he may be could made it reliable , that he missed the outbound ........
In another case against Lufthansa with the same concern , the court defenetly brought the substantiation " It is a customers right to buy the ticket where he get it cheapest, and if the rt. ticket was cheaper XXX-YYY-XXX , than just the oneway YYY-XXX, it's up to the customer not to use the first part of his paid achievement "
***THIS WAS REALLY SUBSTANTIATION WITHIN THE PROCLAMATION OF SENTENCE ***

But I honestly do not see any legal basis for it. XXX-YYY-XXX is a different product from YYY-XXX. Period.

And an Amtsgericht judge in a 200 Euro lawsuit can issue whatever verdict he understands as appropriate. And if he follows your Robin Hood Approach he might even believe that he is right.

For sure neither the judge not the Claimant was an experienced traveller. Otherwise the pax should have bought yyy-xxx-yyy. Fares within the EU should be very similar and there would have been no need for the very important law suit.

It might even work for tickets under German law if one wants to follow your Werksvertrags-theory assuming that the contractual obligation of an outbound flight and an inbound flight is divisble. But your argument is dead a.s.a. German Law is not applicable as on CAi - FRA - CAI. But I am really interested in the outcome of your lawsuit.

All of this is a matter of opinion and no clear cut case has decided it one way or another.

In fact it is still not possible for say BA or VS, to fly out of German cities directly to the US (or elewhere) though this will be possible fairly soon - the EU airline market is still distorted and not truly fully competive.

Carriers for the past few decades (KLM was involved in similar litigation in the early 70's and up) have tried to avoid cases being brought and have allowed people to travel on these 'dubious' tickets so as to avoid attracting attention. Chances are LH (and others) would win these cases, but the cost of losing are too high to risk it.

For me this is all pretty academic though I do feel you'll never get a (near) definite answer without people like Bertheike.

And I have a certain feeling that the Hamburg case was not appealable due to the low amount under dispute. And SOG - you get fooled by Bertheike and his crusade. Of course there is a substantial difference between the return flight of FRA - PAR - FRA and CAI - FRA - CAI.
(...)
You are the expert, so thanks for clarification. In didn't look on it in terms of different laws, but just from general common human understanding. I only wanted to make clear, what should be obvious: A bought A-B-A product is different from two separate products A-B and B-A. Period.

.........
Let me give you a car example: The SEAT you buy in Spain will be by far cheaper than the same SEAT bought in Germany. But try to buy that SEAT in Spain and go to the SEAT dealer next door in Germany and tell him: I bought a Seat for cheap money in Spain and I now I want you to deliver it to my doorstep. This will not work. You bought on the Spanish market and this is where you get your product (or have the Spanish dealer to export it to you). That is what you do when skipping the first segment: You buy a product in market A and want to have a product in market B. You will have to take the SEAT from Spain to Germany and you will have to fly from wherever to Germany on the first segment.

I like this example !
And that with the "export", I do now from Libya :D
I not want LH to change their price from FRA-BKK, but I want to get them to fulfill the part from my "imported" achievement, and the first part I "donate" to that airline which issued the ticket ! :D

.........

Tickets on Lufty are cheaper in remote markets like Greece or Poland. Lufty sells the D or Z fare to the US ex WAW via DUS/FRA/MUC for about 1950 Euros. The reason is easy: LOT sells Business Class on its direct flight for about the same price. So what do you expect Lufty to do? Forget about Polish market or play to these rules?
Tickets on Lufty are cheaper in highly competitve markets with plenty of premium pax but without a stong national carrier like Luxemburg. I would love to know how many Bankers and EU officials and lawyers fly C ex Luxemburg. Lufty, KLM, AF and others try to get their piece of the cake. As everybody has to detour and to change somewhere they try to make it via the price.
Tickets on Lufty are cheaper in markets with a strong national carrier like the UK and France. To get the British and French people on Lufty and make them accept a detour via FRA/MUC/DUS of about four hours, Lufty has to be cheaper than the others. Works the same wonderful way for us Germans in the Netherlands (KLM), France (AF) or the UK.

This is not about anti competition but it is nothing but competition. .

And keeping price high on the homemarket is nothing else than " Ausnutzung einer monopolistischen/ogiopolistischen Marktgegebenheit ". And this kind of distortion of competition, the EU also does not like ! If there would be 10 airlines flying direct between FRA-BKK/SIN, the prices would come down, the same like between FRA and the US.
And now my point of view !
I see no reason to protect any carriers homemarket !
If they offer rates from outside this homemarket cheaper ( including more achievement ), they can not argue they lose money if someone buy outside their homemarket and waives part of the achievement. In my eys this lost is hardly to prove in court, because it's only hopothetic.

And keeping price high on the homemarket is nothing else than " Ausnutzung einer monopolistischen/ogiopolistischen Marktgegebenheit ". And this kind of distortion of competition, the EU also does not like ! If there would be 10 airlines flying direct between FRA-BKK/SIN, the prices would come down, the same like between FRA and the US.


There will be for sure never 10 airlines flying between FRA and BKK. What for? If there were a market for 10 airlines, there would be more flights. But there aren't.

And "Ausnutzung einer monopolistischen/ogiopolistischen Marktgegebenheit" is - excuse me - nonsense. There is a strong competition on the North Atlantic route. And this brought the fares down. And if a carrier wants to attract people other markets in can only be done via the price. And honestly, the EU is not interested a bit in this. It is accepted and it works. I have the choice to fly comfortable ex FRA to JFK and pay 2300 Euro for my D Class Ticket or I take the detour and fly via CDG or LHR for 2000 Euro. This costs extra hours but safes a bit. So you and I have the choice.

But I am pretty sure the two of us will never find commen ground. You want to change the system and this will not work.

I like this example !
And that with the "export", I do now from Libya :D
I not want LH to change their price from FRA-BKK, but I want to get them to fulfill the part from my "imported" achievement, and the first part I "donate" to that airline which issued the ticket !

But you never "export" your ticket. You buy - back to the car - the car in Spain and you want to have it on your German doorstep by a click of your finger. Go to Lybia, get your ticket there, fly back and your are fully free to enjoy your onward flight.

.... Go to Lybia, get your ticket there, fly back and your are fully free to enjoy your onward flight.
Well, but even this LH/LX try to prevent ! They made a new rule , to sell these tickets only to Libyans or to foreigners but only with a valid workingpermit for Libya ).

Well, but even this LH/LX try to prevent ! They made a new rule , to sell these tickets only to Libyans or to foreigners but only with a valid workingpermit for Libya ).

We had the discussion on this long time ago and it never became fully clear whether this was local law or or imposed by the airlines. And I believe it was especially about the return fligt into Libya, wasn't it? This would make sense if they do not sell a ticket without proper title to stay in the country. If it was only the airline, they could/should/would have done a similar thing eg in Israel or in Egypt to prevent you from buying cheap tickets there, wouldn't they?

And keeping price high on the homemarket is nothing else than " Ausnutzung einer monopolistischen/ogiopolistischen Marktgegebenheit ". And this kind of distortion of competition, the EU also does not like !I have to object here. The price on the home market is higher, because a non-stop flight (say FRA-JFK) is a higher-quality product than a flight with one stop (say FRA-CDG-JFK), at least for most people. So it is perfectly in line with competition (and actually, it is competition that results in this) that FRA-JFK costs more than FRA-CDG-JFK.

Regarding direct competition on one non-stop route - if the market is not big enough, there is a "natural monopoly". However, that does not mean that the remaining airline is not subject to competitive constraints - there are one-stop flights, and there might be trains.

In any way, I strongly feel that pricing should not be regulated in the way that you describe. In the short-term, and in one-off situations, it might sound like a good idea. In the long run, however, if you prescribe a simple pricing structure, you will have less market participants, and probably higher prices on average.

I have no idea what a German court will have to say about this, but it is clear to me that from an economic point of view, the legal framework should be such that a complaint like yours should be dismissed.

SmilingBoy.

That is what my mum always said: You will not get your pudding if you don't eat your main course. And I did not go to court. .......

And did you eat your main course to get the pudding ?
May be the course of action your mum told you, is cause that Germans are most fat in Europe ( myselve including ) :rolleyes:

result *** also mum's are not being always right, with that what they tell you. :D

I have to object here. The price on the home market is higher, because a non-stop flight (say FRA-JFK) is a higher-quality product than a flight with one stop (say FRA-CDG-JFK), at least for most people. So it is perfectly in line with competition (and actually, it is competition that results in this) that FRA-JFK costs more than FRA-CDG-JFK.

SmilingBoy.

I'm sorry but this is incorrect. The intra-EU market is competitive because there are few restrictions on European routes EU airlines can fly.

On the other hand, the market for flights outside the EU is actually monopolized, because negotiated bilateral agreements govern this market. I.e. only German ailines can fly direct to the US from Germany. This will end when a EU-US open skies agreement comes into effect. As non EU-US flights are not covered under this agreement consumers could claim that restrictions on the use of such tickets (e.g. LHR-FRA- to Singapore and such) is anti competitive and against consumer law. It is possible (that by no means certain) that a judge would agree.

I'm sorry but this is incorrect. The intra-EU market is competitive because there are few restrictions on European routes EU airlines can fly.

On the other hand, the market for flights outside the EU is actually monopolized, because negotiated bilateral agreements govern this market. I.e. only German ailines can fly direct to the US from Germany. This will end when a EU-US open skies agreement comes into effect. As non EU-US flights are not covered under this agreement consumers could claim that restrictions on the use of such tickets (e.g. LHR-FRA- to Singapore and such) is anti competitive and against consumer law. It is possible (that by no means certain) that a judge would agree.
But this already allowed, called 5.th. freedom !

Fifth Freedom - This freedom is also sometimes referred to as 'beyond rights'. It is the right of an airline from one country to land in a second country, to then pick up passengers and fly on to a third country where the passengers then deplane. An example would be a flight by American Airlines from the US to England that is going on to France. Traffic could be picked up in England and taken to France.

See following link for freedoms of the air.
http://www.thetravelinsider.info/info/freedoms.htm

But this already allowed, called 5.th. freedom !

Fifth Freedom - This freedom is also sometimes referred to as 'beyond rights'. It is the right of an airline from one country to land in a second country, to then pick up passengers and fly on to a third country where the passengers then deplane. An example would be a flight by American Airlines from the US to England that is going on to France. Traffic could be picked up in England and taken to France.

See following link for freedoms of the air.
http://www.thetravelinsider.info/info/freedoms.htm

I understood these rights to be very resticted and needed to be negotiated between countries - e.g. VS or BA can't decide tomorrow to fly to the US via FRA.

I understood these rights to be very resticted and needed to be negotiated between countries - e.g. VS or BA can't decide tomorrow to fly to the US via FRA.

The recent open skies agreement between US & EU will allow just that, once it comes into effect (still to be ratified by US).

Air Transat from YYZ at $300.
And welcome to the A330 config with 3-4-3 seating.
Not the best experience, I can tell you.. was on this flight in 05. Had to wait more than 2h before we got our first drink.

(btw, BA was not much better with me this year: Had to wait an hour before I got my first drink on a 3.5h flight this year. In biz class!! (:eek:)

Let me give you a car example: The SEAT you buy in Spain will be by far cheaper than the same SEAT bought in Germany. But try to buy that SEAT in Spain and go to the SEAT dealer next door in Germany and tell him: I bought a Seat for cheap money in Spain and I now I want you to deliver it to my doorstep. This will not work. You bought on the Spanish market and this is where you get your product (or have the Spanish dealer to export it to you). That is what you do when skipping the first segment: You buy a product in market A and want to have a product in market B. You will have to take the SEAT from Spain to Germany and you will have to fly from wherever to Germany on the first segment.

Where I mostly agree with your posts, this example (even if it's true what you write) can IMO not be compared to the airline industry.
With the car, you buy a product in market A and want to have it in market B. That's true for the car, but not for the airline, because the airline is technically not a product, but a service.
Deciding not to use 100% of the service you paid for, meaning not flying the first leg, is not the same as taking the car from market A to market B.
You don't provide the airline additional costs when you decide not to fly the first leg. You just paid for something that you didn't use.

Buying a flight from A to B, connecting in C is a service that contains 2 parts. If I don't use the A to C flight, I should still be able to use the C to B flight no? A flight is a non tangible service. The car however is a tangible product. And that's the difference.

(Of course, when you buy the ticket you agree to the TOS and therefore you cannot skip the first leg since this is a written condition previsously accepted by yours.)

This month I booked a getaway package at the Oriental including limo transfer from and to the airport. I didn't use the transfer from the airport, but used the transfer to the airport. Everybody agrees that this is fully ok.
I bought a service, and just decided not to use 100% of it, but only 95%.
Fair enough no?
IMO this is the same logic as it should be in the airline industry. As far as it is not written in the fare conditions that you MUST use your return flight, you should be allowed to skip it. And the same goes for the first leg.

Well, but even this LH/LX try to prevent ! They made a new rule , to sell these tickets only to Libyans or to foreigners but only with a valid workingpermit for Libya ).
since when? You mean they don't support the YY tarif ex TIP anymore?

Buying a flight from A to B, connecting in C is a service that contains 2 parts. If I don't use the A to C flight, I should still be able to use the C to B flight no?

I don't think so. Your product A-C via B is different from a A-B-C product.

One example: I had a ticket NCE-CPH via MUC, but wanted to have a stopover in MUC. The ticket was in Y so this was not a problem. BUT... flying NCE-MUC and MUC-CPH the airport taxes were 25EUR higher. Airports charge different taxes for connecting, originating and arriving pax.

If you have paid connecting taxes in B then you have paid for the service of being allowed to walk from plane to plane, use of runway and that someone will move your luggage from one plane to another. If you suddenly want to check in, go through security etc. in B this is not included in what you have bought, and hence flying only B-C should not be allowed.

For tickets that allow stop-overs it is a bit different, as you do have "separate" tickets A-B and B-C, possibly with a long time inbetween. In such a case the court ruling may apply.

The recent open skies agreement between US & EU will allow just that, once it comes into effect (still to be ratified by US).

Yes - the EU has created a competitive market where there was none. But it only means routes to the US will be truly competitive. You could still make a case that flights to non-EU destinations are anti-competitive.

If you have paid connecting taxes in B then you have paid for the service of being allowed to walk from plane to plane, use of runway and that someone will move your luggage from one plane to another. If you suddenly want to check in, go through security etc. in B this is not included in what you have bought, and hence flying only B-C should not be allowed.

For tickets that allow stop-overs it is a bit different, as you do have "separate" tickets A-B and B-C, possibly with a long time inbetween. In such a case the court ruling may apply.


Very interesting point! Didn't know that. What you say here makes sense indeed.

Buying a flight from A to B, connecting in C is a service that contains 2 parts. If I don't use the A to C flight, I should still be able to use the C to B flight no? A flight is a non tangible service. The car however is a tangible product. And that's the difference.

While I'd like to see it this way, you're forgetting a little detail: the airline sold you check-in service (and baggage and security) in A but not in C (unless you booked a stopover in C). And without check-in in C you won't be able to board.

Or still another way to look at it: you have a contract for transport from A to B, with a planned stop in C. If C-B or A-C gets canceled the only obligation of the airline is to get you from A to B, never to C.

HTB.

i love this thread, its like a deja-vu over and over again :)

i always hated that airlines arent selling one ways at the half price.

if airlines sell return tickets at 100% and oneways at 50-60% this would be a huge impovement.

LTU and other carriers are offering oneways, and i hope that LH will follow.

and in my eyes the first goal for an airline would be to build up such a good service that pax are paying a premium price even in countries like zhr, tip, ath.

if i was an airline manager, i would re-think my product if i have to dump in other countries than my homemarket. in this case i havent done my homework building up a product which fits global needs but is localized enough to win over my direct competitors customers.

normally it is not the price but the product which is not good enough.

i think everybody know burgerking, well they failed in japan as they were not able to adapt the japanse market taste and nobody wanted to pay for the whopper a premium price. even after they lowered the price as the

so LH get you product on a level that customers in all countries of the world want to pay the same prices than ex germany or a bit cheaper if they have to connect, but get a better product.

about the never-ending discussion about ex-tip or other tickets.

i think it is a difference if an airline allows you to fly the c-b-a without flying a-b-c but i think that flying b-c without a-b will not happen in the near future .

for me it would be enough if i could by oneways at half the price .

and well if i want to fly ex-tip i will go to tip to get my superdiscounted ticket.

the question comes in mind is, if the prices in general for premium tickets ex -germany are not too high.

dp

since when? You mean they don't support the YY tarif ex TIP anymore?

Since more than a year ago. Perhaps bertheike should have a go challenging this in the Libyan courts ;)

Since more than a year ago. Perhaps bertheike should have a go challenging this in the Libyan courts ;)

Hm... I am not so sure about that...
Will PM you.

Originally Posted by bertheike
Well, but even this LH/LX try to prevent ! They made a new rule , to sell these tickets only to Libyans or to foreigners but only with a valid workingpermit for Libya ).

since when? You mean they don't support the YY tarif ex TIP anymore?

Now I was speaking about LH and LX , and even in Libya they not sell a YY fare to a non Libyan customer.
EK QR AZ still do so, but LH and LX not.
And both are also not bookable on any longhaul part of an YY ticket issued by any other airline.
There are some ways to circumvent the later one, but better not to discuss here :cool:
And by the way, who wants to fly LH first, when there is the choice of SQ ; CX or TG :D