LHR/MEL/Europe FF

these fares were not to Hong Kong, and I'm not aware of any premium carriers offering fares at $3500 return in business class to europe.

as these fares were sold by travel agents, I suspect the travel agents would have been aware this was an error.

weero

Maybe we are splitting hair here ... but an error fare is something that is sold for $0 or $100. AUD 3500 was indeed a mistake here but it is not beyond imagination.

SQ had promos to Oz ex Europe for GBP 1700+tax of which I purchased two. I agree that this would not happen ex Oz though.

But I think that the sole reason fares to Europe were honoured is that a) it would be hard to proof that they are error fares and b) the mandatory E261 compensation of 70% of the average Biz fare would have hurt SQ hard here.

This has nada to do with goodwill. That rubbish talk of the Singaporean law professor is entirely irrelevant - 261 bites quite automatically, irrespective of SQ's home country's opinion and support.

chisquared

That's an amazing deal. When was this promo?

feizhu

Could you kindly enlighten me on how EU Regulation 261 comes into play here? I read through the regulation and it has more to do with compensation with regard to denied boarding, flight cancellations or delays?

This is 2 separate matters from a legal standpoint but I would appreciate if you could shed some light. Thanks!

weero

One mid 2011 and one early 2012. Taxes ex LHR are high but it was still a great deal.
You are correct. Involuntary downgrades carry a compensation of 70% of the ticket price. And SQ was friendly enough to provide that price in the first downgrade request.

Of course if you consent, then you are not eligible for the compensation, so that could make matters more tricky. But the itinerary touches European soil and that seals the deal not matter what courts in SIN think of the issue.

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

Downgrade compensation is 75% of the ticket price for long haul flights.

I don't see how a mistake fare falls within EU261 downgrade compensation if the fare is not honoured from the outset.

The fact that a ticket 'touches' European soil does not mean EU261 automatically applies.

In the case of SQ - a passenger would not be covered by EU261 until they were leaving the EU. Boarding in Australia, or boarding in SIN - EU rules for compensation don't apply.

Therefore it actually does matter what a court in Australia or Singapore would have made of the issue.

weero

You right, me wrong, yes.
If you do not fly at all, then it will be a tricky matter, I conceded that.
Well of course only paired with a rule violation of the airline.
That is correct. As SQ is not an EU carrier, they would only be held liable once the pax leaves the EU.
Correct.
How so?

SIN is entirely irrelevant IMHO. The moment you leave the EU, SQ owes you 75% of the ticket price if they make you ride in coach, no Australian court can alter that. There may be specific laws that punish Australian citizens for using courts (or in this case collection agencies) abroad but I do not think so.

I am very sure that this is why SQ caved in once they got the opinion of their offices abroad.

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

weero - I think we are talking at cross purposes here.

The flights sold were for departures ex Australia. Not ex EU.

SQ was arguing the fare was a mistake, and they weren't going to honour the tickets.

If they had persisted with that line, and been successful, EU261 would come into play because the pax would never have left Australia, and would never be in a position to be downgraded on the return leg.

If the passengers wished to 'sue' SQ over this whole matter, the courts in Australia would have decided whether or not it was a mistake. Not the EU. (I only threw in the courts in SIN in case someone, somehow, managed to bring a claim against SQ in SIN).

For that reason, what 'offices abroad' may have said is not relevant, because the passengers wouldn't even be in the position to claim Eu261.

weero

Agree on both accounts.
Here I disagree 50%. If they opted to fly coach, they would have reached the EU and 261 would have become active.

If they did not fly the matter would be far more tricky, I concede. And if they paid up to Biz, it would likely not even be a tangible matter.
Then what was the reason?

I call BS on what SQ PR and the Straights Pravda claim that it was a good will expedition as SQ heralded it all the across the planet that they would cancel those tickets,

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

If the pax had opted to fly I suspect one of two things would have come into play.

Either (a) the ticket would have been reissued to reflect the correct fare class against fare paid (so they wouldn't have turned up with a 'business' ticket, they would have shown up with a fully flex Y ticket, or (b) EU261 states the passenger must have a confirmed reservation on the applicable flight. If the passengers elect to fly, they would have had a confirmed reservation in economy, not business class. So no downgrade compensation.

Why did they honour the fares? Who knows. At one stage Flight Centre was saying they would pay the fare difference because they didn't think the passenger should suffer (I'd have liked to see that!), or maybe SQ got some bad legal advice, or maybe they just decided on the balance of the facts (their loadings etc etc) it was just as easy to honour it for good PR.

weero

No. Re-issue of the ticket only saves the airline from downgrade compensation, if the passenger initiated it (I went through this twice, airlines are smart enough to modify the ticket when they downgrade you). Even semi-voluntary downgrades ("you can fly now in coach or in two days from now i Biz") do not protect the airline.

SQ left an enormous paper trail that made any attempt of making it look voluntary futile. This would not even go to court, mediation would make a very clear recommendations, i.e. 75% of the 6K+ SQ demanded.

I agree with you that it is hard to say what motivated SQ. But the fact that large corporations lie by reflex in any press announcement paired with the legal monkey they had declare that they were innocent and clean and pure at heart strongly suggests that they got clear input from legal that this would not fly all that well.

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

no. the ticket was/is an error. if SQ had been successful, pax would not have flown on the tickets as issued.

if the pax 'took their chances' with the tickets as issued, they would have got to the airport in australia to be reminded the tickets were in economy, and economy only. their reservations would have been in economy. they wouldn't have had a valid reservation in the business class cabin. without a valid reservation in business class, no downgrade compensation.

I agree the airline cannot reaccommodate pax involuntarily and then claim no downgrade. but this isn't the case here.

and the tickets aren't originating in the EU.

sq actually has a good history of honouring mistake fares (RGN for example). that they did here could have been PR, or, legal advice that was either incorrect, or advised them they didn't have a strong case. either way, a good outcome for pax.

but I don't believe for one second that EU law would have played a part.

weero

That's my point.
That doesn't sound credible given the length SQ took to explain why those fares booked into Biz by error.

I booked many coach rides on SQ and not once have they contacted me stating that I needed pay up to Biz.
That is irrelevant. Entirely.

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

it is somewhat relevant to your line of argument.

if the tickets had originated in the EU, a passenger may have 'taken their chances' to turn up at the airport, expecting business class, and then been downgraded (or rather not, as the airline may not have wanted to fork out the appropriate compensation).

but leaving from australia, there is no 'taking chances', because the passenger would have been stopped at checkin where we don't have the same downgrade compensation. pax would have been told 'if you want to fly on this ticket, you'll fly in economy'.

the ticket would the. have been reissued, not just for the ex AU flights, but also for the return.

weero

I agree with all you say, I just don't see how that would protect the airline.

The pax was downgraded, SQ admitted this in writing. As soon as the pax leaves the EU, 261 applies.