Why Are Airlines Refusing to Ditch No-Show Clauses?
Jeff Edwards June 29, 2019
Despite a consumer rights group’s insistence that so-called “no-show clauses” violate British law, airlines operating in the U.K. have so far refused to curb the practice. Meanwhile, regulators in the U.S. declined to address similar airline policies that allow carriers to void entire round-trip itineraries if a passenger fails to travel on even a single leg of the journey.
Airlines have largely ignored a formal notice from the U.K-based consumer protection organization Which? In December, the group sent letters to major carriers warning that policies penalizing (in some cases, by voiding remaining flight segments) passengers for missing a single leg of their itinerary were a violation of British law.
“The clauses mean passengers who miss an outbound flight can be considered a ‘no show,’” the consumer group explained. “All their connecting or return flights are then cancelled, typically with no refund given, and their seats can be resold – potentially allowing the airlines to double their money. Passengers often only find out their tickets have been cancelled when they arrive at the airport and are forced to buy another seat at a vastly inflated price, or pay a hefty fine – up to €3,000 in some cases – to use their original ticket.”
According to The Guardian, only a single airline, Flybe offered to change its no-show policy. Other carriers put on notice, including British Airways, Emirates and Virgin Atlantic, KLM, Air France, Swiss, Qatar and Singapore Airlines, either ignored the notice entirely or indicated they would not be modifying their policies.
The airlines say the no-show policies are in place to prevent passengers from abusing “skip-lag” or “hidden city” fares by booking itineraries with connecting flights and simply not boarding the connecting flight (thereby taking advantage of a less expensive fare to their final destination). Consumer advocates insist, however, that the policies are also being abused to cancel bookings and then charge higher walkup-priced fares to air travelers who miss connecting flights through no fault of their own.
“Missing a flight because you’re stuck in traffic or on a delayed train is frustrating enough, but for the airline to then turn around and say your return journey is cancelled as well is completely unfair and unjustified,” Which? Managing Director Alex Neil said of the airline practice in December. “We don’t think there’s any good reason for a ‘no-show clause’ to exist – it only works in favor of the airline. It should be removed immediately by airlines, who need to show more respect for their passengers.”
Regulators in the U.S. recently declined to address no-show clauses, siding with airlines in the fight to curb skip-lagging. North American carriers have aggressively sought to punish those who book hidden city fares. American Airlines even made headlines in February after it canceled a passenger’s return flight for failing to board the outbound leg of the journey – even though he was eventually able to prove that he was indeed on the flight he was accused of not showing up for.
[Featured Image: iStock]
I've never understood where a-b-c is cheaper than a-b... Maybe airlines should just adjust pricing to make to make sure there is never any incentive to but such tickets, which would make much more sense to me... As for missing the plane, have done so, number of times for variety of reasons. Several times because of missing alarm clocks (at home). Have always been rebooked next flight available, no additional charge. Forcing airlines to change how they currently handle missed flights puts high risks on them also accommodating customers who miss flights. And, I'd rather have them penalize people trying to "game" the system than those who made honest mistakes (stuck in traffic, missed an alarm, etc.). Only ever intentionally missed a flight using a companion coupon (credit card offer, annual $100 for the second ticket). Person with me only flew with me one way for that $100, notified airline they would not be there for the return flight and totally forfeited return ticket, no expectations of getting any further benefit and purchased separate one way return ticket in advance at whatever rates were publicly marketed.
plenty of no show seats aren't resold, so airlines are not double dipping. AT present, airlines all over the world are just trying to survive. Many have folded in last 6-12 months & many will fail in next 2 years.
Airlines want to keep no-show clauses because being able to sell the same seat twice is lucrative. If we simply made such clauses illegal, carriers could eliminate the hidden-city hack by just straightening out the fare anomalies that motivate passengers to try it.
These practices should indeed be prohibited. And 'hidden city' bookings is the result of that airlines offer tickets A=>B=>C is cheaper than B=>C or A=>B. Such practices are unlogical and should be avoided: A=>B=>C should always have at least the same price as A=>B or B=>C. A=>C is direct, so A=>B=>C can be cheaper. Then these 'skip-lag' or 'hidden city' tickets are not necessary anymore.