I agree that the cost of legal action may outweigh the benefit derived - however often the threat of the action (in a small claims tribunal for example) can be enough to get the outcome you want.

Whether the poster has a case here I don't know - but in most common law jurisdictions contract law will stop a large company (here being the airline) from trying to turn around after the ticket has been issued and say 'oh, by the way, here is a huge bunch of terms and conditions (from IATA) which no-one told you about but on which we now want to rely on'.

Especially if another body of rules were presented at the time of sale.

So here, set of rules #2 is given to the passenger (supposedly allowing change for free), and the aiirline is saying set of rules #1 (IATA based) should really apply. I would beg to differ.

If set of rules #2 was never given to the passenger then the case may be different. It would be reasonable for the passenger to either (a) ask for the basic rules, or (b) assume certain basic rules.

(However if those basic rules contained clauses which are unusual (or even if there are clauses which can lead to significant financial issues) - then the airline (or travel agent) should, as best practice, point these unusual rules out to the passenger in order to protect themselves.)

Interesting case. Generally speaking I would agree that it is reasonable for an airline to charge the difference in fare if you change the outbound date - but here it seems they may have given conflicting rules.


regards

lme ff