Originally Posted by
Flying Lawyer
For the sake of discussion:
Where in the regulation is it foreseen that the airlines needs to explain to the passenger what the passenger needs to do to fulfill the conditions of contract? The passenger insisted to board the aircraft with (still assumingly but likely) too heavy hand luggage and refused to check it in.
What you propose is not only an uphill battle but to my belief not within the language of the regulation and could only have success if the ECJ issues another ultra consumer friendly decision.
Thanks for the input. There is clearly room for discussion here, especially as the facts are not carved in stone. But as I have explained above there is a concept in obligatin law called loyalty of contract. This is a fundamental principle on obligation, maybe the most basic legal sentence. If you think that laws/rules need to be written (except in legal theory or case law) you are misguided.
Too heavy? Not proven, just an assumption. And even then very unlikely at all if repacked. The point of the regulations here are that they, in contrary to the carrier here, are customer friendly.
Uphill battle? Well, at no cost at least. Several of the national boards mentioned in my link have made their statements public on their web sites. Interesting reading, and with all the layman blah blah on this thread/forum on this issue with crystal clear statements, I doubt very many have read any.
Originally Posted by
pooh99
Well, if you have so many experiences I really wonder where your interpretation comes from. Just have a look at the laws, rules and T&Cs (8.7)
What law? What rules? What t&c? You mean the carriers t&c? What does it say? In any case the
whole point of the EU regulations is that the single carriers t&c cant violate them.
Originally Posted by
pooh99
The opposite is not proven as well! .
Come on? When denying boarding the burden of proof is on the carrier.
Do you seriously mean that its up to the passenger to prove?
Originally Posted by
pooh99
He always had the option! Technically (law wise), he should have known the rules of the contract.
He was given no option, other than check it or dont fly. The whole point is that he was not given the option that he is entitled to. Its a pretty bold statement that the OP should have known the t&c (in detail I presume?). We are dealing with consumers vs a (presumeably very) professional part. It actually appears as that the carriers rep didnt know the rules here. OP offered his explanation on the content, and IF, only IF the bag was proven to be too heavy, he should have been given the option to repack. In this aspect its also important that the flight clearly had room for it. There were no reasonable grounds whatsoever to deny boarding.
Originally Posted by
pooh99
Sorry, but in no means interesting for interpreting laws or rules!.
Re-read. Excactly what I stated. This however is still an issue psychologically for the judging board. And should be for LH to resolve this out of such organs.
Originally Posted by
pooh99
Since the OP had the option to check the hand luggage in, he was not denied boarding. The OP had an option, thats basically it. .
You can still claim so, but then you dont see any of the point.
Originally Posted by
pooh99
I am not talking about customer service, how the situation could be handled in a better/nicer way. But if you want to claim anything, you only can stick to the rules, laws and T&Cs. There is no IDB because the OP was allowed on the aircraft, but the OP choosed not board because his hand luggage was too valuable for him.
Wrong. He was denied boarding with his luggage according to the t&c without reasonable grounds. Period.
If OP backs his claim with witnesses, both the ones flying and not, I cant see him not winning.