Originally Posted by
LHR/MEL/Europe FF
I don't agree with the 'bona fide' purchaser issue - that's a red herring. Plenty of people buy one way fares for all sorts of reasons. And they are entitled to buy one way fares safe in the knowledge they will be honoured.
Plenty of people buy one-way fares, but I think I read somewhere that prior to this adventure, absolutely no first-class, one-way fares had ever been purchased between Rangoon and Canadian destinations.
BA appears to question why a few hundred were then bought in the space of days, by purchasers not resident in Burma, who had then to make arrangements to travel to Burma on separate tickets to initiate the one-way journey on the mistake fare.
Essentially, the airline questions the good faith of purchasers it regards as opportunists taking commercial advantage of what they knew to be mistake fares. It adduces the need, post purchase of the RGN Canada ticket, for arrangements to be made to get to Burma as evidence of a lack of "good faith" motives for buying its tickets.
I'm aware there exists in the US legislation set up specifically to protect any purchaser of a ticket of this kind. But similar laws do not exist in all other jurisdictions: there the existence of a contract, and the manner in which the contract is established, is of the essence.
This is where establishing good faith in the conduct of BOTH parties is important.
The Canadian regulator has ruled on technical issues within its competence. The airlines appear to be asking for the courts to rule on the issue of contracts, and the implication on these of the irregularities discovered by the regulator.
It's an important issue for the airlines, going far beyond the compensation cases of the Rangoon fares.
Clearly, it's also an important issue for consumers in general, but one which will be better served by a very clear ruling on contractual obligations than the ad hoc muddle generated by CTA.