Originally Posted by
*A Flyer
It is an interesting situation and I agree that LX would make this argument. Of course, the key difference here is that the OP had a ticket purchased with another airline. Similarly, in my case, I had a ticket with NH. NH, through their words and actions, confirmed to me that I held a valid ticket and that there was a contract for carriage.
My relationship with LX is not a direct contractual relationship as in the case of the CTA complainants. It seems to me that the relationship of the downgraded passengers with LX is akin to that of a subcontractor where they have been contracted by NH (or another carrier) to provide carriage to NH's passenger as part of NH's ticket.
Maybe that is simplistic and incorrect but given I never provided consideration to LX and that my point of call for all matters related to the ticket was NH, it seems that LX should have to take NH's acceptance of the contract as gospel and seek recourse to NH under their contractual arrangements for interline travel.
A person may have purchased the ticket from another airline, but it is the carrier who performs the downgrade who must pay the compensation.
So LX's initial response is likely to be 'the passenger has no valid ticket'.
Note that the CTA specifically refers to tickets issued by another carrier in its decision, particularly with reference to a downgrade on the last segment.
The CTA finds that there was no binding contract on Swiss. And that the downgrade was a goodwill gesture by them.
It is likely Swiss would run the same argument if this matter was pursued in Europe.
The question is whether of not they would be successful.