Originally Posted by
k_getchell
Agreed. What I am wondering is whether it could it be used to counter the arguments being made by FrancisA and Globaliser that the ex-LHR (i.e. direct) product is inherently more valuable than the ex-EU (i.e. indirect) product given the differentiation between direct and indirect?
If so, could the ex-Regions situation be used to counter the general assertion that less (time) is more (valuable) when it comes to travel, thereby weakening the ability for an airline to claim it suffered any loss through the use of skipped legs on ex-EU ticketing?
It could be argued, of course it could, but that aspect (domestic connections) is such a minor consideration that IMO it is likely not to be argued at all by either side. Whilst, timewise, direct and indirect flights may be a consideration in an airline's mind when formulating its pricing structure (from outside the airline's principal hub country) it is not the only factor taken in to consideration. The fares an airline offers are clearly market driven.
The airlines will have the greatest burden here given the plethora of EU law intended to protect consumers. A day may come when this issue is argued before a court. It would be one of those cases where the judgment will almost certainly be appealed irrespective of which side succeeds in the lower courts. There are significant points of law that need to be argued, tested and resolved and until that occurs all we can do here is debate.
The consumer certainly has the upper hand, but that does not mean the airlines will lose. It could well end up that neither side wins outright. Either way the legal issues will certainly be clarified at the conclusion.