Originally Posted by
NickB
The argument seems to be one of insufficient clarity in the contract as to what the clause means rather than objecting to the principle of requiring passengers to fly segments in succession per se.
It would appear so. However, the very last sentence in the L'Echo article states that the court has ordered AFKL to no longer enforce the no show clause. I suppose that means that until the airline changes its T&Cs and reformulates the offending clause so that it complies with the court's standards for clarity, pax cannot be penalized for skipping legs.
Johan