Originally Posted by
ijgordon
MCT is a bit irrelevant in this case, no?
Eeeeh, yes and no. Obviously MCT is irrelevant to the fact whether kiwi will or will not sell non-interline tickets, however the question was posited whether MCT could be used as a marker to show, by the airlines, that they never intended for given combinations of flights to be sold and ticketed. That
would be an abuse of the purpose of the MCT very much so, but it would put more of the pressure on kiwi, which, of course, already ignores interline agreements left and right, but would now be shown to actively ignore MCT guidelines as well.
Question here also remains, what of the airlines which exist outside IATA and GDS world, like Ryanair or Wizzair, can they even
get something like **-FR GLSUP; FR-** GLSUP even
published. Like literally, does a mechanism exist.
Originally Posted by
ijgordon
And I don't think there's an ask for consequential damages, only the higher EC261 compensation on the basis of this being an itinerary from the EU to BKK, vs. the single leg from DUS to PRG. As well as the refund.
What I don't understand is how can EW provide a refund for flights it didn't sell? Or maybe that's the "consequential damages" and it's less a refund than a reimbursement of the lost ticket value?
And that is indeed the big question here. EW only sold a ticket for DUS-PRG. It has been shown to be willing to fulfill its legal obligation as regards to this ticket. It is indeed absurd for EW to refund flights it never sold, nor were sold by their partners. Compensation likewise.
Originally Posted by
ijgordon
Of course the "solution" for the airline is don't cancel flights (or have better contingencies) and you won't run into these situations. From that perspective I support the ruling.
I don't think EU261 was primarily designed as a cash grab for passengers but more of an incentivization mechanism for airlines to operate better, no?
I think we can both agree that it is impossible for an airline to never cancel any flights, ever.
And if it does, it should be incentivized to reorganize its operation in such a manner so as to inconvenience as small a number of passengers in as small a way as possible.
How are we expecting an airline to adhere to that goal, if it
can not know what its obligations are until post-facto requests for assistance?
And remember, if we agree that EW is responsible for full compensation and reimbursement, it
must also be responsible for re-routing and care. To any random destination that might be reachable only by stringing up a once-weekly flight by a local non-iata embargoed operator, if need be.
Originally Posted by
bender1057
1.) The original EU261 text intended to provide the 250/400/600 EUR only in the following two cases: (a) denied boarding, (b) cancellation on short notice.
2.) However, over the years, the ECJ has massively extended the scope of the compensation. One prominent example is its 2009 ruling that "long delays" also qualify for the 250/400/600 EUR.
While I don't necessarily agree to the three-hour cutoff, I support the ECJ decision to treat long delays same as cancellation.
Otherwise it leaves the loophole open for airlines to just delay the flight indefinitely, untill all affected pax cancel voluntarily. Remember it's not just about compensation that is triggered by cancellation. re-routing is also one of such rights.
Originally Posted by
bender1057
3.) And for the case at hand, take for example a look at
ECJ's ruling C‑436/21:
- "Article 2(h) [...] must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of a ‘connecting flight’ covers a transport operation made up of a number of flights operated by separate operating air carriers which do not have a specific legal relationship, where those flights have been combined by a travel agency which has charged an overall price and issued a single ticket for that operation, with the result that a passenger departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State who suffers a long delay to the arrival at the destination of the last flight may rely on the right to compensation pursuant to Article 7 of that regulation."
So, which "delta" is larger? (a) the one between EU261 and the ECJ or (b) the one between the ECJ and the German court?
And just to clarify: I did not say I liked the development/outcome..
With regards to the ruling you quote.... there are two, or rather three, glaring questions here.
1. Is kiwi even a travel agency for the purposes of this ruling?
2. If it is, does booking several separate airline bookings under a single kiwi.com reservation constitute a single ticket legally? (for this, we have the strongest argument in the EW ruling - yes, it does)
3. How can a travel agency force an airline to issue a reservation, which becomes a part of a ticket, the airline would not normally endorse, by means of (fraudulently?) misrepresenting the reservation as a stand-alone trip?
And here I would like to remind everyone that it's not simply that the airlines open their reservation systems to kiwi.... The company has been known to circumvent blocks by
having the employees use public-facing websites to book tickets for kiwi customers with company credit cards!