Originally Posted by
Fabo.sk
kiwi.com is not legally a tour operator, that is a specific term that has a specific legal meaning. There is a tour operator that operates under a brand name KIWI in the same country, (ckkiwi.cz) however that company predates kiwi.com by literal decades.
Nobody is arguing against kiwi being on the hook. What is absurd is to put Eurowings into a position of being legally responsible for fulfillment of a contract of carriage it had no intention to sign or facilitate. kiwi.com strings together flights not just where airlines don't offer this by themselves, but literally against the airlines expressly stated wishes.
As long as the service exists only as a way to facilitate searching and individual booking such as pax could do themselves by doing the legwork, I don't have an issue with it existing (I do have other complaints about kiwi.com, but not this).
However this ruling now means that an entity can enter another entity into a contract against its consent in such a manner that the other entity can not prevent by any means other than ceasing trading, and I just don't see how such a thing can be allowed to exist.
It's a very good point, and I don't think there are any easy answers.
Let's take a slightly different scenario though, but not too dissimilar. Let's say that the itinerary was constructed correctly - that is a single PNR, but with multiple fare basis as TA's are able to. It would require typically more expensive fares that allow 'End on End' in the fare rules.
That would be subject to standard IATA agreements, but from the airline's perspective it would only be a single stand-alone fare basis, but within the wrapper of a wider PNR. In that circumstance, do we think the first airline would be eligible for the full 261/2004 compensation?