NickB

Whether LH has to reimburse passenger or not is not the right question. What the Court decided is that it would be disproportionate for an airline to automatically cancel all segments in all cases when a passenger skips a segment. There can be situations where a passenger legitimately does this. However, when that happense the Court recognises the right for the airline to charge the passenger extra, so as to prevent its own tariffs being undermined.

The Court distinguished two situations:
1) the passenger buys a ticket from a point of origin or to a destination where the ticket is less expensive so as to circumvent the airline fares;
2) the situation where the plans of the passenger change so that the passenger find itself in a situation where he no longer needs some of the flight on the itinerary.

The problem with the airlines' CoCs is that they prohibited any use of coupons in all situations, even where the pax had a legitimate reason, and this was contrary to good faith.

If you read German, you can read the case for yourself here

On the legitimacy for the airline of charging the passenger the difference between the itinerary booked and the itinerary actually flown when the passenger does not fly all segments, see para 26 of the judgment, in particular.

MSPeconomist

This sounds like the DL agent was following KLM's rules, which I find surprising. DL policy tends to give you the bag back if the connection time is over 8 hours for international itineraries.

carnarvon

This is not what this discussion is about.

The thread says "skipping THE RETURN LEG".

The costs for a return ticket are higher than for a one way. No airline can argue that it costs them more to fly you from A to B only than from A to B and then back to A.

So if you choose to buy a return ticket and not fly the return leg, this is the same thing a not flying at all.

You paid for a service you did not use.

And I find it arguable that any airline would have a case in wanting to charge you for not using the return leg of a ticket you have paid for.

orbitmic

But as always on FT, between the thread title/op's intention and what the thread has evolved into, there has been quite a journey

irishguy28

I don't know about Air France, but KL charges far more for a one-way than a return on most routes (at least for the cheapest economy fares!)

Example: AMS-LHR return from €102, AMS-LHR one way from €339.

Edit: Checked AF prices
CDG-LHR return from €152, CDG-LHR one way from €295

carnarvon

I wrote COST to the airline, not sales price.

If they did not try to sell a one way at a higher price than a return ticket, this conversation would not take place.

NickB

As orbitmic pointed out, the discussion had by that stage been extended to the wider issue of skipping a leg.

What it costs the airline has no relevance whatsoever. It costs an airline less to fly you in economy than it does in business. Yet some flexible economy fares are more expensive than some restricted business class fares.
Generally speaking, in a modern market economy, prices are not necessarily determined by marginal cost of producing the goods/delivering the service. The marginal cost to Microsoft of producing an additional copy of Microsoft Office Professional 2010 to sell to you is next to nothing. Yet, they will want Ł299.99 from you to use it on 1 PC and Ł429.99 for you to use it on 2 PCs even though the latter does not cost more to produce to Microsoft than the former.

It still is not the same. A return ticket is not the same product as a oneway ticket. You are not buying two separate distinct services when buying a return ticket: buying a return ticket is not the same as buying two separate oneway tickets. A return ticket is a single service made up of several components and use of these components is subject to certain rules such as, for instance, to minimum stay. The same argument that is used to justify the charging of a fare difference when skipping a segment could also be used here: in both cases, it is about preserving the integrity of the airline's tariff structure. In the case of return tickets, this is, in particular a way to protect the minimum stay requirements and therefore charge different fares for a primarily business clientele and for a primarily leisure clientele.

That phenomenon is not exclusive to the airline sector. If you use cross-channel ferries or Eurotunnel, you will see that the same principle applies when you buy a discounted short stay return ticket, the price of which can be cheaper than a oneway ticket. Again, it is about offering different products to different target groups: people popping over for a short visit and regular cross-channel travelers who intend to stay for a longer period.

It is, of course, always possible to argue that it is contrary to good faith/an unfair term for the airlines to impose such conditions to passengers and I can see how some jurisdictions, particularly in Germany, might be willing to go in that direction. I can also see how other jurisdictions, notably in the UK, might have a more 'business-friendly' interpretation and place more emphasis on the legitimacy of airlines protecting their tariff structure.
I am in no doubt, however, that the situation can be easily distinguished from not using a ticket at all: not using the return portion of a ticket remains a product substitution just as much as skipping an individual segment in a multi-leg itinerary.

orbitmic

Entirely agree. Another example coming straight out of recent discussions: it costs the airline much less if you check in one bag of 24kg than two bags of 12 kg each, yet several examples have been provided recently about AF becoming stricter about the per-bag weight limit. Many peopoe (myself included) have argued that such zeal is stupid, but nobody that it is illegal.

And no, not flying the retunr part of the trip, as NickB suggests, is not the same as not flying at all. I think that maybe one of the sources of what makes this so counter-intuitive to understand is that the condition of the fare is based on one service (outbound) being consumed at a certain price on the condition that another service (return) which happens to look similar but if you think of it just as a 'condition' of the contract and think of cases where the condition is made of the consumption/attendance of another type of good or service which appears entirely different, maybe you will get a more intuitive sense of the airlines' argument.

A first example from another (not very pleasant) industry is time sharing sales. Regularly, people will receive invitations to enjoy a week of holiday in a luxury flat in the South of Spain for a ridiculously low price with the only condition that they attend a 'presentation' on the property complete with meal and drinks etc. In the contract, it explicitly says that if you do not attend the talk, you will be charged a much higher price (and also confirm that there is no obligation to buy anything, just to attend the talk and enjoy your free drinks). This is very much the same sort of conditions we are talking about and while I'm perfectly consicous that this comes from one of the most unpleasant industries, I do not believe that the condition is illegal and of course, the meal and drinks 'cost' the organiser. Personally choose to ignore the invitation altogether rather than try my luck at enjoying the cheap holiday, skipping the talk and getting ready to fight an unlikely court case as to how I signed a contract (effectively or virtually) while believing one of its clauses was illegal and preparing not to respect it.

Second example: many mail order subscription systems (e.g. books, cds, whatever) will let you order a book at a ridiculously low price (say €1) on the condition that you continue receiving their 'selection of the month every month for say a year. Now here is the interesting twist: they will often say that you are not obliged to buy it at all: if you don't like it, just send it and we won't charge you anything and will even reimburse your postage but you must still receive it. Same is true of cable tv systems which will offer you a package for €1 a month for 3 months and then you can cancel or continue receiving it at full price. Conditions will mention that if you want to cancel before the end of the three months, you can do so at anytime but will therefore be charged the full subscription cost for the months you have used - neither €1 per month nor even the €3 total cost of the three months. Of course, here the motivations of the industry are very different - they hope that you will forget, give up, continue using the service for free, but the legal principle is the same - get A as long as you take A, B, C, because if you only take A you will be charged more than for the A-B-C package. And of course, here again, giving you A, B, C apparently 'costs' more to the airline than just giving you A (they provide you a costly service).

Third example: some state benefits are paid to individuals in difficulties (e.g. unemployed) under the condition that the people in question follow some training and/or some studies. Again, arguably, the training or studies themselves cost the state money, but if you do not follow it, you breach the condition of your benefit and could find yourself in serious trouble.

All this to illustrate that airlines would be able to show that multiple other industries - and even public institutions - do the same as them but also that Courts have accepted that the notion of 'cost' and 'benefit' in modern economy is more complex than what it may sound at first. If a company believes that it is in its economic INTEREST to have people use A, B, and C as a bundle - so much so that they are willing to associate the use of B and C as a condition to buying the bundle for cheaper than just buying A, then most judges are smart enough to consider that the company has done its maths and that as long as it has a reasonable justification to provide for its calculation (which NickB has very well spelt out above) they will have no reason to override it using a less economic sophisticated conception of apparent cost. I hope that the examples above explain that quite a few companies make use of this principle using their own different calculations.

AJCNL

I always chuckle when this topic comes up. I worked in the business for many years and have lost count of the times I have had to explain it to people. Air fares are not like a taxi meter, you don't pay per km, every air fare is an individual product, each one does different things, each one costs a different amount. Saying a ticket A - B costs one amount but that a totally different ticket A - B - A costs less is irrelevent

Generally speaking a totally unrestricted ticket A-B costs x and an equivalent unrestricted ticket A-B-A costs 2x. What confuses people is that there are usually a myriad of tickets available with varying restrictions and more often than not you can find one that, assuming you accept the restrictions, you can use to fly A-B-A for much less than x. When you buy an air ticket you agree to a whole raft of conditions, for example obeying the instructions of the cabin crew, limitations on your behaviour and dress on board the aircraft, but also acceptance of the fare conditions. One of those conditions may be that you must complete the entire journey. I don't know what current airlines policies are, but way back it was very simple, if a passenger did something other than what he had been ticketed for, the whole journey was recalculated based on what had been flown, the lowest air fare was calculated for that journey and that amount was reconciled with the fare that had been paid. If he had flown a journey that would have attracted a lower fare he would get a refund, so if he flies a journey that attracts a higher fare why shouldn't he pay the extra?

ok986

A late 2012 experience (cancelling a fully-flexible return leg, where the outward leg was eco restricted). After cancelling the return leg, KLM "upgraded" (their words, not mine) the outward leg to the one-way economy fare and reimbursed me the remainder.

It's sort of what I expected (after getting advice here), but what upset me was that when I called the call center before to check, I was told I'll be reimbursed "the cost of the leg minus 20 Euro administration fee". KLM's reaction to this was that they are sorry I was badly informed.

carnarvon

You are misinformed.

But this is irrelevant.

You (and orbitmic who seems to be supporting your view) are missing the main point which is that we are not taking here of reimbursement of a leg which was not flown. In this case your reasoning might (might) be admissible.

We are talking of a fully paid service, paid in advance and in full, and the customer chooses (or is obliged to) not to use part of the service.

Hence my parallel with not flying at all. You paid the airline for a service you do not use.

There is no justification (provided you do not ask for anything in return) for an airline to ask for more money, under the false pretext that if they had known they would have charged you more.

In actual fact, the airlines makes money for you not flying the last leg : they cash in the airport and other taxes (for which you have paid and not asked to be reimbursed), they save on fuel, food and luggage handling costs. Not to mention the GP R2 who will delighted to take your seat when he was told the plane was busy, or the last minute PAX who will pay full fare for a last minute seat or the overbooked PAX who will not have to be taken care of with hotel and meal.

orbitmic

So I assume that you consider that the three other companies as well as public institutions that I mentioned that operate on the same principle in the specific examples that I mentioned in post 83 are also acting illegally?

NickB

I agree that the cost to the airline of providing the service is irrelevant (indeed I said so explicitly in post #82). I am therefore somewhat perplexed as to why you raised this in post #78 if you agree that it is irrelevant.
Even if it is irrelevant, however, I am curious to know why my statement on the higher cost of a business pax to the airline compared to an economy pax is wrong and I would welcome your enlightenment on it.

No need for false pretext or anything. There is one extremely simple reason: this is what you agree to in the contract and this is how contracts work: you mutually agree to something and you are each bound by your promise. The parties are in principle free to put whatever they want in a contract. Your local grocer could decide to sell you a can of peas for half price on the condition that you run round the block singing and dancing the hokey cokey. To take the rather more realistic example put forward by orbitmic, Marriott Vacation Club may decide to offer you a discount holiday in Spain on condition that you attend a timeshare presentation while there, and reserving the right to charge you a higher amount if you decide not to attend. I have also given you the example of cross-Channel ferries and Eurotunnel. Similarly, an airline can decide that they will sell you a ticket A-B-A at a given price, on condition that you actually fly A-B-A and reserving the right to charge a different amount specified in their tariff if you decide not to fly B-A.
This is freedom of contract (or "principle de l'autonomie de la volonté" if you prefer French terminology) and a cornerstone of the law of contract in market economies.

Under the contract you entered into with the airline, you have agreed that to pay X if you fly A-B-A but you have also agreed that the airline would be entitled to charge you its official tariff for A-B if you decide to fly A-B only rather than A-B-A. As a matter of contract law, this is a perfectly valid contract and you are in principle bound by it.

That is also why your comparison with not flying at all does not make any sense legally speaking. Your contract with the airline does not provide that you need to pay the airline anything extra if you do not fly. It provides that the airline is entitled to charge you for the itinerary actually flown if your actual itinerary is different from the one originally booked. In particular, if you book a one-way fare having booked a return fare, the airline has reserved the right to charge you the applicable one-way fare.

Now, in contemporary legal systems, the principle of freedom of contract is not absolute. There are circumstances in which some clauses of a contract can be disallowed for one reason or another. The most significant issue, in our case, would be consumer protection legislation, and in particular the prohibition of unfair contract terms ("clauses abusives" in French terminology) under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Directive as implemented in the various national jurisdictions in the EU.

So, if you think that the clause under which the airline reserves the right to charge you for the itinerary actually flown rather than the ticketed one is invalid/unenforceable, please explain to us why this is so. For instance, feel free to explain what legally relevant characteristics would make such a clause an unfair one within the meaning of the above legislation.

I can see how an argument could conceivably be made but I certainly cannot see a killer argument that would be likely to secure the agreement of most courts. Perhaps you have such a killer argument. But if you have, you have kept it to yourself up to now.

AJCNL

The example of cross channel ferries is an excellent one. Back in the days of the 'Booze Cruise' return tickets were sold ex UK ports for a nominal price below the cost of a single ticket with the condition that passengers may not disembark in France or Belgium. To have done so would have invalidated the terms and conditions of the ticket and the ferry company would have been justified in persuing the passenger for the extra cost of a one-way ticket. Nothing to do with the cost of transporting the passenger, everything to do with the product being sold.

ranskis

That is precisely something that Europe could fight against: a direct flight cannot be sold for more than a connecting flight where the same direct flight is included. Or that clauses like "full and sequential use of tickets" are abusive and cannot be enforced.

That would disrupt the whole industry, there would be lobbying against, it would be technically difficult... but it would give incentives to have travels as direct as possible, reducing the amount of wasted fuel and airspace just because customers flying Paris Madrid pass by Frankfurt and those flying Madrid Frankfurt pass by Paris. Or flying more people using the same fuel, aircrafts, airspace, slots, etc.

On top of that, it would bring it closer to what people can understand and since airlines are pushing people to by tickets themselves directly, that the least they should do. Back in the days, you had informed people buying the ticket on behalf of normal people: travel agents. The system was complicated, they were trained for that. Now the system is even more complicated (more fares, more strange rules...) but travellers are expected to book these tickets themselves online. They are not trained for that, they cannot reasonably understand all rules attached to a ticket, making most of these rules unreasonable and void.