Implications on Skipping the Return Leg of a Booking

Old Jan 31, 2013, 8:23 am
  #91  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Netherlands
Programs: FB Gold
Posts: 399
Originally Posted by 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.
Great. You want more of Brussels meddling in the market restricting my choices because some people can't be bothered to read what they are buying before they click on OK. As for back in the days, well I can assure you there were just as many utterly incompetent travel agents as there were informed ones. Maybe you want to roll everything back to the days of regulated air fares set at extortionate prices with no real competition just the pooled schedules of the two national carriers allowed to ply the route.

I've been flying for 40 years, and yes maybe there was some glamour to being served caviar in Y class, though little compensation for having to pay the IATA regulated fare to sit in a Boeing 707 for 36 hours to get to your destination. I don't want to go back in the days, flying has never been better, for me anyway.
AJCNL is offline  
Old Jan 31, 2013, 9:32 am
  #92  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: France
Programs: FB Plat for Life, UAMP, BAEC, Accor ALL Platinum, Marriott silver, Hilton, Meli silver.
Posts: 3,101
Originally Posted by NickB
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..
Because part of the cost is the flexibility. A non flexible non refundable C costs less to the airline than a fully flexible Y. If the Y PAX does not show up, the airline gets nada. The C ticket fare is in the airline pocket in all cases.

One must account for waste/rejects in the cost calculation of a product or a service.
carnarvon is offline  
Old Jan 31, 2013, 9:49 am
  #93  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: France
Programs: FB Plat for Life, UAMP, BAEC, Accor ALL Platinum, Marriott silver, Hilton, Meli silver.
Posts: 3,101
Originally Posted by NickB
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.
.
This is more than clear. It does not make it legitimate. Customers are by no means obliged to do what is required to protect the supplier's malpractices.

Originally Posted by NickB
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.
My argument is that in a contractual relationship, the obligations of the seller (or service provider) and the buyer are not the same.

The seller has the obligation to supply the goods or service and the buyer has the obligation to pay.

If both comply, that is it.

The seller has the obligation to supply, but the buyer does not have in any way the obligation to fly. If he has paid, the service is his and he does what he wants.

The fact that the seller would have like to charge more if he had known that etc. is BS. The seller's desires are the last of my priorities. If he agrees to sell me a ticket, it is my business if I use it or not.

It may be more complicated to argue in court in the case of a multi-segment tickets, but in the case of a return ticket, the argument is : I paid for a service I did not use. I paid to have the right to fly. I did not pay to have the obligation to fly.
carnarvon is offline  
Old Jan 31, 2013, 11:09 am
  #94  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 9,089
If you don't fly the return you forfeit the service and any value it may represent (there is a value associated to the return as per the fare rules).

Flying only one-way of a cheap r/t is not the same as buying a one-way - as the fare conditions will differ completely. E.g. check date change and cancel fees for a cheap r/t vs a o/w and you will see these are not the same product.

It states exactly in the fare rules what will happen when you don't make the return flight - you lose it and any remaining value.

In short - you do accept the fare rules when opting for a cheap r/t.
erik123 is offline  
Old Jan 31, 2013, 11:15 am
  #95  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: France
Programs: FB Plat for Life, UAMP, BAEC, Accor ALL Platinum, Marriott silver, Hilton, Meli silver.
Posts: 3,101
Originally Posted by erik123
If you don't fly the return you forfeit the service and any value it may represent (there is a value associated to the return as per the fare rules).

Flying only one-way of a cheap r/t is not the same as buying a one-way - as the fare conditions will differ completely. E.g. check date change and cancel fees for a cheap r/t vs a o/w and you will see these are not the same product.

It states exactly in the fare rules what will happen when you don't make the return flight - you lose it and any remaining value.

In short - you do accept the fare rules when opting for a cheap r/t.
This is the way it should be.

However, this conversation is about not flying the return leg and the audacity of airlines who claim that they are entitled to charge you extra because you did not fly back!

Position that some such as NickB and Orbitmic support.

And yes indeed, your argument adds weight to mine : cheap r/t means inflexible fare conditions. If you do not want to buy a fully flexible o/w, you buy a cheap r/t. No right for the airline to charge you for a full fare o/w because you did not fly the r/t leg!

This is not the same product. A full fare o/w was flexible and you did not fly a flexible first leg. So the airline has no right to charge you for a flexible o/w when you flew an inflexible first leg

This is what I would argue in court.

Last edited by carnarvon; Jan 31, 2013 at 11:40 am
carnarvon is offline  
Old Jan 31, 2013, 12:48 pm
  #96  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 9,089
Besides - Fare conditions on cheap KL r/t tickets allow cancellations as follows:

CANCELLATIONS
ANY TIME
TICKET IS NON-REFUNDABLE IN CASE OF CANCEL.
TICKET IS NON-REFUNDABLE IN CASE OF NO-SHOW.

So what will the airline argue in court?
erik123 is offline  
Old Jan 31, 2013, 1:31 pm
  #97  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: France
Programs: FB Plat for Life, UAMP, BAEC, Accor ALL Platinum, Marriott silver, Hilton, Meli silver.
Posts: 3,101
Originally Posted by erik123
Besides - Fare conditions on cheap KL r/t tickets allow cancellations as follows:

CANCELLATIONS
ANY TIME
TICKET IS NON-REFUNDABLE IN CASE OF CANCEL.
TICKET IS NON-REFUNDABLE IN CASE OF NO-SHOW.

So what will the airline argue in court?
If I understand NickB and Orbitmic correctly, the airline will argue that if they had known you were going to fly only the outward leg, they would have charged you more, therefore they incurred a loss by you not flying the return leg!
carnarvon is offline  
Old Jan 31, 2013, 3:28 pm
  #98  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK and Southern France
Posts: 18,351
Originally Posted by carnarvon
Because part of the cost is the flexibility. A non flexible non refundable C costs less to the airline than a fully flexible Y. If the Y PAX does not show up, the airline gets nada. The C ticket fare is in the airline pocket in all cases.

One must account for waste/rejects in the cost calculation of a product or a service.
OK, if this is what you meant, then I had not missed anything: you seem to be confusing cost and revenue: it is on the revenue side of the equation that the difference lies rather than on the cost side (well, in truth, there is a small difference on the cost side as well, but it seems to me that it is unlikely to match the cost differential of carrying a pax in Y and in C).
But, as you say, this is irrelevant so I'll leave that aside.

Originally Posted by carnarvon
My argument is that in a contractual relationship, the obligations of the seller (or service provider) and the buyer are not the same.

The seller has the obligation to supply the goods or service and the buyer has the obligation to pay.

If both comply, that is it.

The seller has the obligation to supply, but the buyer does not have in any way the obligation to fly. If he has paid, the service is his and he does what he wants.
With due respect, this is, from a legal perspective, complete and utter tosh of the highest order.

One can put (subject to the caveats I mentioned in my earlier post re, for instance, consumer protection legislation) whatever one wants into a contract: that is one aspect of what freedom of contract is all about. We are no longer in the Antiquity and we do not operate under a system of nominate contracts with pre-defined contents as in Roman Law (and even then, even Roman law recognised innominate contracts).

The idea that a contract relating to a supply of service cannot contain a clause requiring the recipient of services to do anything other than pay the price of the service would suggest that you really have no clue whatsoever about the law of contract.

The fact that the seller would have like to charge more if he had known that etc. is BS.
it is not that the seller "would have liked to charge more if he had known". The supplier has already told the purchaser in advance in the contract that the price will be different if the passenger chooses not to fly the return or indeed to vary any other element in the booked and ticketed itinerary. I am still waiting for a convincing explanation as to why such a clause would not hold.
NickB is online now  
Old Jan 31, 2013, 4:54 pm
  #99  
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GGL+GfL, ALL Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 30,349
Originally Posted by carnarvon

The seller has the obligation to supply the goods or service and the buyer has the obligation to pay.

If both comply, that is it.
Great model. I decided to go to the Ritz in shorts and flip flops as they don't have the right to impose a dress code upon me as long as I pay, before enjoying a loud conversation in the cinema on my mobile phone for the same reason (I paid my ticket and if I don't want to listen to the film, then surely noone can force me!). I then went to a restaurant where I brought my own bottle of wine (none of their business since I am buying my meal there). I then finished this exciting day by going to university. I was admitted in medicine but decided to go straight into the 7th year courses as they are the only ones that interest me, and surely, since I paid the full tuition for the 7 years upfront, I'm perfectly entitled to not use the first 6 which I thought were likely to be really boring and go straight into the 7th year instead...
orbitmic is offline  
Old Jan 31, 2013, 5:05 pm
  #100  
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GGL+GfL, ALL Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 30,349
Originally Posted by 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.
I have no doubt that your intention is good, but if you were to indeed impose rules on airlines ensuring that they could not charge more, say for a nonstop flight than for a connecting flight (including the same nonstop flight) or for a single than for a return involving the same outbound, then this would simply result in leisure travellers willing to accept more restrictive conditions to pay less (say, Mr and Mrs Smith and their 3 kids going on their annual holiday) subsidising the tickets of large multinational corporations (say Total or Banco Santander) which need to buy one way nonstop flights for their executive.
orbitmic is offline  
Old Jan 31, 2013, 7:09 pm
  #101  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 9,089
Originally Posted by NickB

One can put (subject to the caveats I mentioned in my earlier post re, for instance, consumer protection legislation) whatever one wants into a contract:
KLM does: "Cancel at any time and forfeit refund".

In short - you do not have to fly the return.
erik123 is offline  
Old Feb 1, 2013, 12:15 am
  #102  
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GGL+GfL, ALL Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 30,349
Originally Posted by erik123
KLM does: "Cancel at any time and forfeit refund".

In short - you do not have to fly the return.
I'm a bit unclear how you construe that return needn't be flown from the fact it is non refundable or for that matter that something which looks like ticket specific rules (many tickets are refundable) would invalidate the CoC which are part of all ticket contracts?
orbitmic is offline  
Old Feb 1, 2013, 12:33 am
  #103  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: France
Programs: FB Plat for Life, UAMP, BAEC, Accor ALL Platinum, Marriott silver, Hilton, Meli silver.
Posts: 3,101
Originally Posted by orbitmic
Great model. I decided to go to the Ritz in shorts and flip flops as they don't have the right to impose a dress code upon me as long as I pay, before enjoying a loud conversation in the cinema on my mobile phone for the same reason (I paid my ticket and if I don't want to listen to the film, then surely noone can force me!). I then went to a restaurant where I brought my own bottle of wine (none of their business since I am buying my meal there). I then finished this exciting day by going to university. I was admitted in medicine but decided to go straight into the 7th year courses as they are the only ones that interest me, and surely, since I paid the full tuition for the 7 years upfront, I'm perfectly entitled to not use the first 6 which I thought were likely to be really boring and go straight into the 7th year instead...
You have been better inspired in other posts.
carnarvon is offline  
Old Feb 1, 2013, 2:35 am
  #104  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Netherlands
Programs: KL Platinum; A3 Gold
Posts: 28,547
Originally Posted by erik123
KLM does: "Cancel at any time and forfeit refund".

In short - you do not have to fly the return.
But, in order to determine if there would be a refund - and to find out how much the refund would be - they would obviously have calculate the fare of the journey that was actually taken (up to the point of cancellation), and compare with the original fare paid..

The above text says that, if the new fare is lower and therefore a refund would normally be due, no refund will be given. That's all it says.

If the new fare is higher, those cancellation conditions do not prevent them from seeking additional payment.

Which they can more easily do when you go up and ask to have your luggage returned before completing your ticketed journey!!!
irishguy28 is offline  
Old Feb 2, 2013, 6:34 am
  #105  
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GGL+GfL, ALL Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 30,349
Originally Posted by carnarvon
You have been better inspired in other posts.
The idea was not to be mean but to show that the notion that a seller can legally and legitimately impose far more obligations on a buyer than just 'paying the price'. There is no pre-existing limits to what can be included in the contract except that of the law (you can contractually promote something that would be illegal, e.g. a car rental company could not impose to clients to drive at 150 km/h) and what would breach customer protection and other regulatory texts (e.g in France, banks cannot just contractually charge 'any' interest rate although in the UK and US, for example, they can). All the examples that I provided corresponded to the conditions that sellers contractually impose to buyers through their terms and conditions and which have nothing to do with the price of the service provided (e.g. dress code).
orbitmic is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.