Compensation for AA mistakenly canceling return ticket?
#17
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: IAD
Programs: DL-Silver; BA-Bronze
Posts: 1,162
Update. SIL sent in request for EU compensation. Got a reply tonight and they claim she never took the outbound flight and therefore her return ticket was properly cancelled.
Any advice on next steps. She doesn't really have any proof she took the outbound flight (other than the fact that she ended up in London on the day of arrival). No checked bags or purchased items. She did take a couple of pics of the flight map during her flight but no way to tell it was from that specific flight. Very frustrating - any help appreciated.
Thank you for contacting Customer Relations.I'm sorry you were not able to check in for your return flight on AA729 from London to Philadelphia on July 27, 2018 being told since your original outbound flight was not used you had been removed from your return flight. Our records indicate that while you did check in online the night before, we do not find that you checked in at the airport on July 27 or that you boarded flight AA736 from Philadelphia to London on July 19, 2018. In fact, it should also be noted that this flight departed with multiple empty seats - there was no denied boarding for any passengers ticketed for this flight.In most instances when a segment of an itinerary is "no-showed," future segments also go unused. Therefore, when customers do not travel on flights for which they have confirmed reservations, we automatically cancel all remaining flight segments. When a customer presents a ticket for "return" travel without having used the "outbound" segment, the ticket is considered void for that trip. In such cases, it is usually necessary to purchase a new one-way ticket at the applicable fare.Compensation associated with EC261/2004 does not apply when a passenger does not travel on an outbound flight as ticketed, causing the return flight to be removed from the reservation. Therefore, there is not any mandated compensation warranted for flight AA736 on this occasion and we must decline compensation and adjustments based on the EC 261/2004 regulation. We appreciate this opportunity to review your claim
#18
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 27,191
Yikes, I guess this is a good argument for always printing out a hard copy boarding pass at the airport (and saving it).
Does she remember the name of any of the flight attendants (or even better, the captain from when s/he introduced him/herself)? Perhaps even the UK entry stamp from the passport, would at least prove she arrived in LHR on the scheduled day.
But frankly, I'm not sure how EC261 applies w/r/t being IDB'd. The passenger didn't have a confirmed reservation for that flight (since it was cancelled), and the passenger *knew* she didn't have a confirmed reservation since the phone agent told her so.
Does she remember the name of any of the flight attendants (or even better, the captain from when s/he introduced him/herself)? Perhaps even the UK entry stamp from the passport, would at least prove she arrived in LHR on the scheduled day.
But frankly, I'm not sure how EC261 applies w/r/t being IDB'd. The passenger didn't have a confirmed reservation for that flight (since it was cancelled), and the passenger *knew* she didn't have a confirmed reservation since the phone agent told her so.
#19
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Live: PWM/KBXM/BGR; Work: DCA/DFW/Everywhere; Play: LAS/MUC/MLE
Programs: AA EXP, DL PM, Hyatt Glob, Marriott Ambassador/LTP, Nat'l Exec Elite, mlife Noir, LEYE Gold
Posts: 6,630
Which was apparently good enough for AA to agree to put her on BA & DL, but not enough for AA to admit that she was on the flight? Very very strange, not sure what if anything a passenger can do to actually prove having been on the flight.
#20
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,433
Yikes, I guess this is a good argument for always printing out a hard copy boarding pass at the airport (and saving it).
Does she remember the name of any of the flight attendants (or even better, the captain from when s/he introduced him/herself)? Perhaps even the UK entry stamp from the passport, would at least prove she arrived in LHR on the scheduled day.
But frankly, I'm not sure how EC261 applies w/r/t being IDB'd. The passenger didn't have a confirmed reservation for that flight (since it was cancelled), and the passenger *knew* she didn't have a confirmed reservation since the phone agent told her so.
Does she remember the name of any of the flight attendants (or even better, the captain from when s/he introduced him/herself)? Perhaps even the UK entry stamp from the passport, would at least prove she arrived in LHR on the scheduled day.
But frankly, I'm not sure how EC261 applies w/r/t being IDB'd. The passenger didn't have a confirmed reservation for that flight (since it was cancelled), and the passenger *knew* she didn't have a confirmed reservation since the phone agent told her so.
That the airline chose to cancel the persons booking would then make the airline liable for EC261 compensation
If the passenger didn't fly the outbound , then the airline would be justified in not permitting the return travel
If the person travelling was not arriving on an EU passport into London, the passenger will have a stamp in passport showing arrival into London on that day - not sure if it shows terminal or not
#21
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: BOS/UTH
Programs: AA LT PLT; QR GLD; Bonvoy LT TIT
Posts: 12,658
I cannot see how EC261 does not apply assuming that the passenger did fly the outbound journey as ticketed
That the airline chose to cancel the persons booking would then make the airline liable for EC261 compensation
If the passenger didn't fly the outbound , then the airline would be justified in not permitting the return travel
If the person travelling was not arriving on an EU passport into London, the passenger will have a stamp in passport showing arrival into London on that day - not sure if it shows terminal or not
That the airline chose to cancel the persons booking would then make the airline liable for EC261 compensation
If the passenger didn't fly the outbound , then the airline would be justified in not permitting the return travel
If the person travelling was not arriving on an EU passport into London, the passenger will have a stamp in passport showing arrival into London on that day - not sure if it shows terminal or not
#22
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,433
#23
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: BOS/UTH
Programs: AA LT PLT; QR GLD; Bonvoy LT TIT
Posts: 12,658
Yup, agreed. The key phrase in your post is, "assuming that the passenger did fly the outbound journey as ticketed." But with AA's computer records apparently showing that the passenger didn't fly, I expect that she is going to have a challenging time proving that AA's computer systems are incorrect.
#24
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,433
Yup, agreed. The key phrase in your post is, "assuming that the passenger did fly the outbound journey as ticketed." But with AA's computer records apparently showing that the passenger didn't fly, I expect that she is going to have a challenging time proving that AA's computer systems are incorrect.
Doesn't need strong incontrovertible evidence, just ve enough to convince that in balance of probabilities, the claimant's claim is true
Also - quite importantly - the onus is on the airline to prove that it is not liable to pay compensation, not on the passenger to prove that it is
Last edited by Dave Noble; Aug 26, 2018 at 6:07 am
#25
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
The underlying problem here is proving that the passenger flew the outbound. If she did, then AA improperly cancelled her ticket and she was denied boarding and due EC 261/2004 compensation of EUR 600. If she did not fly the outbound (or cannot prove it), then AA properly cancelled the remaining segment of her ticket, she was properly denied boarding and due nothing.
Proving that one took a flight can be hard. BP's themselves are meaningless, whether on paper or print. But, nonetheless, because carriers foolishly accept them as proof, it makes sense to hang onto them until all issues relating to the flight have been settled. e-BP's are fine. AA's remain in one's wallet until deleted and simply have a note on the code to the effect that the pass has expired. Alternatively, one may always save a PDF of the BP.
If one lacks a BP, it is all a matter of gathering other items which might tend to prove this. Bear in mind that the passenger count for the aircraft had to match before it closed and pushed back. Thus, somehow AA had to account for a person being on its aircraft.
Proving that one took a flight can be hard. BP's themselves are meaningless, whether on paper or print. But, nonetheless, because carriers foolishly accept them as proof, it makes sense to hang onto them until all issues relating to the flight have been settled. e-BP's are fine. AA's remain in one's wallet until deleted and simply have a note on the code to the effect that the pass has expired. Alternatively, one may always save a PDF of the BP.
If one lacks a BP, it is all a matter of gathering other items which might tend to prove this. Bear in mind that the passenger count for the aircraft had to match before it closed and pushed back. Thus, somehow AA had to account for a person being on its aircraft.
#26
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Live: PWM/KBXM/BGR; Work: DCA/DFW/Everywhere; Play: LAS/MUC/MLE
Programs: AA EXP, DL PM, Hyatt Glob, Marriott Ambassador/LTP, Nat'l Exec Elite, mlife Noir, LEYE Gold
Posts: 6,630
If in a UK Small claim court, it would be fairly easy - just need to convince the judge that in all probability the passenger took the flight
Doesn't need strong incontrovertible evidence, just ve enough to convince that in balance of probabilities, the claimant's claim is true
Also - quite importantly - the onus is on the airline to prove that it is not liable to pay compensation, not on the passenger to prove that it is
Doesn't need strong incontrovertible evidence, just ve enough to convince that in balance of probabilities, the claimant's claim is true
Also - quite importantly - the onus is on the airline to prove that it is not liable to pay compensation, not on the passenger to prove that it is
The underlying problem here is proving that the passenger flew the outbound. If she did, then AA improperly cancelled her ticket and she was denied boarding and due EC 261/2004 compensation of EUR 600. If she did not fly the outbound (or cannot prove it), then AA properly cancelled the remaining segment of her ticket, she was properly denied boarding and due nothing.
Proving that one took a flight can be hard. BP's themselves are meaningless, whether on paper or print. But, nonetheless, because carriers foolishly accept them as proof, it makes sense to hang onto them until all issues relating to the flight have been settled. e-BP's are fine. AA's remain in one's wallet until deleted and simply have a note on the code to the effect that the pass has expired. Alternatively, one may always save a PDF of the BP.
If one lacks a BP, it is all a matter of gathering other items which might tend to prove this. Bear in mind that the passenger count for the aircraft had to match before it closed and pushed back. Thus, somehow AA had to account for a person being on its aircraft.
Proving that one took a flight can be hard. BP's themselves are meaningless, whether on paper or print. But, nonetheless, because carriers foolishly accept them as proof, it makes sense to hang onto them until all issues relating to the flight have been settled. e-BP's are fine. AA's remain in one's wallet until deleted and simply have a note on the code to the effect that the pass has expired. Alternatively, one may always save a PDF of the BP.
If one lacks a BP, it is all a matter of gathering other items which might tend to prove this. Bear in mind that the passenger count for the aircraft had to match before it closed and pushed back. Thus, somehow AA had to account for a person being on its aircraft.
#27
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
It's easier in this case than in the average case. Presumably the passenger here could show that AA paid for her return on BA & DL, and that AA did that only upon proof that it deemed satisfactory (at least for that purpose) that the passenger was on the first AA flight. So AA would be stuck having to explain why the passenger's proof was good enough to get a free flight (which I would imagine actually cost AA more than a few hundred bucks) but now is worthless.
It is fairly routine for AA, and other US carriers, to rebook passengers when the COC and fare rules would permit the carrier to simply cancel the ticket. Maybe it is bad practice, but the fact that a front line agent accepted a passenger's version for rebooking purposes does not mean much.
It might actually make AA look decent in front of a judge used to hearing stories about European carriers in this situation.
#28
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: DCA
Programs: AA PPro, Mariott Ambassador, B6 Mosaic, SBUX Gold, Best Buy Elite
Posts: 1,838
What difference does having the BP mean really, I could print out a pass even at a kiosk at the airport and still not get on the plane. At this point I think if you want to get their attention I would file a DOT complaint.
#29
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,433
Not necessarily.
It is fairly routine for AA, and other US carriers, to rebook passengers when the COC and fare rules would permit the carrier to simply cancel the ticket. Maybe it is bad practice, but the fact that a front line agent accepted a passenger's version for rebooking purposes does not mean much.
It might actually make AA look decent in front of a judge used to hearing stories about European carriers in this situation.
It is fairly routine for AA, and other US carriers, to rebook passengers when the COC and fare rules would permit the carrier to simply cancel the ticket. Maybe it is bad practice, but the fact that a front line agent accepted a passenger's version for rebooking purposes does not mean much.
It might actually make AA look decent in front of a judge used to hearing stories about European carriers in this situation.
#30
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 3,698
Proving that she actually flew the flight shouldn't be super hard:
- There's obviously the passport stamp for the right day
- Did she check a bag?
- Did she buy anything at either airport?
- Did she pay for transportation to/from either airport, or parking at PHL?
- Does she have a smartphone with Google location tracking turned on? If so, her timeline will show her in both airports at appropriate times
Probably worth sending some set of evidence to AA saying "I really did take the flight--you messed up so please fix". If not, probably using one of the EU-based firms that do compensation claims for her is the best bet since going back to London for the small claims case is probably not worth it.
- There's obviously the passport stamp for the right day
- Did she check a bag?
- Did she buy anything at either airport?
- Did she pay for transportation to/from either airport, or parking at PHL?
- Does she have a smartphone with Google location tracking turned on? If so, her timeline will show her in both airports at appropriate times
Probably worth sending some set of evidence to AA saying "I really did take the flight--you messed up so please fix". If not, probably using one of the EU-based firms that do compensation claims for her is the best bet since going back to London for the small claims case is probably not worth it.