WW "airlines to go bust"
#406
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreux CH
Programs: FB Platinum, M&M FTL, BA Blue
Posts: 11,528
In that situation (fee for paying by credit card), your risk management department should determine the appropriate payment method. Credit card = high fee but low risk; bank transfer = low fee but high risk.
Loganair states:In other words, it looks as if the routes from NCL will be cancelled until late March. If it was planned, then maybe planes would have been ready to immediately take over the routes?
Loganair states:In other words, it looks as if the routes from NCL will be cancelled until late March. If it was planned, then maybe planes would have been ready to immediately take over the routes?
The Silver status gave me a free checked bag when I needed it as well as access to the airberlin exclusive Wartebereich, a sort of waiting area near the gates at DUS with a coffee machine and soda dispenser. It took me quite a while to cotton on that it existed and that I had the right to use it, oddly. Then, suddenly, it was all over. And the coffee machine ran out of beans. And the soda machine ran out of soda.
#407
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Scotland
Programs: BAEC - Silver | Hilton Honors - Gold
Posts: 293
The best way too look at it or the way I looked on it when I worked in a bank, is the bank will return your account to a place before the transaction was
made, anything extra you want to claim, is done through the usual insurance process or with the now defunct airline.
The bank process the claims through their card issuer, i.e MasterCard Chargeback and recover their losses that way.
#408
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,721
The best way too look at it or the way I looked on it when I worked in a bank, is the bank will return your account to a place before the transaction was
made, anything extra you want to claim, is done through the usual insurance process or with the now defunct airline.
The bank process the claims through their card issuer, i.e MasterCard Chargeback and recover their losses that way.
#409
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,642
If the debtor ... has ... any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor.
The circumstances in which the 261/2004 claim arises may amount to a breach of contract by the supplier (failing to supply the transport contracted for), and the 261/2004 liability may be a consequence of the same circumstances as gave rise to the breach of contract, but that doesn't itself make the 261/2004 claim "in respect of" a breach of contract.
#410
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,721
Section 75(1) says:-The reason that I'm inclining to agree with the answer "no" is because it seems arguable that a claim against the supplier under 261/2004 is neither a claim in respect of a misrepresentation, nor a claim in respect of a breach of contract, but is a claim for statutory compensation.
The circumstances in which the 261/2004 claim arises may amount to a breach of contract by the supplier (failing to supply the transport contracted for), and the 261/2004 liability may be a consequence of the same circumstances as gave rise to the breach of contract, but that doesn't itself make the 261/2004 claim "in respect of" a breach of contract.
The circumstances in which the 261/2004 claim arises may amount to a breach of contract by the supplier (failing to supply the transport contracted for), and the 261/2004 liability may be a consequence of the same circumstances as gave rise to the breach of contract, but that doesn't itself make the 261/2004 claim "in respect of" a breach of contract.
The 261 question is not something I've looked into.
#411
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,642
#412
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Scotland
Programs: BAEC - Silver | Hilton Honors - Gold
Posts: 293
Indeed, but I wasn't talking about the 261 question in my post - I was responding to Jambon87's more general assertion, which is *not* how s.75 works. It implied for example that the credit card company would not be liable for the cost of a replacement flight, whereas my experience, and my understanding, is that they are.
The 261 question is not something I've looked into.
The 261 question is not something I've looked into.
Under Sec75, a credit card issuer is indeed liable for the breach of contract should a airline fail and in will refund the money that the person paid, however a credit card company is not responsible or liable to pay for new flights. Unless you have specific travel insurance with that card provider that covers this.
As I would tell customers, paying with a credit card is not travel insurance.
#413
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,721
MasterCard Chargeback is a system companies are set to process claims to MasterCard.
Under Sec75, a credit card issuer is indeed liable for the breach of contract should a airline fail and in will refund the money that the person paid, however a credit card company is not responsible or liable to pay for new flights. Unless you have specific travel insurance with that card provider that covers this.
As I would tell customers, paying with a credit card is not travel insurance.
#415
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,587
Revenues start to pick up for airlines March/April where advance bookings for the summer season kick in. The last of the winter bills get paid and cashflow improves. I would say if they last another 6 weeks then they will be okay for 6 months.
#416
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK and Southern France
Posts: 18,354
Under Sec75, a credit card issuer is indeed liable for the breach of contract should a airline fail and in will refund the money that the person paid, however a credit card company is not responsible or liable to pay for new flights. Unless you have specific travel insurance with that card provider that covers this.
It seems to me that you treat contractual liability as if it were tortious liability: contractual liability means that you have to put the other party in the position they would be if the contract was performed. What you describe is more like tortious liability, where you put the parties to the position they would be had the tort not been committed.
Section 75(1) says:-The reason that I'm inclining to agree with the answer "no" is because it seems arguable that a claim against the supplier under 261/2004 is neither a claim in respect of a misrepresentation, nor a claim in respect of a breach of contract, but is a claim for statutory compensation.
Last edited by NickB; Feb 19, 2019 at 4:57 am
#417
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,642
It would be worth checking the wording of the contract. IME, a lot of airlines TandCs reproduce or refer to Reg 261/2004, therefore making the obligation a contractual as well as a statutory one. This, it seems to me, would make the credit card company jointly liable for payment of compensation.
#418
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Scotland
Programs: BAEC - Silver | Hilton Honors - Gold
Posts: 293
So I did a further piece of research into this today and I stand corrected (I can admit when I am wrong....sometimes )
You can claim for additional compensation under 261/2004 with the credit card company. Below is a template letter you can download from Which
https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rig...ncelled-flight
Most likely one of the reasons I didnt stay working in a bank for very long.
You can claim for additional compensation under 261/2004 with the credit card company. Below is a template letter you can download from Which
https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rig...ncelled-flight
Most likely one of the reasons I didnt stay working in a bank for very long.
#419
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: City of Kingston Upon Hull
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 4,938
So I did a further piece of research into this today and I stand corrected (I can admit when I am wrong....sometimes )
You can claim for additional compensation under 261/2004 with the credit card company. Below is a template letter you can download from Which
https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rig...ncelled-flight
Most likely one of the reasons I didnt stay working in a bank for very long.
You can claim for additional compensation under 261/2004 with the credit card company. Below is a template letter you can download from Which
https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rig...ncelled-flight
Most likely one of the reasons I didnt stay working in a bank for very long.
Last edited by kanderson1965; Feb 19, 2019 at 1:12 pm
#420
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK and Southern France
Posts: 18,354
I would not be too surprised if there is pushback against this by the banks, along the lines of them not being liable until all avenues have been explored with the airline (or their appointed administrators) to recover the monies owed. As it is a joint liability, they will be looking for any sniff of any cash being forthcoming from the administators to lessen their liability.
They can push all they like but they are jointly liable under s75, which means that it is entirely up to you to start an action against either the bank or the airline or both and the bank cannot tell you to sort it with the airline first. They are free to then turn to the airline (or the administrators) to try to recover whatever they paid you but that is their problem, not yours.