WW "airlines to go bust"

Old Feb 18, 2019, 1:19 pm
  #406  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreux CH
Programs: FB Platinum, M&M FTL, BA Blue
Posts: 11,528
Originally Posted by Some person
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?
The tickets were so cheap, in the €39 - €59 range, that I figured the loss if something happened was worth the overall saving on credit card fees for all the AB tickets I booked. Towards the end ticket prices were so cheap it no longer was an option to use BAEC Avios for them (whereas it had been earlier, and had bailed me out on various occasions, especially once when germanwings went on strike). Routes I booked for cheap cash were DUS-GVA, DUS-ZRH-, DUS-LIN, as well as DUS-TXL and vv. Routes I booked with Avios were DUS-ZRH, LIN-DUS, DUS-ACE and vv (except for LIN-DUS).

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.
Concerto is online now  
Old Feb 18, 2019, 2:41 pm
  #407  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Scotland
Programs: BAEC - Silver | Hilton Honors - Gold
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by Globaliser
In the specific context of my earlier post, I was wondering whether the credit card company might be liable under the CCA for the 261/2004 compensation as well.

Having since had a look at the CCA itself, I'm inclined to agree with Jambon87 that the answer is no.

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.

Jambon87 is offline  
Old Feb 18, 2019, 2:55 pm
  #408  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,721
Originally Posted by Jambon87



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.

You seem to be talking about chargeback, which is different to the s.75 liability and a different process.
NickB likes this.
Ldnn1 is online now  
Old Feb 18, 2019, 3:28 pm
  #409  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,642
Originally Posted by Ldnn1
Originally Posted by Jambon87
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 ...
You seem to be talking about chargeback, which is different to the s.75 liability and a different process.
Section 75(1) says:-
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 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.
Globaliser is offline  
Old Feb 18, 2019, 3:34 pm
  #410  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,721
Originally Posted by Globaliser
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.
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.
Ldnn1 is online now  
Old Feb 18, 2019, 3:37 pm
  #411  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,642
Originally Posted by Ldnn1
Indeed, but I wasn't talking about the 261 question in my post ...
Yes, sorry, I should probably have quoted more posts to make the line of discussion clearer, given the different strands going on.
Globaliser is offline  
Old Feb 18, 2019, 3:55 pm
  #412  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Scotland
Programs: BAEC - Silver | Hilton Honors - Gold
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by Ldnn1
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.
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.
Jambon87 is offline  
Old Feb 18, 2019, 4:10 pm
  #413  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,721
Originally Posted by Jambon87


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.
Well as I said above, that is not my understanding, nor is it my experience - I have personally had my credit card company cover the full cost of a replacement flight (more than the cost of the original) when an airline went bust on me. This was done without a fight.
Ldnn1 is online now  
Old Feb 19, 2019, 2:15 am
  #414  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Programs: Regarded as total and utter snob amongst the BAEC community.
Posts: 971
What are the chances of Norwegian going bust within the next 6 months?
icegirl is offline  
Old Feb 19, 2019, 2:24 am
  #415  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,587
Originally Posted by icegirl
What are the chances of Norwegian going bust within the next 6 months?
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.
rapidex is offline  
Old Feb 19, 2019, 4:51 am
  #416  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK and Southern France
Posts: 18,354
Originally Posted by Jambon87
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.
This is not how I read it. My reading would align with that of Ldnn1. The effect of s75 CCA is to make the credit card jointly liable with the obligations of the merchant (in our case the airline) under the contract. That is different from the chargeback scheme, which only provides for the refund of sums paid. In so far as the airline would have an obligation to re-route under the contract, the credit card company would be jointly liable to re-route the passenger. If the airline and the credit card company do not fulfill that obligation, then the passenger can self-reroute and seek reimbursement of the rerouting costs.
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.

Originally Posted by Globaliser
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.
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.

Last edited by NickB; Feb 19, 2019 at 4:57 am
NickB is offline  
Old Feb 19, 2019, 6:34 am
  #417  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,642
Originally Posted by NickB
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.
Ah yes, I can see how that might work.
Globaliser is offline  
Old Feb 19, 2019, 12:20 pm
  #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.
Jambon87 is offline  
Old Feb 19, 2019, 1:06 pm
  #419  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: City of Kingston Upon Hull
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 4,938
Originally Posted by Jambon87
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.
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.

Last edited by kanderson1965; Feb 19, 2019 at 1:12 pm
kanderson1965 is offline  
Old Feb 19, 2019, 1:17 pm
  #420  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK and Southern France
Posts: 18,354
Originally Posted by kanderson1965

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.
NickB 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.