Cymro

Couldn't you turn that on its head and say that the risk that you might end up at C is a valid reason to pay less? (Let's ignore how unlikely it is that you would end up booked on a direct JFK-CPH on SAS).

As for the taxation point - if an airport assessed a tax on arrivals, defined as people terminating their journey, this could be checked and recovered without impacting the flight legs. I'm not aware of anyone who does do that but it would be monitored somehow and recovered, if necessary, outside the ticketing arrangements. Even if that were the case, the obligation would not be to BA but to the public authority.

Calchas

Actually in the examples quoted at the beginning of this thread you do (...-HKG-LHR-FRA with a several month stop at LHR), because B (LHR) is a designated stopping place in the "GOOD FOR PASSAGE" section of the ticket.

It might not be the final stopping place in the contract, but nonetheless B is in the contract.

IcHot

There's a major flaw with your argument in the sense that any ex-EU flight even fully competed by a passenger from a more expensive market would be considered a loss and undermining pricing strategies by the airlines.

So if taking all but the last flight or all flights, the loss is very nearly equal to the airline if we make all these price comparisons to what might have been. If we agree that the airline does not have the right to price your ticket by the market you reside in no matter where you actually travel to and from, then we are really getting down to splitting hairs and overstepping the concept of a consensual relationship.

"Did I buy the obligation to travel?" becomes the key point very quickly once courts are confronted with the proposition that airlines could charge people who may simply want to stop traveling for whatever reason. If someone has a panic attack and wants to get off at their first connection, there's no gaming of the system on their part, but do we give the airlines and their systems the power to reprice it and hit an unwitting consumer with a doozy of a bill? Do we just trust the airlines to only charge certain people? Do we limit their repricing to a fee? Or does society let the market set a price to find equilibrium rather than approve a misguided effort to increase revenue with what is essentially the ability to penalize?

We know all the arguments about intent and proof of abusing the system, but I doubt many courts would want to open the can of worms that gives airlines something closer to a taxing ability than anything resembling a market transaction.

Tafflyer

Indeed, the German judgement quoted further up this thread established that the purchase of any given service also entitles the recipient to only use that service partially and that the partial use of that service does not constitute any disadvantage on the part of the supplier.

If this judgement is now German case law, I would have no problem discarding the final sector of a journey purchased in Germany. Other judgements have also confirmed that frequent flyer points are part and parcel of the purchased service, meaning I would also not fear losing any of these in the case of dropping a final sector.

Personally, I find dropping a sector to be a waste of tier points, but if a consumer decides to not use what they have purchased, that is a matter of choice.

orbitmic

Actually, I won't. The reason is that as I mentioned, that decision has been discussed in extensor in multiple existing threads, and I recommend anyone intrested or doubting my earlier summary (which is perfectly fine to do) to do a simple search and find out for themselves. Some of our usual contributors who have spent more time than me on this would probably know where to look off the top of their head but I don't and it takes me time to look it up (I already did take time to look up the original first instance court judgement so that everyone could have any further search facilitated). At this stage, it becomes as easy for anyone as it would be for myself to look up the rest of the case, comments and details. I maintain my summary exactly unchanged: 1) court decided that the airline did not have the right to cancel part of the itinerary when a passenger misses a segment, 2) same court decided that it would be legitimate for the said airline to recalculate the fare according to the itinerary actually undertaken rather than the one booked and changed de facto. For details, I'll let everything refer to the ample existing threads.

Dave Noble

If travelling from A-B-C where there is no stopover in B, the airline can rebook a passenger directly from A-C in case of disruption and there is no right to go to B. If there is a stopover at B, then there is an entitlement to be rebooked to B

From the CoC

Flexible preferences

Personally, I think if you're relying on it in your point of view it isn't unreasonable to take the time to look it up and identify it. If you can't even be bothered to back up your own argument no one else is likely to want to do it for you. It is a shame because it could bring more to the table in this very interesting discussion.

Fitch

I'm on holiday at the moment and have lazily browsed through the last 28(!) pages from the comfort of my sunbed...

It may be the cocktails have addled my brain, but it seems that the putative enforcement action by BA can really only have one motive and that is to put on notice those TAs who have been making "industrial" use of ex-EUs and dropped sectors to reduce costs for their corporate clients.

After all, what benefit does BA derive from threats or indeed action unless it changes customer (and/or TA) behaviour in a commercially significant way ?

I just don't believe individuals like me are "costing" them a penny by starting our journeys from ARN or CPH; for myself, I would never fly CW on my own dime if I had to pay ex-LON prices...

It has to be sabre-rattling by BAs ( with perhaps the odd hanging) pour encourager les autres TA

kanderson1965

I thought BA uses Amedeus not Sabre.

Globaliser

You can get to different answers on this point by different analyses. So no, it is not a "major flaw". All it demonstrates is the complexity of the subject, which this discussion (and all others like it on FT) barely touches.

FrancisA

This is not a flaw in the argument - it is the essence of the pricing stratrgy.

There are not more expensive markets - there are direct and indirect flights. FRA-JFK is more expensive than FRA-LHR-JFK, but LHR-JFK is more expensive than LHR-FRA-JFK.

The obvious reason for this being who would pay even the same money for a less convenient and more time consuming indirect routing. (TP runs excepted)

What those dropping the final sector are doing is trying to pay for an indirect routing, but effectively stealing a direct routing on the way back.

The airline's position is that we have to offer cheaper fares for indirect routings and we want you to adhere to the contract that you make with us.

Enforcing payment of the fare difference at law may be problemstic (as this thread illustrates) and there are many people with low moral values who think it is acceptable to ignore rules, contractual commitments, law etc if enforcement is unlikely.

Against this backdrop, would it be surprising if an airline took other measures to ensure compliance with the contractual terms? Loss of avios and TPs for the offending routings is obvious and easy, loss of status a bit more extreme but not impossible. Refusal to sell tickets is another option.

The point is not that the airline loses even more if you take the full ex-EU journey; the point is that for some an ex-EU would be much less attractive if they had to take the last leg and that would be financially beneficial to the airline.

Once more we are getting bogged down in the minutiae of legal technicalities and patting ourselves on the back for being such clever lawyers; meanwhile BA may be acting to make dropping final sectors a less rewarding and attractive proposition than it is at the moment, without a thought in the world about taking customers to court.

Once more the selfish actions of those who push these things to the limit will adversely affect those who take a more reasoned and reasonable approach.

London_traveller

Yes, but, the poster used latin. Case closed I'm afraid.

Greg66

Strategy schmategy.

Pricing strategy is something for the seller of good and services to ponder. Not the consumer.

A six pack of Coke costs less than five individual cans. Because Coke wants its product in your fridge. But having bought a six pack, if you drink five and throw one away, can Coke ask you to pay the additional cost of five individual cans because it has a "pricing strategy"? Of course not. Nor can it claim that you misrepresented that you would be a good boy and drink all six cans, which was the real reason it agreed to sell you a six pack.

It *could* on the other hand put you on a black list of people to whom it will not sell in the future, or terminate your membership of "The Coca Cola Club". And that's pretty much bang on where the airlines stand on this.

Globaliser

This is another version of the three-course meal argument, as to which see above.

Tobias-UK

I agree. Some here are taking a rather simplistic view of the issues and are considering various aspects of the complicated legal issues in isolation. That is not a sensible approach. Should BA (or any airline) find themselves in a British court (either as a claimant or defendant) then there will be significant legal argument. Yes the facts are clear and simple, the law not so.