uk1

Analogies are a very useful tool to try and understand complex issues by finding something similar that we can all identify with that seems to make sense and help debunk complexity. Many anaolgies that seem pretty close to the situation have been used, but whilst many have made vacuous responses that they do not, I haven't yet seen a single analogy in response ie a situation in the rest of our lives that we find familiar that proves the opposite view.

It might be that the proposition that you decide to take a little less but then be told to pay more is sufficiently counter common sense that it is in fact simply indefensible.

Let us have some contra-anolgies instead of vacuous denials please!

Globaliser

We've done the three-course meal analogy already. In that analogy, courts appear to have accepted that the airline is entitled to charge you more if you eat dessert first. So food is really not a very good analogy.

henkybaby

The only one I can come up with are some sort of group discounts... Interesting challenge though. I love arguing the opposite position.

Found one, but it's food again (and not meant to be too serious): http://bigtexan.com/72oz-steak-rules/

On a more serious note: car hire.

Say a weekly rate is $700 and the daily rate is $120. I rent based on a weekly rate but bring back the car after 3 days. It is a flexible, not a prepaid contract. The problem is that I don't actually pay more to get less. I just pay more per day. It is an example of a contract being changed by termination and changing the conditions because you do.

Globaliser

If you want a serious answer, it's probably reflects the fact that the airline pricing structure is counter-intuitive. It's counter-intuitive because there is little if anything in the rest of our lives that mirrors it, hence we find it hardly to instinctively understand. But that does not make it any less legitimate.

If you're looking for another situation in which similar rules apply and stick, look at the railways (which have already been discussed above). The underlying rationale is the same, even if railways have a more obvious (and perhaps more effective) mode of enforcement. Leaving aside the effectiveness of enforcement, that's probably the best analogy there is.

henkybaby

If you start in AMS that analogy goes out of the window because we don't have strange rules like that here.

Tafflyer

I must admit to finding the debate enthralling while admittedly now very repetitive.

I feel that a bit of a "them and us" situation has arisen with some airlines and BA is currently at the forefront of this for me. It is a situation where one feels that the relationship with a hitherto respected and loved provider of services is being undermined by that provider getting greedy and mean. BA may well find that its customers are getting more devious and proficient at cheating them out of extra income or just food and drinks from lounges, but which is the action and which is the reaction is still not really clear to me.

All of this plays on people's emotions which get amplified at each successive "enhancement", fare or charge increase, or cost saving measure. The topic in this thread is no other.

uk1

In resorting to the railway you are supporting the contra case not yours. In order to legitimise their counter intuitive application of fare rules they have specific legislation just for them that enables it. It is in order to immunise the railway companies from the same legal considerations of airlines.

henkybaby

Doesn't the law of the country where you bought / start your travel apply ?

That would make any UK specific examples (like the train one) moot.

Globaliser

The point is that the underlying commercial rationale is the same in both cases.

This is unsurprising, as they share the common feature of being transport undertakings operating in numerous markets which have differing commercial dynamics. Hence the price differentiation between markets and the tools that are being deployed to support / enforce that differentiation.

It may well be that the tools are more effective in one case than in the other, but it doesn't suddenly turn a railway ticket into a three-course meal.

If you pause for a second, it might be worth asking yourself this: Suppose the "anti-airline" camp were right. What is the logical ultimate outcome? (I put the description in quotes because it's an unfair adjective to apply, but it will identify the point of view that I'm referring to.)

henkybaby

Since it is made possible by special laws, it feels more like state sponsoring... Also very unique to the UK. If it was logical it would be implemented everywhere in Europe.

uk1

It isn't about the reasons why they wish to do it. We all understand that. It is about enforceability.

I'm sorry but you have ignored the point I made. To enforce what would otherwise appear to be unenforceable and is in fact yet to be enforced, the railways have explicit laws to enable them and immunise them from general consumer law. The airlines are left to deal with the effect of consumer law.

The BK analogy I think seems OK. You have a contract to buy a meal. You do not have a contract to eat it all up and I don't believe such a condition would be enforceable. You cannot eat more than you bought but you can eat less.

I haven't seen any other analogy that makes sense of the alternative view.

TheBaps

BA advertising would appear to disagree with you i.e. they typically advertise the CW product independently of route, not all the numerous different routes or routings that you can take in different classes.

We disagree that it is a different product i.e. it is the same product with a different route as far as I'm concerned.

That said, I think we're arguing about terms that neither you nor I can define in the context of this discussion, they can only be defined in the context of a judgment made by a court as part of a decision regarding this specific behaviour, so it's a bit moot what either you or I think.

Globaliser

The point is that there is no obvious hard divide between these two aspects of the problem, particularly when none of us has any clear view about what legal tests will be applied to determine enforceability and the extent to which a legitimate commercial rationale for price differentiation will be taken into account by the court in deciding whether the structure is enforceable by means of the legal tools currently available to the airline.

FT has this wonderful knack of always going for a binary approach to life's problems. Maybe it comes from its digital origins. The real legal world is not so clear-cut.

uk1

I appreciate the complexity and I agree that too many posts see the issues as binary ... on both sides of the argument ..... but it is equally my impression that many of the "lawyers" here are approaching the issue from what seems to be their blinkered background of corporate practice rather than how the issues are addressed by the relatively new consumer laws,of,which they might have had little or even no experience. These posts seem often not to even acknowledge either their existence or their probable influence on potential outcomes.

HIDDY

The legal argument aside the thread title suggests that BA have worked out a cunning plan on how to put a stop to this practice of starting but not ending your journey from somewhere in the EU.
I would say they haven't a hope in hell of 'clamping down' on it unless they change the earning rules and sell these fares in a class that doesn't give you full tier points or Avios. For many on here that would certainly decrease the attraction of buying ex EU fares.