BA clamping down on missed final ex-EU sector [?]
Jul 23, 2015, 2:41 pm
#511
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Argentina
Posts: 40,209
Jul 23, 2015, 3:37 pm
#512
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brighton, UK
Programs: BA Gold, IC Ambassador, HH Gold, SPG Gold, Fairmont Platinum
Posts: 3,166
And your cogent argument touches on the questionable ethical and moral grounds at the heart of this issue and that is of asserting a right to take cash from customers because it is contractual when you might suspect that the terms of the contract might not actually be enforceable and you do not plan for the fact to be ever proved either way. You exploit the presumption that most ordinary people will presume that as you are a major corporation that you wouldn't dream of asserting such a right without that certainty and you continue to do so based only on the exploitation of ignorance of possible rights and the understandable fear an individual might have of losing against the resources of a corporation.
In my view that approach from a business ethics viewpoint is reprehensible and is what in the end damages hard earned reputation which is more valuable than the extra tactical odd surcharge.
In my view that approach from a business ethics viewpoint is reprehensible and is what in the end damages hard earned reputation which is more valuable than the extra tactical odd surcharge.
They have in the T&Cs that they will reprice the ticket if you want to change it, and I am sure they will reprice your ticket if you say in advance that you won't be taking the final sector and you want the ticket repriced.
I wasn't aware that anyone had faced a post flight invoice for a change of route.
If you think it is ethically and morally questionable to include in your T&Cs a clause which certain people on an Internet discussion board think might be unenforceable (although no-one has been so concerned as to even write to BA to express this concern, let alone bring a test case), what exactly to you think of those deliberately dropping final sectors?
Is deliberately lying about your routing to obtain a discount that would not be available if you revealed your intended routing ethically and morally acceptable? Would lying about your age to obtain a junior discount also be acceptable?
Presumably BA could just adopt a policy that the ex-UK fare is payable (and charged to the customer) until the final sector is flown, at which point a discount is awarded and paid back to the customer.
Is that also unenforceable?
Jul 23, 2015, 4:03 pm
#513
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
I must have missed something. When exactly did BA demand money from someone who did not fly a final sector?
They have in the T&Cs that they will reprice the ticket if you want to change it, and I am sure they will reprice your ticket if you say in advance that you won't be taking the final sector and you want the ticket repriced.
I wasn't aware that anyone had faced a post flight invoice for a change of route.
If you think it is ethically and morally questionable to include in your T&Cs a clause which certain people on an Internet discussion board think might be unenforceable (although no-one has been so concerned as to even write to BA to express this concern, let alone bring a test case), what exactly to you think of those deliberately dropping final sectors?
Is deliberately lying about your routing to obtain a discount that would not be available if you revealed your intended routing ethically and morally acceptable? Would lying about your age to obtain a junior discount also be acceptable?
Presumably BA could just adopt a policy that the ex-UK fare is payable (and charged to the customer) until the final sector is flown, at which point a discount is awarded and paid back to the customer.
Is that also unenforceable?
They have in the T&Cs that they will reprice the ticket if you want to change it, and I am sure they will reprice your ticket if you say in advance that you won't be taking the final sector and you want the ticket repriced.
I wasn't aware that anyone had faced a post flight invoice for a change of route.
If you think it is ethically and morally questionable to include in your T&Cs a clause which certain people on an Internet discussion board think might be unenforceable (although no-one has been so concerned as to even write to BA to express this concern, let alone bring a test case), what exactly to you think of those deliberately dropping final sectors?
Is deliberately lying about your routing to obtain a discount that would not be available if you revealed your intended routing ethically and morally acceptable? Would lying about your age to obtain a junior discount also be acceptable?
Presumably BA could just adopt a policy that the ex-UK fare is payable (and charged to the customer) until the final sector is flown, at which point a discount is awarded and paid back to the customer.
Is that also unenforceable?
If you re-read my post I said "asserting the right". That has been what the whole thread is about. Right?
You have contorted the word lie. I am not aware of anyone "deliberately lying" about anything. They booked a ticket and took less of it. Where was such a declaration? I am not clear where you think someone swore some sort of oath that they didn't keep.
No one has said they lied about their age to claim a discount, and only you so far thinks these two issues are identical. One is telling a lie and one isn't. I have a problem with one but not the other, so your answer is "no I wouldn't do it".
I do not understand the relevance of your point about no one writing to BA and what it has to do with anything in the thread or what I have said. Most of the stuff that is interesting to discuss on FT doesn't pass that test.
You have a perfect right to hold the views you do but you seem to be justifying those views and a somewhat excessively high moral ground on stuff you are making up.
Anyway neither of us needs to repeat the same thing yet again do we ......
Jul 23, 2015, 4:10 pm
#514
Join Date: Mar 2015
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 59
Well, what a relief, I was concerned that we might not get past the 500 posts barrier, but now I can relax.
As a busy lawyer (and with other responsibilities as well) I should not, as a good friend has remarked, have any time to spend on these circular debates that ultimately signify nothing - but I am reassured that others have found the debate worthwhile.
I had been tempted to bow out of the discussion having made my points as clearly as I could and on the basis that repeating myself to respond to those who can see no other way but the BA way is ultimately an exercise I do not have the stamina to do.
But, having read what Orbitmic said at post 478 and Tobias-UK at post 504 (Ambassador and Evangelist, and Ambassador, respectively) I feel I have to add more fuel to the fire. My well-connected friend may well consider what follows embarrassing, but on the basis that where certain quarters are concerned, I feel I have no bridges left to burn, here goes.
I think I now understand why some of our distinguished and welcoming Ambassadors/Evangelists have been working so hard to disagree with those offering their legal experience to pooh-pooh at least one of the legal options it was suggested that BA could use. In short, to the extent that BA is upset by last leg no-shows (too many seats they could otherwise have re-sold in practice, I suspect) the game plan (as has been noted) is to put it about that this practice will be stamped on, so watch out. If this is sufficiently regurgitated on-line (I like the snake picture, by the way) the idea is that many people will decide to take the inconvenient last leg after all, for fear of dire consequences if they fail to do so (without a "valid" genuine excuse).
This, it is hoped, will reduce the scale of the problem to a level that BA feels it can cope with, so the FT cognoscenti (whoever they may be) can continue to no show on the basis that there is no risk of sanction or of possibly more drastic measures being taken against everybody (ie new Ts and Cs making ex-EU's more onerous for all customers).
So, I can see how it is important for us all to pitch in and talk up the risks to bring about a desirable end result for the lucky few, who may then continue to "abuse" Ex-EU flights regardless.
In that spirit, can I say that after much thought, I have developed a legal analysis which could be used by BA contractually to support substituting the high Ex-UK price for the cheaper Ex-EU fare flown, but minus the final leg. In order to keep the all-important controversy going, I am obviously not going to disclose this here. Unless, of course, BA wishes to make me an offer I can't refuse, in which case I might disclose it to them.
Bearing in mind that I have also picked up a libel claim along the way from this forum (should I wish to pursue it), I think this has been a highly productive exercise for me while I was overheating close to Nice yesterday.
One final thought - while I have great respect for the "senior" FTers in terms of their industry knowledge, which I applaud, none of them have stated in terms that as well as enormous knowledge and experience as frequent flyers, they also have experience as qualified lawyers of the legal issues involved. I think there is a risk (as with any regulator) that you naturally become close to and somewhat aligned with the views of the service provider (that you know almost intimately). Perish the thought that such a reality could influence opinions, but it may tempt the non-expert in a legal context to fail to allow for their lack of legal knowledge.
I realise that I must have ruffled feathers as a new poster here with little relative knowledge of the airline industry in directly challenging far more experienced "experts" and I would not do so on industry practice or what to do if this or that. But, I do know the law, that is my daily bread so I feel entitled to ask those who disagree with me why it is that they do so. Their efforts have been completely unconvincing to me and, it would seem, to others as well. Unfortunately, my confidence in the "experts" here has been somewhat reduced, but no doubt in their own view they felt entitled to be offended by someone who directly challenged what they were saying (and was somewhat undermining the whole purpose of this "show" to boot).
As a busy lawyer (and with other responsibilities as well) I should not, as a good friend has remarked, have any time to spend on these circular debates that ultimately signify nothing - but I am reassured that others have found the debate worthwhile.
I had been tempted to bow out of the discussion having made my points as clearly as I could and on the basis that repeating myself to respond to those who can see no other way but the BA way is ultimately an exercise I do not have the stamina to do.
But, having read what Orbitmic said at post 478 and Tobias-UK at post 504 (Ambassador and Evangelist, and Ambassador, respectively) I feel I have to add more fuel to the fire. My well-connected friend may well consider what follows embarrassing, but on the basis that where certain quarters are concerned, I feel I have no bridges left to burn, here goes.
I think I now understand why some of our distinguished and welcoming Ambassadors/Evangelists have been working so hard to disagree with those offering their legal experience to pooh-pooh at least one of the legal options it was suggested that BA could use. In short, to the extent that BA is upset by last leg no-shows (too many seats they could otherwise have re-sold in practice, I suspect) the game plan (as has been noted) is to put it about that this practice will be stamped on, so watch out. If this is sufficiently regurgitated on-line (I like the snake picture, by the way) the idea is that many people will decide to take the inconvenient last leg after all, for fear of dire consequences if they fail to do so (without a "valid" genuine excuse).
This, it is hoped, will reduce the scale of the problem to a level that BA feels it can cope with, so the FT cognoscenti (whoever they may be) can continue to no show on the basis that there is no risk of sanction or of possibly more drastic measures being taken against everybody (ie new Ts and Cs making ex-EU's more onerous for all customers).
So, I can see how it is important for us all to pitch in and talk up the risks to bring about a desirable end result for the lucky few, who may then continue to "abuse" Ex-EU flights regardless.
In that spirit, can I say that after much thought, I have developed a legal analysis which could be used by BA contractually to support substituting the high Ex-UK price for the cheaper Ex-EU fare flown, but minus the final leg. In order to keep the all-important controversy going, I am obviously not going to disclose this here. Unless, of course, BA wishes to make me an offer I can't refuse, in which case I might disclose it to them.
Bearing in mind that I have also picked up a libel claim along the way from this forum (should I wish to pursue it), I think this has been a highly productive exercise for me while I was overheating close to Nice yesterday.
One final thought - while I have great respect for the "senior" FTers in terms of their industry knowledge, which I applaud, none of them have stated in terms that as well as enormous knowledge and experience as frequent flyers, they also have experience as qualified lawyers of the legal issues involved. I think there is a risk (as with any regulator) that you naturally become close to and somewhat aligned with the views of the service provider (that you know almost intimately). Perish the thought that such a reality could influence opinions, but it may tempt the non-expert in a legal context to fail to allow for their lack of legal knowledge.
I realise that I must have ruffled feathers as a new poster here with little relative knowledge of the airline industry in directly challenging far more experienced "experts" and I would not do so on industry practice or what to do if this or that. But, I do know the law, that is my daily bread so I feel entitled to ask those who disagree with me why it is that they do so. Their efforts have been completely unconvincing to me and, it would seem, to others as well. Unfortunately, my confidence in the "experts" here has been somewhat reduced, but no doubt in their own view they felt entitled to be offended by someone who directly challenged what they were saying (and was somewhat undermining the whole purpose of this "show" to boot).
Jul 23, 2015, 4:26 pm
#515
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
Your post is a slur, sir. I was I felt asked because I have posted on this type of issue regularly and have been told by at least one of the enigmatic posters you mention that I known not of what i speaketh.
So I said clearly and proudly I am not a lawyer. and waited to take the rap. Couldn't be clearer than that could I?
Did you have to tap on the window in the lounge to get your glass of sparkle with a grimace by the way. Often not very nice in Nice.
ps I find your posts informative and amusing and nice.
So I said clearly and proudly I am not a lawyer. and waited to take the rap. Couldn't be clearer than that could I?
Did you have to tap on the window in the lounge to get your glass of sparkle with a grimace by the way. Often not very nice in Nice.
ps I find your posts informative and amusing and nice.
Jul 23, 2015, 4:31 pm
#516
Join Date: Mar 2015
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 59
Gosh, UK1, you make me want to do that ^ +1 thingie we see sometimes.
And, no, I have never dared to ask for shampoo in the Riviera Lounge - because I have never actually seen anyone drinking it there. I wouldn't want to start a trend - that would never do!
And, no, I have never dared to ask for shampoo in the Riviera Lounge - because I have never actually seen anyone drinking it there. I wouldn't want to start a trend - that would never do!
Jul 23, 2015, 4:38 pm
#518
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Hague, NL
Programs: GMLFL, Life 2.0 - Mucci Premiere Classe & des Chevaliers Toulousiens
Posts: 22,911
Jul 23, 2015, 4:49 pm
#519
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SW18, UK
Programs: Mucci Diamond Hairbrush. And Nouveau Bronze
Posts: 1,393
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.
The only thing to be enforced is the contract between the airline and the passenger, and the principles of contractual construction are really quite clear.
Jul 23, 2015, 7:27 pm
#520
Ambassador, Hong Kong and Macau
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Programs: Non-top tier Asia Miles member
Posts: 19,799
But again this is the nub of the problem. There seem to be some who believe an indirect routing of A-B-C is as valuable or more valuable than a direct A-C routing.
How can that be so?
With gold, the more I can get the better, therefore more gold costs more money.
However, with most forms of transport less is more valuable. You pay a premium to travel on an express train rather than a stopping service. Why? Because it takes less time and that time has a value.
The same applies to airline travel. Concorde cost more money in part because it took less time to get from A-B than other aircraft. You were on the plane less, so you paid more. The same applies to direct vs. indirect routings. More convenient routing equals more expensive routing.
In abstract terms you will pay more for more something that is an end (owning gold), but when dealing with the means to an end (getting from A to B), you will pay more for greater speed and convenience.
This is only counter-intuitive if you do not realise that you are comparing apples with pears in many of the comparisons offered.
How can that be so?
With gold, the more I can get the better, therefore more gold costs more money.
However, with most forms of transport less is more valuable. You pay a premium to travel on an express train rather than a stopping service. Why? Because it takes less time and that time has a value.
The same applies to airline travel. Concorde cost more money in part because it took less time to get from A-B than other aircraft. You were on the plane less, so you paid more. The same applies to direct vs. indirect routings. More convenient routing equals more expensive routing.
In abstract terms you will pay more for more something that is an end (owning gold), but when dealing with the means to an end (getting from A to B), you will pay more for greater speed and convenience.
This is only counter-intuitive if you do not realise that you are comparing apples with pears in many of the comparisons offered.
Jul 24, 2015, 1:51 am
#521
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: SW London
Programs: BAEC Silver; Hilton Diamond;a miscellany of other hotel non-statuses
Posts: 3,607
In that spirit...
A hotel offers rooms at £200 per night, or £100 for pre-paid stays that include a weekend night.
You arrive on Tuesday for a 5 night stay, having paid £500.
You then leave on Friday, having spent three weekday nights there and not qualifying for the lower rate.
Should the hotel ask for the extra £100?
A hotel offers rooms at £200 per night, or £100 for pre-paid stays that include a weekend night.
You arrive on Tuesday for a 5 night stay, having paid £500.
You then leave on Friday, having spent three weekday nights there and not qualifying for the lower rate.
Should the hotel ask for the extra £100?
Jul 24, 2015, 2:01 am
#522
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brighton. UK
Programs: BA Gold / VS /IHG Diamond & Ambassador
Posts: 14,194
In that spirit...
A hotel offers rooms at £200 per night, or £100 for pre-paid stays that include a weekend night.
You arrive on Tuesday for a 5 night stay, having paid £500.
You then leave on Friday, having spent three weekday nights there and not qualifying for the lower rate.
Should the hotel ask for the extra £100?
A hotel offers rooms at £200 per night, or £100 for pre-paid stays that include a weekend night.
You arrive on Tuesday for a 5 night stay, having paid £500.
You then leave on Friday, having spent three weekday nights there and not qualifying for the lower rate.
Should the hotel ask for the extra £100?
They might not charge you the 'proper' 3 night rate but nor will they refund you the £200 for the two missed nights
Plus a hotel is more likely (but not guaranteed) to be able to re-sell your room.
Jul 24, 2015, 2:10 am
#523
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
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.
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.
Pre-contract and contract information on or after 13 June 2014
When you shop by distance sale, on-premises or off the trader's premises the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 say you must be given clear information about the goods, services or digital content. This is called pre-contract information. In addition, you should also receive contract information in a distance sale and in an off-premises sale
That is a clarity test that can be questioned for compliance since June 2014 (and before) before any fairness tests are considered imho. A person simply saying "I did not know, it wasn't clear and I wouldn't have guessed it" is I believe sufficient to knock it on the head.
Last edited by uk1; Jul 24, 2015 at 2:18 am
Jul 24, 2015, 2:16 am
#524
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Germany / Thailand
Programs: M&M/S SPG livetime gold, but not running behind status & points anymore! Now only book value for $
Posts: 3,090
Whatever FAQ's say, is not law ! Often enough this is even illegal, specially in a consumer protecting European country.
I would never scare to drop a last segment and even already droped many 1st. and/or 2nd. segments.
I can say that LH/SQ/TG and LX tryed to sue me ( private and as an TA, which I was that time ). Every single case I brought to court and the airlines lost @ all, them even had to pay denied boarding compensation. Also debit notes against me as a TA them could not hold in court. The only way to punish me, was to block us selling LH and SQ tickets trough our AMA system.
I think BA is there in no other position. No way to force people to pay any fare differences.
I would never scare to drop a last segment and even already droped many 1st. and/or 2nd. segments.
I can say that LH/SQ/TG and LX tryed to sue me ( private and as an TA, which I was that time ). Every single case I brought to court and the airlines lost @ all, them even had to pay denied boarding compensation. Also debit notes against me as a TA them could not hold in court. The only way to punish me, was to block us selling LH and SQ tickets trough our AMA system.
I think BA is there in no other position. No way to force people to pay any fare differences.
What is your basis for that? 3c in the terms clearly say:
Hence you don't travel according to the ticket your ticket is no longer valid.
If you actually want to change your booking:
However, what do you think removing the last leg from the booking is going to do to the price?
Hence you don't travel according to the ticket your ticket is no longer valid.
If you actually want to change your booking:
However, what do you think removing the last leg from the booking is going to do to the price?
Jul 24, 2015, 2:19 am
#525
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GGL+GfL, ALL Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 30,520
But, having read [...] Tobias-UK at post 504 [...]
One final thought - while I have great respect for the "senior" FTers in terms of their industry knowledge, which I applaud, none of them have stated in terms that as well as enormous knowledge and experience as frequent flyers, they also have experience as qualified lawyers of the legal issues involved. [...]
But, I do know the law, that is my daily bread so I feel entitled to ask those who disagree with me why it is that they do so. Their efforts have been completely unconvincing to me and, it would seem, to others as well. Unfortunately, my confidence in the "experts" here has been somewhat reduced
One final thought - while I have great respect for the "senior" FTers in terms of their industry knowledge, which I applaud, none of them have stated in terms that as well as enormous knowledge and experience as frequent flyers, they also have experience as qualified lawyers of the legal issues involved. [...]
But, I do know the law, that is my daily bread so I feel entitled to ask those who disagree with me why it is that they do so. Their efforts have been completely unconvincing to me and, it would seem, to others as well. Unfortunately, my confidence in the "experts" here has been somewhat reduced
And the part about things not "stated" seems odd to me. I would suggest that when it comes to anonymous internet discussion groups and fora, the wisest attitude by far (as well as the most wildly embraced by regular members) is to not give personal details (whether they relate to your identity, profession, or movements) on a public forum of which we cannot control access, contents, and future use. People are of course free to do otherwise as you have, but this is neither the norm, nor typically what is recommended by FT, let alone an odd "requirement" of sorts. At most, sometimes, when people have virtually "known" each other for a long time and enjoyed each others' contributions and happen to be at the same airport at the same time, they might arrange to finally meet up in person and put a real name, details, and face on a handle, but that is typically optional, occasional, and private.