BA clamping down on missed final ex-EU sector [?]
Jul 24, 2015, 2:24 am
#526
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
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?
However, (isn't there always a however .....
) ....there is no rule that says you must sleep in the room or actually occupy the room. He has the right to occupy the room and isn't compelled to do so. The customer could if he weren't so dumb simply say on Friday, "Hi, I'm off today and there is a chance I may not actually return tommorow - but please don't release my room. Bring my bill up to date including the charges for tommorow now". Even doing nothing and just leaving might have the same consequences if he has already paid up front. BA is saying in the cross analogy therefore that their conditions state that the customer is compelled to occupy the room and will receive a penalty if he doesn't do so. Doesn't seem enforceable to me ....
Don't you think?
Jul 24, 2015, 2:34 am
#527
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
Can you point to a single post in this thread where he has said anything meaty about the issue other than if you disagree with me you are wrong?
Anyone can pronounce enigmatically that everyone else is wrong other than me but I haven't seen a single meaty sausage yet.
Jul 24, 2015, 2:38 am
#528
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Programs: Hilton, IHG - BA, GA, LH, QR, SV, TK
Posts: 17,008
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......
...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..
This, it is hoped, will reduce the scale of the problem to a level that BA feels it can cope with
...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..
This, it is hoped, will reduce the scale of the problem to a level that BA feels it can cope with
BA's concern is that customers who would otherwise fly with LHR as origin and final destination at £3K+, are instead taking on a measure of inconvenience to pay only £2K, or less.
BA seems to be hoping that by forcing these miscreants to take on the full measure of that inconvenience, they will be discouraged - and fork out the full LHR fare.
Some of the bad-boys may well decide to play along. But as they've demonstrated a willingness to trade time & trouble for cash, then if push comes to shove, I imagine most will simply swallow the inconvenience, and the additional avios/TPs. Or they'll find other carriers.
For BA to put anything more than noise into the effort would therefore seem a Canute-like employment of resources.
Jul 24, 2015, 2:48 am
#529
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
I think our business is done here.
Jul 24, 2015, 3:21 am
#530
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Hague, NL
Programs: GMLFL, Life 2.0 - Mucci Premiere Classe & des Chevaliers Toulousiens
Posts: 22,911
Except maybe for the car hire example....
That actually happens almost daily.
That actually happens almost daily.
Jul 24, 2015, 3:22 am
#531
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Provincie Antwerpen, Vlaanderen, België
Programs: MUCCI Gold
Posts: 2,512
So, after 36 pages of glorious p***ing contest, did we find out who is the most well-endowed?
Jul 24, 2015, 3:28 am
#532
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
Jul 24, 2015, 3:36 am
#533
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brighton. UK
Programs: BA Gold / VS /IHG Diamond & Ambassador
Posts: 14,195
Jul 24, 2015, 4:05 am
#535
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Near Edinburgh
Programs: BA Silver
Posts: 9,034
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.
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.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/25143196-post26.html
Jul 24, 2015, 4:32 am
#536
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London
Programs: BA GGL (for now) and Lifetime Gold, Marriott fan thanks to Bonvoy Moments
Posts: 5,115
Jul 24, 2015, 6:01 am
#537
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club, easyJet and Ryanair
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 15,926
Just to clarify, are you actually questioning Tobias-UK's legal credentials, because that would really be extremely funny?
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.
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.
There also appears to be some confusion in the mind of Davidxg as to the role of an Ambassador on this forum. He does not appear to appreciate that we are not British Airways Ambassadors but FlyerTalk Ambassadors and as such we do not speak on behalf of British Airways nor do we have any motivation to protect BA or its reputation.
I act for (and advise) a number of international airlines (not including BA) and I am aware those airlines read these pages. They also know my identity. I do not bite the hand that feeds me and for that reason I choose not to get involved in any detailed legal discusion that I may be called to offer an advice or argue on behalf of my client airlines.
I have received a number of messages alerting me that an individual on my FlyerTalk ignore list has, yet again, taken the opportunity of trying to poke me and demean. It is sad he finds it necessary but I will not now, nor in the future, respond to his goading.
Jul 24, 2015, 6:13 am
#538
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
It is unfortunate that some prefer to make personal attacks and issue groundless threats of legal action rather than argue the issues under discussion. It appears you and I have been singled out for abuse not because we have a dissenting view on the enforceability or otherwise of repricing dropped final leg itineraries but because we take the cautious approach and advocate that readers should keep an open mind on the complicated legal issues this subject raises. This is not as black and white an issue some would have us believe. Until such time an event occurs where BA tries to enforce its claimed right to reprice an itinerary for a dropped final sector (and there is no evidence that this is even under consideration) then this remains moot and no reliable conclusion to enforceability can be arrived at until the matter comes before the courts and any points of law have been argued and settled.
There also appears to be some confusion in the mind of Davidxg as to the role of an Ambassador on this forum. He does not appear to appreciate that we are not British Airways Ambassadors but FlyerTalk Ambassadors and as such we do not speak on behalf of British Airways nor do we have any motivation to protect BA or its reputation.
I act for (and advise) a number of international airlines (not including BA) and I am aware those airlines read these pages. They also know my identity. I do not bite the hand that feeds me and for that reason I choose not to get involved in any detailed legal discusion that I may be called to offer an advice or argue on behalf of my client airlines.
I have received a number of messages alerting me that an individual on my FlyerTalk ignore list has, yet again, taken the opportunity of trying to poke me and demean. It is sad he finds it necessary but I will not now, nor in the future, respond to his goading.
There also appears to be some confusion in the mind of Davidxg as to the role of an Ambassador on this forum. He does not appear to appreciate that we are not British Airways Ambassadors but FlyerTalk Ambassadors and as such we do not speak on behalf of British Airways nor do we have any motivation to protect BA or its reputation.
I act for (and advise) a number of international airlines (not including BA) and I am aware those airlines read these pages. They also know my identity. I do not bite the hand that feeds me and for that reason I choose not to get involved in any detailed legal discusion that I may be called to offer an advice or argue on behalf of my client airlines.
I have received a number of messages alerting me that an individual on my FlyerTalk ignore list has, yet again, taken the opportunity of trying to poke me and demean. It is sad he finds it necessary but I will not now, nor in the future, respond to his goading.
If you read my posts, you haven't been attacked at all, I have simply pointed out you haven't said anything in this thread and basically you continue to do so.
Jul 24, 2015, 6:20 am
#539
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: 30,526
There also appears to be some confusion in the mind of Davidxg as to the role of an Ambassador on this forum. He does not appear to appreciate that we are not British Airways Ambassadors but FlyerTalk Ambassadors and as such we do not speak on behalf of British Airways nor do we have any motivation to protect BA or its reputation.
Jul 24, 2015, 6:25 am
#540
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK and Southern France
Posts: 18,364
Cancelling the whole ticket is one thing. But as far as German law is concerned I, am quite sure that a clause which allows the carrier to re-calculate the fare if one misses the final leg, would be unenforceable.
Section 309 of the German Civil Code: Prohibited clauses without the possibility of evaluation
Even if a court held that re-calculating the fare does not qualify as a 'contractual penalty' such a clause could still be invalid under the general clause of section 307 par. 1.
Section 307: Test of reasonableness of contents
Section 309 of the German Civil Code: Prohibited clauses without the possibility of evaluation
Even if a court held that re-calculating the fare does not qualify as a 'contractual penalty' such a clause could still be invalid under the general clause of section 307 par. 1.
Section 307: Test of reasonableness of contents