Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > British Airways | Executive Club
Reload this Page >

BA clamping down on missed final ex-EU sector [?]

BA clamping down on missed final ex-EU sector [?]

Old Jul 24, 15, 3:24 am
  #526  
uk1
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
Originally Posted by EsherFlyer View Post
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?
I don't like this analogy because it is clever and it might potentially unhinge my theory ...

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?
uk1 is offline  
Old Jul 24, 15, 3:34 am
  #527  
uk1
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
Originally Posted by orbitmic View Post
Just to clarify, are you actually questioning Tobias-UK's legal credentials, because that would really be extremely funny?
Pretty immaterial and pointless really isn't it.

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.

uk1 is offline  
Old Jul 24, 15, 3:38 am
  #528  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Programs: Hilton IHG LH BA TK
Posts: 12,387
Originally Posted by Davidxg View Post
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
I'm not sure what comfort BA could possibly derive from "cheaters" being forced to take the final leg. Some anglo form of Schadenfreude perhaps?

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.
IAN-UK is online now  
Old Jul 24, 15, 3:48 am
  #529  
uk1
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
I think our business is done here.

uk1 is offline  
Old Jul 24, 15, 4:21 am
  #530  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Hague, NL
Programs: GMLFL, Life 2.0 - Mucci Premiere Classe & des Chevaliers Toulousiens
Posts: 22,850
Except maybe for the car hire example....

That actually happens almost daily.
henkybaby is offline  
Old Jul 24, 15, 4:22 am
  #531  
V10
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Provincie Antwerpen, Vlaanderen, BelgiŽ
Programs: MUCCI Gold
Posts: 2,432
So, after 36 pages of glorious p***ing contest, did we find out who is the most well-endowed?
V10 is offline  
Old Jul 24, 15, 4:28 am
  #532  
uk1
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
Originally Posted by V10 View Post
So, after 36 pages of glorious p***ing contest, did we find out who is the most well-endowed?
My take is that some people have simply claimed that they are better endowed because they say so, without actually ever proving it by showing us theirs - and others of us had continually displayed ours in detail but been told enigmatically simply that it isn't because you haven't seen ours yet.

uk1 is offline  
Old Jul 24, 15, 4:36 am
  #533  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brighton. UK
Programs: BA Gold / VS /IHG Platinum & Ambassador
Posts: 11,257
Originally Posted by V10 View Post
So, after 36 pages of glorious p***ing contest, did we find out who is the most well-endowed?
"My BAEC status is higher than yours."

wWith number of FT posts used as a tie breaker.

That is the endowment you mean isn't it?
UKtravelbear is offline  
Old Jul 24, 15, 4:38 am
  #534  
uk1
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
Originally Posted by UKtravelbear View Post
"My BAEC status is higher than yours."

wWith number of FT posts used as a tie breaker.

That is the endowment you mean isn't it?
You have just created an endowment policy. I bet in the future they will say there was no profit in it. Mark my words well.
uk1 is offline  
Old Jul 24, 15, 5:05 am
  #535  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Near Edinburgh
Programs: BA Silver
Posts: 9,034
Originally Posted by Davidxg View Post
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.
While I am entertained by the pomposity that flows through your post (is that another libel opportunity?), I made much the same point, in so many fewer words, back in post 26.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/25143196-post26.html

Paralytic is offline  
Old Jul 24, 15, 5:32 am
  #536  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London
Programs: BA GGL (98% to Lifetime Gold), SPG convert from IHG (and Marriott fan now!)
Posts: 4,793
Originally Posted by orbitmic View Post
Just to clarify, are you actually questioning Tobias-UK's legal credentials, because that would really be extremely funny?
Moot court at the next do? Bagsy the judge's role
lorcancoyle is offline  
Old Jul 24, 15, 7:01 am
  #537  
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 12,713
Originally Posted by orbitmic View Post
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.
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.
Tobias-UK is offline  
Old Jul 24, 15, 7:13 am
  #538  
uk1
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
Originally Posted by Tobias-UK View Post
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.
For someone with your "knowledge" and self-assumed legal expertise you'd think you'd at least know about "hearsay". Replying and insulting repeatedly someone else that you say you cannot judge for yourself because you do not read what they say seem pretty childish and self-indiulgent and doesn't indicate an approach you'd expect from someone who claims your higher legal ground. You've even done so to another poster without making the slightest effort to reply in substance. Why not actually say why he is wrong?

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.

uk1 is offline  
Old Jul 24, 15, 7:20 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 GfL+CCR, Aclub Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 24,976
Originally Posted by Tobias-UK View Post
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.
Actually I must admit that's a part I really enjoyed! Some other posters spend so much time accusing me of being a "BA basher" that I'll admit there was something quite delightfully thrilling in being accused of being a suppot of the airline Satan for a change!
orbitmic is offline  
Old Jul 24, 15, 7:25 am
  #540  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK and Southern France
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by tim85 View Post
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
May I invite you to consider this judgment of the BGH and in particular the recognition by the BGH of the legitimate interest of the carrier in protecting its fare structure and reconsider whether you are really that sure that German jurisdictions would be so averse to allow contractual provisions that permit re-faring in case of using coupons in the wrong order or failing to use all coupons?
NickB is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: