uk1

If an organisation decides to have a complex set of terms and conditions they must at least be exptremely clearly expressed.

In Britain, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations say that terms in consumer contracts must be in 'plain and intelligible language'. The regulations also say these terms must be accessible, which means they must even use clear design and typography. If a consumer challenges a term, and it is found to be unclear or ambiguous, the court must interpret it in the way that best favours the consumer. The Office of Fair Trading regularly warns firms to change such terms before they are challenged in court.

Similar regulations apply to all countries in the European Union.

For those interested, this is one example of the document issued to businesses to help them comply with the relevant regs.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...est-format.PDF

mrow

Agreed. What I am wondering is whether it could it be used to counter the arguments being made by FrancisA and Globaliser that the ex-LHR (i.e. direct) product is inherently more valuable than the ex-EU (i.e. indirect) product given the differentiation between direct and indirect?

If so, could the ex-Regions situation be used to counter the general assertion that less (time) is more (valuable) when it comes to travel, thereby weakening the ability for an airline to claim it suffered any loss through the use of skipped legs on ex-EU ticketing?

Tobias-UK

It could be argued, of course it could, but that aspect (domestic connections) is such a minor consideration that IMO it is likely not to be argued at all by either side. Whilst, timewise, direct and indirect flights may be a consideration in an airline's mind when formulating its pricing structure (from outside the airline's principal hub country) it is not the only factor taken in to consideration. The fares an airline offers are clearly market driven.

The airlines will have the greatest burden here given the plethora of EU law intended to protect consumers. A day may come when this issue is argued before a court. It would be one of those cases where the judgment will almost certainly be appealed irrespective of which side succeeds in the lower courts. There are significant points of law that need to be argued, tested and resolved and until that occurs all we can do here is debate.

The consumer certainly has the upper hand, but that does not mean the airlines will lose. It could well end up that neither side wins outright. Either way the legal issues will certainly be clarified at the conclusion.

go_around

Apologies if this has already been posted somewhere in the 40 pages on this thread! But as I just looked at a certain blog (I won't name it) saying yet again that "exit at London" is possible, if BA ever does make this an issue, this kind of encouragement to passengers to axe the final segment is only going to fuel it.

DG55

I thought BA were fairly strict about not short checking your luggage back to LON, and if so how do people know for sure that they will be able to miss the final sector?

If they are relying on the chance that the agent will be flexible about it, thats a bit of a risk to take surely?

Or do people only take hand luggage?

mrow

Fly hand baggage only or book to fly into one London airport and then out from another. Thus means collecting bags and taking them to the next airport yourself (or not, as the case may be!), for example:

HNL-LAX-LHR,LCY-DUB

simons1

Good to see this rumbling along with arguments (and insults) to and fro.

Hopefully one day BA will take legal action against someone which will prove the case one way or another. I still think the fact that they haven't means they have either had advice they have no case or the bad PR isn't with it. However I'm not a lawyer so defer to those that are.

Until then I wouldn't think twice about binning the final leg. Exactly as k_getchell says: switch airports and it's goodbye. Thank you BA for the cheaper fare and head off home.

Tobias-UK

I suspect if a case such as this arrives at a court, it will be as a result of a consumer challenging the removal of status or miles or the closing of a FFP account.

simons1

Maybe. Fortunately most of my Avios are used up so it wouldn't bother me either way.

With the travel I do EK provides an "ex EU" type model so good luck to them.

Would be a bit disappointing for the EU airports though - the cashflow from positioning flights must be quite decent. In fact I've never thought of it but would it be an insult to ask for the return of taxes on my non used final leg?

orbitmic

I think that looks at the issue from the wrong end of the lens. BA offer the prices they do from the likes of DUB or AMS not to be "nice" but because they are close to what other airlines charge.

For instance, if you are going to Capteown this Autumn or winter, you can fly Ethiopian from Rome, Emirates from AMS, or Turkish from Dublin for about £1000 return in J each. I suspect only a handful of people do fly from DUB with an intention to finish their trip in LHR and if BA clamps down, people who pay the current ex-DUB on BA will just fly with one of those airlines for much cheaper and it is unlikely that DUB, AMS, or FCO will see any decline in traffic as a result.

Flexible preferences

...and these aspects are quantifiable by using BA's 'purchase avios' tool to value confiscated Avios.

Tobias-UK

Tobias-UK

I don't see any real difficulty in establishing the quantum of damages. The difficulty will be in establishing liability.

Flexible preferences

If it came to Court, yes.

Tobias-UK

Isn't this where the discussion is concentrating at present???