henkybaby

I understand you, but as BA itself states, the consequence is that they invalidate the ticket.

It is a contract for that one itinerary, not for life including all first borns.

henkybaby

Or else we will invalidate your ticket. So what ?

KARFA

It is not just ticket invalidation. I will keep posting this until you actually read it:

You booked AMS-LHR-XXX-LHR-AMS. You drop the LHR-AMS leg. You have changed the travel without BA agreement. The trip is repriced as AMS-LHR-XXX-LHR which I imagine will be a lot more costly. You will be requested to pay the difference.

Not sure how much simpler I can make it for you.

moral_low_ground

Totally agree.....(with Henky)

BA's conditions say "if you want to change your travel"...but I don't want to travel so this point is mute. If I did want to travel and change something about my travel then BA would re-price it, as I don't want to (or have decided not to) then the BA condition does not count.

This is further backed up by "failure to pay the price....will result in refusal of carriage". Great, I don't want to travel (the last leg), and unless I pay, you refuse to carry me. Sounds like we have reached agreement.

We all know it is completely ridiculous for BA to come after us for "not flying". The fact that they haven't already proves the point (and if BA thought they were losing "significant" revenue and had a good case they would of course litigate and establish case law)

henkybaby

So what does this mean ?

Forever and ever ?

And by the way: if I am a no-show there is no agreed revised transportation. If BA cancels my last leg because I don't show, that is up to them. If I contact them it would be different.

visit14

I find this all a bit puzzling (but will be the first to admit that my understanding of microeconomics and firms’ behaviour isn’t exactly A+).

I'd question if BA is really going after leisure/private travellers with this when (a) I suspect the number of people in this group who exploit ex-EU fares is tiny and (b) if those who currently do were prevented from doing so in future, I doubt they’d start paying ex-UK J fares, but would probably revert to using discounted Y/W and/or redemptions ex-UK?

I mean, I’d be surprised if BA was losing out on potential ex-UK J revenue because of the ex-EU loophole (very different customer segments), and my guess would be that an ex-EU J ‘loopholer’ would still generate BA more revenue than if they opted for ex-UK but in discounted lower cabins or on Avios. Then again, if the margins are slim on the ex-EU J fares and they are more about gaining market share than revenue, I can see why they would want this loophole closed even if doing that wouldn’t compel the ‘loopholers’ to start paying ex-UK J fares.

So I wonder if this is more aimed at corporates who need to fly people A-B-C but are booking A-B-C-A and ditching the last leg as it’s more cost effective? But then again would that be a big % of business travellers? And would many corporates do that?

All I can add is a personal anecdote, that my first time 'doing an ex-EU' was ‘accidental’ and a work trip… I was in Brussels for a night (had taken the Eurostar there) then needed to go straight to NYC for work, then back to London. Booking a BA multi-trip BRU-LHR-NYC-LHR (or two singles with mixed carriers BRU-NYC and NYC-LHR) was IIRC significantly more expensive than doing BRU-LHR-NYC-LHR-BRU all on BA and ditching the last leg, so the work TA booked the latter for me and indeed told me to ditch the last leg. I had no idea this was “bad” or a “loophole” at the time, and only discovered the world of ex-EU when I was Googling about whether I’d be able to short check my bag on the return sector (edit: I was with no issue at JFK). As a courtesy, when I got back to LHR I went into my online account and cancelled the final LHR-BRU sector (did that mean I had their "agreement" to alter my travel plans?) and got some message stating that I (work) would get no Ł back as the fare was non-flexible but would get some tiny tax refund back. I didn’t feel obligated to travel that leg not least because I knew we (work) wouldn’t get the Ł back AND BA could most likely still fill that seat. I just don’t know how widespread this is within the corporate travel sector?

irishguy28

But at the time you drop the LHR-AMS segment, then you have "finished" with the ticket already, and cancelling the unwanted last sector has no impact on you.

And how, exactly, are they going to force you to pay the difference? (as stated above, they would probably have to pursue you through the courts...which I think is unlikely to happen)

Of course, they *could* tamper with your BAEC account, but again, given that such reports have been few and far between, they may not....

henkybaby

They don't clearly say that at all...

Globaliser

There's a danger of us passengers looking at it from the passenger's point of view. From the airline's point of view, they have the same revenue but the passenger is sitting in a seat in a lower cabin, and the seat in the higher cabin is available for sale to someone else. Given the numbers involved, it might work out something like BA being financially ahead if the freed-up CW seat is sold on only one of every three flights.

KARFA

As already noted the ticket is AMS-Somewhere-AMS. If you drop the last leg you have not finsihed the ticket. If you wanted to stop on London you should have booked AMS-somewhere-LHR.

I agree invalidating the ticket on it's own doesn't really have any impact, but they could reprice without the last leg and ask for the difference.

They wouldn't force you to pay the difference - or at least no sensible lawyer would recommend that BA pursue you through the courts to do that since cost outweighs what they would get. If you didn't pay though they could cancel your BAEC account, remove your status, and remove all your avios, the BAEC rules clearlly allow them to do that.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/25144064-post76.html

I entirely agree with you that reports have been few and far between of BA doing anything. However, this discussion is in the context of the article linked to in post 1 of this thread suggesting that possibly BA may not be so relaxed about this going forward.

Wozza2404

If BA remove all your Avios, their T&Cs may allow them to do this but I'm not convinced the law would do. Particularly as BA themselves put a published monetary value on Avios points.

Regardless, if you keep all your Avios outside of BAEC, then they're safe. You can lose your status, but is that a huge issue?

As for repricing an itinerary because I don't show for a LHR-AMS final leg... "I put my back out and had to rest. If that's a problem you'll have to take it up with my travel insurance company."

KARFA

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/25144228-post93.html

KARFA

Sorry to be blunt, what law would stop them doing this?

Globaliser

My status is more important than my Avios. Status makes travel easier on every trip; it's relatively rare that Avios help with that.

henkybaby

Status does not have a (published) monetary value, but avios do. (Although LH publishes a monetary value for its status).

I never have this problem (as I am EU based already) but I am surprised so many people think that airlines would create new T&Cs (which they would have to do) in which they tell you that being a no-show for any leg of a ticket will initiate a recalculation of the flights flown (on that ticket) and a requirement for the customer to pay that.

It would:

a) be totally impossible to enforce
b) be very bad marketing
c) not create a lot of extra revenue

I seriously doubt anyone in any airline loses a second of sleep over this.