BA clamping down on missed final ex-EU sector [?]
Jul 23, 2015, 12:52 pm
#496
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: 30,499
What has or has not been discussed on an Internet forum is irrelevant. (Yes, I get the irony) What is important is evidence, either legal or empirical. Now I believe I have thousands and thousands (include the US and its more) of examples where the airlines did absolutely nothing. Empirical evidence. Agreed ?
The reference to what has been discussed on FT is not about saying that discussion replaces the evidence, it was a point about not repeating the discussion (based on legal and empirical evidence that you call) as though we were just discovering it. It gets boring for those of us who do read the existing threads.
Some of the accounts on FT have been equally detailed, and frankly, I find it difficult to think of why people would pretend that certain things were happening to them if they were not. Of course, one can choose only to think of one's own personal experiences but by definition, that is difficult to generalise as it pertains to our individual behaviour as well as relative luck. It is also the case that airline behaviour is not static over time. 10 years ago, everyone would have laughed outloud at the idea that major airlines would not give free luggage, and now it is the norm; still 10 years ago, no airline would have given less than 100% miles on any of their fares; 25 years ago, no airline would have sold a non-changeable ticket and people would have ridiculed the idea that they ever might, and who when the 777 was introduced, anyone suggesting that Y would go 10 across would have been given the address of the nearest psychiatric asylum, whilst now it is the dominant configuration. And by the way, since we are talking about discouraging throw away segments, 15 years ago, no airline would have ever had a problem short-checking bags, whilst now most European airlines will not do it (unless there is an overnight stay). When it comes to protecting or enhancing revenue airlines can change behaviour over time and using relative past leniency to guarantee future tranquillity seems to me to be a very optimistic view of the airline industry.
Jul 23, 2015, 1:03 pm
#497
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Hague, NL
Programs: GMLFL, Life 2.0 - Mucci Premiere Classe & des Chevaliers Toulousiens
Posts: 22,911
orbitmic, I appreciate your points. Really I do. That is also why I think that the whole debate is pointless: we all make sense on some level. 
It started with a rumour that BA would 'clamp down' on people who do this. I did, do and will believe that this is highly unlikely until BA proves me otherwise. I believe this for 3 reasons:
1) I don't see how they have a contractual basis for anything but invalidating your ticket;
2) I think it would make little commercial sense, unless the 'problem' is much bigger.
3) It would be a legal and PR nightmare.
Now you don't have to agree with me. I never use this construction so I am not trying to make myself feel better. Why do I care ? Because if BA is deliberately starting this rumour I find it a smart but not-so-nice practice and if they did not start it, it should be squashed.
Feel free to disagree. I did find the discussion very interesting and I enjoyed learning some fun facts about fellow FTers and the unique place that is England.
It started with a rumour that BA would 'clamp down' on people who do this. I did, do and will believe that this is highly unlikely until BA proves me otherwise. I believe this for 3 reasons:
1) I don't see how they have a contractual basis for anything but invalidating your ticket;
2) I think it would make little commercial sense, unless the 'problem' is much bigger.
3) It would be a legal and PR nightmare.
Now you don't have to agree with me. I never use this construction so I am not trying to make myself feel better. Why do I care ? Because if BA is deliberately starting this rumour I find it a smart but not-so-nice practice and if they did not start it, it should be squashed.
Feel free to disagree. I did find the discussion very interesting and I enjoyed learning some fun facts about fellow FTers and the unique place that is England.
Jul 23, 2015, 1:03 pm
#498
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London, England.
Programs: BA
Posts: 8,476
15 years ago, no airline would have ever had a problem short-checking bags, whilst now most European airlines will not do it (unless there is an overnight stay).
Connecting bags are the No 1 source of mishandled bags, which cause great expense to repatriate them at the final destination, and can eat up the entire profit from a fare. It's one of the reasons behind buying the two sectors separately for cheapness and then wanting to check the bags right through is commonly not permitted - you have not paid a fare which includes a provision for these costs of periodic bag mishandling at the connecting point.
Jul 23, 2015, 1:08 pm
#499
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: City of Kingston Upon Hull
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 4,940
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.
Jul 23, 2015, 1:17 pm
#500
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
The legal world utimately is digital as well, you put your case, the other party put theirs and the outcome is a ruling; you either win or lose, there is no in-between. The problem as I see it is getting a judgement of the fairness of a contract if one of the parties can prevent the case going to court by settling out of court. There does not seem to be a mechanism to test the validity of terms and conditions outside of making a claim for loss. If the party you are claiming from offers a settlement equal to or greater than the claim out of court it seems to be game over.
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.
Jul 23, 2015, 1:21 pm
#501
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Anywhere I need to be.
Programs: OW Emerald, *A Gold, NEXUS, GE, ABTC/APEC, South Korea SES, eIACS, PP, Hyatt Diamond
Posts: 16,046
Jul 23, 2015, 1:24 pm
#502
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 34
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 to the extent that a deviation from the statutory provisions is permissible, the following are ineffective in standard business terms: [...] 6. (Contractual penalty) a provision by which the user is promised the payment of a contractual penalty in the event of non-acceptance or late acceptance of the performance, payment default or in the event that the other party to the contract frees himself from the contract; [...]
Section 307: Test of reasonableness of contents
(1) Provisions in standard business terms are ineffective if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, they unreasonably disadvantage the other party to the contract with the user. An unreasonable disadvantage may also arise from the provision not being clear and comprehensible.
Jul 23, 2015, 1:36 pm
#503
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
A possible rather concerning scenario from a BA viewpoint ie the unintended consequences of disparate but converging trends ..... ie what if it were tested and found to be unenforceable. And at some point in the future a voice pops up and says ..... "hold on a minute ...... I rang them up and asked them to sell me the cheapest ticket between A and B, and it turns out there was a cheaper ticket .... can I have a refund of the difference please?"
Unlikely ... yes, absolutely impossible .........?
Unlikely ... yes, absolutely impossible .........?
Jul 23, 2015, 1:44 pm
#504
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club, easyJet and Ryanair
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 15,914
Yes, but you see, that's the thing: I do not have anything to sell and am not trying to "win an argument". The case I refer to has been discussed at length in at least 20 different threads that I remember, including on the AFKL, LH, and BA fora. I don't really believe in going round in circles even more than we already are and reexposing arguments that already took multiple pages there. I am merely acting as a living memory of FT reminding people of those cases so that they can refer to them if they are interested.
So some people say if you buy A-B-C, you can't be penalised for flying A-B. I am merely reminding them that the argument of the airlines is that you actually simply bought A-C and that A-B is therefore entirely unrelated to it. I am not saying that the airlines are right or wrong, just that this is the argument that they have built in defence of their position.
Some people say that no court would ever entertain the idea that an airline could ask a passenger for more money for having taken less than their entire itinerary. Again, I am merely pointing out that at least one has and that this case has been extensively discussed on FT. I am not saying that another court would decide the same (and similarly, another court may well decide that an airline is justified in cancelling an itinerary when a flight has been missed which the German court precisely said was unjustified), just that saying "no court ever would" is simply a factually mistaken statement that people intending to repeatedly miss last segments would benefit from looking into with a simple google/ft search.
Finally, some people say that no airline would ever dare to close a FF account as a result of a member repeatedly throwing away last segments. Again, this is empirically mistaken. We have had several examples reported on FT as well as on Business Traveller over the years of airlines (including European but if I remember correctly unnamed) doing just that. There have similarly been reports of airlines sending debit memos to TAs caught repeatedly selling tickets of which the last segment was not used.
I am personally not persuaded at all that airlines will try to go after someone having occasionally missed a last segment. I would feel far less comfortable doing it often as I think that this could trigger that reaction. Would that reaction be deemed legal by a Court in the country where I reside should this come to that? I have absolutely no idea. It always makes me smile to read of people speaking of going to court as though it was the same as planning a weekend on the beach. I would personally go to great length to avoid finding myself involved in an unnecessary court case. I do not think that it is fun, and I think that the outcome includes some level of uncertainty by definition. I am simply pointing out that positions of the type: "airlines have no case, their position is ridiculous" are, in my view, seriously over-simplistic and lack caution and that anyone wanting to play the "throw away" game would be better off trying to understand exactly what argument the airlines are presenting in order to invalidate it if they believe that it does not hold water. In my view, the question is simply far more complex than what many on those very regular threads (we have one on this question every month or so) seem to believe. If some believe that I am being over-cautious and of complicating a question which is really extremely simple, then so be it, I have no particular interest in convincing them. I am merely giving them pointers which they can follow up and may, in my view, prevent them from finding themselves in unpleasant situations.
So some people say if you buy A-B-C, you can't be penalised for flying A-B. I am merely reminding them that the argument of the airlines is that you actually simply bought A-C and that A-B is therefore entirely unrelated to it. I am not saying that the airlines are right or wrong, just that this is the argument that they have built in defence of their position.
Some people say that no court would ever entertain the idea that an airline could ask a passenger for more money for having taken less than their entire itinerary. Again, I am merely pointing out that at least one has and that this case has been extensively discussed on FT. I am not saying that another court would decide the same (and similarly, another court may well decide that an airline is justified in cancelling an itinerary when a flight has been missed which the German court precisely said was unjustified), just that saying "no court ever would" is simply a factually mistaken statement that people intending to repeatedly miss last segments would benefit from looking into with a simple google/ft search.
Finally, some people say that no airline would ever dare to close a FF account as a result of a member repeatedly throwing away last segments. Again, this is empirically mistaken. We have had several examples reported on FT as well as on Business Traveller over the years of airlines (including European but if I remember correctly unnamed) doing just that. There have similarly been reports of airlines sending debit memos to TAs caught repeatedly selling tickets of which the last segment was not used.
I am personally not persuaded at all that airlines will try to go after someone having occasionally missed a last segment. I would feel far less comfortable doing it often as I think that this could trigger that reaction. Would that reaction be deemed legal by a Court in the country where I reside should this come to that? I have absolutely no idea. It always makes me smile to read of people speaking of going to court as though it was the same as planning a weekend on the beach. I would personally go to great length to avoid finding myself involved in an unnecessary court case. I do not think that it is fun, and I think that the outcome includes some level of uncertainty by definition. I am simply pointing out that positions of the type: "airlines have no case, their position is ridiculous" are, in my view, seriously over-simplistic and lack caution and that anyone wanting to play the "throw away" game would be better off trying to understand exactly what argument the airlines are presenting in order to invalidate it if they believe that it does not hold water. In my view, the question is simply far more complex than what many on those very regular threads (we have one on this question every month or so) seem to believe. If some believe that I am being over-cautious and of complicating a question which is really extremely simple, then so be it, I have no particular interest in convincing them. I am merely giving them pointers which they can follow up and may, in my view, prevent them from finding themselves in unpleasant situations.
Jul 23, 2015, 2:20 pm
#506
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,644
But no, the legal world is certainly not binary when exploring the reasoning involved in the case, which is what is under discussion in this thread. There are plenty of pieces of litigation in which at least one party cares very little whether they "win" or "lose" the actual case, because the important part of it is all about trying to get the court to agree with a certain line of reasoning, because that reasoning may then affect the way tens of thousands of other cases are dealt with.
That's why all of this is so unclear. Glib analogies like a three-course meal just don't (if you'll indulge me for a moment) cut the mustard.
Jul 23, 2015, 2:24 pm
#507
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, 2:35 pm
#509
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: City of Kingston Upon Hull
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 4,940
Jul 23, 2015, 2:40 pm
#510
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Hague, NL
Programs: GMLFL, Life 2.0 - Mucci Premiere Classe & des Chevaliers Toulousiens
Posts: 22,911
