mfkne

If they do not read or agree with the Ts&Cs, why do they specifically indicate that they have done so? Not understanding a contract isn't en excuse not to fulfill it.

NickB

Well, thankfully European consumer law tends to approach this with somewhat more realistic eyes. There is a requirement of good faith and transparency that requires traders not to bury important terms in the small print of the TandCs but instead bring them to the attention of the consumer. That said, I am not sure whether this would be an important enough term to warrant it being brought specifically to the attention of the consumer. It is worth noting, though, that LH does single this out and show it to you exolicitly as part of the booking process rather than just leaving it in the small print.

simons1

The simplicities of life, eh?

Of course back in the real world there are many other factors, such as Unfair Contract Terms Act, Consumer Rights Act and so on, and it is by no means guaranteed that a court of law would take your simplistic view. Quiet the contrary in fact, as we have seen in other countries. Which presumably is why Which? has decided to seek clarification.

It will be interesting to see the outcome. I can see why AMS-LHR-JNB would be priced more cheaply than a direct AMS-JNB flight, however I can also see why people argue that having bought the ticket for AMS-LHR-JNB there is no direct loss to the airline if the seat you have paid for is empty or not.

It has the potential to put the cat amongst the pigeons, that is for sure.

flatlander

Courts are capable, especially in commercial cases, of looking at the greater good of the greater number. Trying to remove the discount for flying an indirect route rather than a competing airline's direct route means all flights (may well) become more expensive, and actually removes consumer choice (of paying a premium for the direct flight). There are also social benefits to keeping routes viable with such differential pricing, rather than only connecting major marketplaces directly.

It may well briefly wave a cat at the pigeons, but either there will be some commerically-null effect like requiring transportation on the remaining segments at a cost chosen by the airline (and possibly covered by travel insurance, of course) or a tickbox to say "I agree you may cancel the rest of the flights if I don't show", or airlines will restructure their entire pricing to suit and continue to make money in most cases, dropping secondary routes that depend on commercial traffic.

EIther way, this is going to be no effect or bad for the average traveller, and more so for all of us here who delight in the cheap or high status earning indirect routing.

I hope Which will be proud of themselves when they achieve this.

CKBA

It's not just passengers that instigate this: I stumbled upon FlyerTalk following a rerouting of my initial BA-booked AA flight which caused my following 6 flights to be cancelled. The BA call center (in India) was having none of it and refused to accept that I had been rerouted. Eventually it was BE who were prepared to honour the original internal UK flights and got me back to London where I sorted it out face-to-face with BA.

alex67500

I'll have a Gin&Tonic, without Tonic. Oh, why has the price gone up from 5 to 25 pounds?
You have to have the Tonic Sir!
(Can I have the set menu without the starter? etc.)
Then it requires EU Law to consider the whole of the EU as a single market (oh, wait...).

muscat

kyanar

How did she enter the US with only a one way ticket? I thought CBP would refuse entry unless you can show evidence of an intent and means to depart?

Ldnn1

simons1

fruitcage

Never been asked for a return ticket on entering the USA by various methods with a Visa, with an ESTA etc.

jeremyBA

This is all bought about by the mind boggling complexities that legacy carriers seem to put in at all levels of their business.

Ryanair and Easyjet don't care if you miss a segment. A segment is priced and you buy it. All the seats have the same terms and conditions. The legacy carriers price as returns, with a whole variety of refundable, non refundable, changeable, non changeable etc etc options and so make something simple like " how much is the the price of your seat between x and y" into an unfathomable situation for most people, and then have to add in addition terms and conditions and restrictions ( like this one) to prevent abuse of the overly complex fare structure they themselves put in place.

BA want to change the name on a ticket? No. It has cost me 4 club returns when I got divorced. Loco - sure sir just pay Łx name change.

It like seating. Easyjet book a seat. Done. Odd of sitting in it? Pretty much 100%.

Legacy carriers - status, bumping, etc etc ( many threads on here) as they have made complexity into an art form.

There are many more example.

They model is "clever" whilst it lasts but the courts and consumers will I suspect win in the end - if Ryanair does not care and it is the archetypal money grabber - what does that make BA?

Kgmm77

VSLover

this is the key. the EU has better and broader protections for consumers and have recently been more heavy-handed against big corporations burying things in the Ts & Cs which are not evident to the everyday person (ie everyone who clicks "accept" when updating iphone software, posting a video to youtube or buying an airline ticket).

in short, i think it is great because as most of us here know...missing a flight for legitimate reasons usually endures a heavy financial result.

scubaccr

BA 1way flights are stupidly priced, eg gbp400-600 rtn 1way gbp1700 in economy (gbbp 2000 v gbp7000 in business) , as BA only sells 1way in a highest fare bucket, so i have booked a return and flown outbound only

I don't see as helping an ex-EU fare to allow one to skip the fist leg eg AMS-LHR of LHR-AMS-HKG, but rather to protect return inbound portion.