NickB

I entirely agree and I certainly would not make such an assumption. The point I was making is that the issues are not quite as black and white as some posts suggest and call for rather more nuanced analysis.

cauchy

Perhaps it might become a political rather than a legal question. If the airlines seek to re-fare every time someone doesn't fly on a ticket they have paid for in full, this might well be seen as excessively harsh. This could provide the impetus for a comprehensive legislative ban - which they certainly want to avoid!

KeaneJohn

alex67500

Well... I'm not sure how it is now, but Swiss used to price one-way tickets about 2-3 times the price of a return. Many people have bought returns with no intention of flying the return leg. Remember it was the same issue with trains in the UK, and railway staff would tell you to buy the return because it was cheaper. P&O ferries across the channel were the same.

So it's definitely not an airline industry question only.

florens

Ciaran McNulty

There are two cases where I've done it and it's made a lot of sense:

a) you don't have to route back through London

For instance on QR sales you can generally do something like CDG-DOH-SEZ and have a nice evening out in a European city before your main trip

b) going to the USA ex-DUB

I really like the DUB preclearance and not having to queue at the other end

Greg66

I am sure I saw yesterday (on CNN's US site of all places) that Lufthansa is appealing this decision in Germany.

Whatever the outcome, it won't govern any dispute BA might start, which would be governed by English law and based on BA's contractual conditions of carriage. One basic principle of English law is that a contract breaker is obliged to put the innocent party in the same position as if the contract had been performed. The measure of loss and remedies generally can be modified by the terms of the contract though. Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether a passenger has an enforceable contractual obligation to travel (as opposed to a right to do so), if the passenger drops the final sector of an ex-EU ticket BA's General Conditions of Carriage (cl3c) impose a series of obligations in various circumstances for the passenger to tell BA of his or her change of plans. The upshot of them is generally that BA can recalculate the ticket price and not carry the passenger if the new price is not paid. Cl 3c therefore prescribes BA's remedies in the event of a dropped sector, and is predicated on BA having a service to withhold. If the dropped sector is the last sector, the remedies are somewhat toothless.

Of course BA could claim its common or garden contractual measure of loss, but it is hard to see what loss it suffers by virtue of not being informed of a change of plans. A lost chance to render a bill, which it had no chance of having paid is not a thing of value.

Personally, if BA were genuinely sufficiently hacked off by this sort of behaviour to take action, I would expect it to take the form of banning a passenger from flying with them in future.

Blueboys999

snaxmuppet

Some people are still treating each leg of a trip as separate entities as far as pricing is concerned. If someone drops the last sector the potential loss is in the recalculated fare for the sectors actually flown.

Using made-up prices for example only.... if a trip from LAX to London direct is Ł2000 but a trip from LAX to Paris via London is Ł1000 then if someone buys a LAX to Paris ticket and jumps ship in London then they have actually flown the LAX to London direct route and should have paid Ł2000... not Ł1000... the potential loss to the airline is Ł1000. I suppose you could argue that by not flying that last sector there is a small saving to the airline in processing fees and fuel etc but it is marginal. So there is a genuine potential loss to the airline. Either the passenger should have paid Ł2000 or the airline should have had the opportunity to sell the seat from LAX to London at the higher price. By booking to Paris the passenger prevented the airline from doing that.

With rail fares getting off at an intermediate stop is very much enforced. Buying a cheap ticket from Plymouth to Paddington only allows me to get out at Paddington without incurring additional fares and possibly penalties. More expensive tickets allow journey breaks.

Regarding the point some have made that you can't force someone to travel... no you can't but the airline should be able to force people to pay the correct fare for the journey made IMO. Jumping off before the last flight means you have not done the trip you paid for.

Tafflyer

I do not see it that way. I spend my money and have booked a seat LAX to London and on to Paris. The airline suffers no material loss in me not taking up my seat on London to Paris. They have sold the seat at a price they were prepared to accept. There is nothing about if they could even have ever sold the same LAX-London seat for double the price. The seat may well have remained empty and the airline would not have made anything on it at all. If Airlines could sell all seats at expensive direct prices, they would do so and not offer the cheaper indirect routings.

LondonElite

I realise I won't convince you, but the airline did suffer a material loss because it should have sold you the direct London flight for twice as much (and every other direct routing would cost the same). I always have a little inside chuckle when IROPS causes people to be rerouted on a direct service to the final destination they never intended to travel to.

scubaccr

Issue was Lufthansa first time around offered only a limited 1pt defence relying on earlier German Court ruling in their favour , but based on passenger skipping first leg, a different scenario. The judgement against Lufthansa first time around could have been that or even 1-2 other reasons.

Lufthansa were always going to appeal. Whether they win or not is another question for the courts. The airline certainly takes a loss if a flier living in departure city, buys convoluted indirect ex-country

Like most countries, the fact a business puts t+c's into a purchase contract that you have to agree with to procede, does not mean such terms are fair, non-onurus and enforceable, such as saying if you dont't fly all sectors your ticket will be repriced to fair price as if you'd booked without last leg.

All airlines need to tempt indirect fliers into their premium J/F cabins to make flights more profitable (or even profitable in first place), but to tempt those extra fliers to go indirect, less convenience etc, the fare needs a carrott, ie needs be lower priced. However if too many seats are sold at ex-Origing rates, the flight becomes uneconomical and airline needs increase rates to a)stop ex-city fares b)charge direct fares more due to shortfall as less ex-City bookings.

I would go so far to say, business funded travellers, the majority of F/G fliers, do not need to trick fares down with ex-city departures, conversley private individuals funding own travel are massively incentivised, especially if end up flying J for Y prices

jfallesen

At the same time, they have sold you a ticket with conditions that you were prepared to accept and are therefore bound by.

In that respect, it does not really matter whether the airline makes a loss or profit out of you not travelling on the last leg of the journey. The agreement between you and the airline is that you pay the agreed price and fly the agreed legs. If either part does not stick with the agreement, the other part has a right to take appropriate action as per the agreement.

Whether there is any logic or sense to pay extra for not flying is of no relevance to the agreement.

Bear96

Exactly. It is ridiculous on its face when people try to argue they actually purchased the privilege or even the "right" to have a stop in a certain intermediate city as if each segment were a specific product they bought.

If an airline offered TXL-LAX with two choices, say:

(1) Either nonstop or via AMS, for € 2000; or

(2) TXL - [connection of the airline's choice to be determined at some point after the purchase of the ticket, but somewhere in DE-FR-CH-NL-UK-BE] - LAX with a similar arrival and departure time as Option A (with the connection) but for only € 1000;

99% of people would choose Option 2.

Why? Because they are really only buying TXL - LAX, and they know it!

Those 1% who really really really wanted to go through AMS for some reason (to "drop off a package" (), as we sometimes hear as a reason on FT, or (more likely) to fly with someone on the AMS - LAX segment, which I can realistically see happening ocassionally) can purchase Option 1 via AMS. But hardly anyone will do that.

snaxmuppet

But the airline was only happy to sell the ticket to you at that price precisely because the airline thought you were going to Paris. If you said you only wanted to go to London then the price would have been different most certainly.

Perhaps airlines should be forced to only open up indirect routes once the direct route seats are all sold?

I still feel that this problem would all go away if they priced up the route with and without dropping the last leg so we all knew what it would cost us if we drop the last leg. The airlines would then have a better case when collecting any extra as a result of dropping the last leg because the passenger will have accepted that pricing prior to booking the ticket.