Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > British Airways | Executive Club
Reload this Page >

Interesting Court Decision In Germany - Passenger does not need to fly last leg

Interesting Court Decision In Germany - Passenger does not need to fly last leg

Reply

Old Feb 12, 19, 4:48 am
  #106  
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 158
Slightly off the point in hand but I've just never understood the appeal to an Ex-EU for a London based traveler. Put simply, it would just seem such a hassle to have to get over to Dublin/Oslo/Stockholm etc and then back again before transferring to a flight to New York/similar.

Yes, of course I understand the appeal to others because of price differences, particularly in J. But I could be half-way to New York in WTP with the 3-4 hours (and I bet it's more in some cases) I've just effectively wasted going back and forth to one of these places. And that's before you even consider what you do about the return leg and whether you drop the flight or not. Barring a TP effort, it all seems like one massive faff to be honest.
Brisbane Road is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 19, 4:59 am
  #107  
2019 FlyerTalk Awards
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Plymouth, UK
Programs: BAEC Silver
Posts: 623
When we buy an airline ticket we aren't just buying the opportunity to travel... we are entering in to a contract with the airline... for them to get us to the destination, sure, and if there are irrops then they are obligated to get us there... but aren't we also under an obligation to follow the contract too? If the ticket (contract) is for JFK-AMS-FRA then the airline expects us to fly to FRA and if we don't then surely we are in breach of our agreement with the airline? Is it not unreasonable then for the airline to say that had we only wanted to travel JFK-AMS then they would have priced it differently and hence should they not then have the right to surcharge us for breaching that original contract as they didn't have the opportunity to charge us for JFK-AMS up front?
snaxmuppet is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 19, 5:03 am
  #108  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: UK
Programs: BAEC Gold, Flying Blue Peon, TK M&S Nobody
Posts: 461
Surely every "it's wrong to charge more for using less" argument neglects to include any premium for convenience. The reason London-Bangkok on BA [or Thai] is more expensive is that it can be done more quickly and conveniently than LON-BKK on KL, AF, LH or any number of others. You can see this reflected in the relative pricing of the Y and J fares: many Y consumers [vacationers especially] will put up with a lot to save a few pounds and thus the differential for a direct routing is often not great [consequently ex-EU Y is generally pointless]. For J fares, if we look at the purported target market of business travellers, time and convenience are hugely valued: hence the "savings" possible with ex-EU fares: they cost anything from a few extra hours to a couple of days.
etiene is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 19, 5:05 am
  #109  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: London
Programs: BAEC Gold; IHG Platinum Ambassador
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by Brisbane Road View Post
Slightly off the point in hand but I've just never understood the appeal to an Ex-EU for a London based traveler. Put simply, it would just seem such a hassle to have to get over to Dublin/Oslo/Stockholm etc and then back again before transferring to a flight to New York/similar.

Yes, of course I understand the appeal to others because of price differences, particularly in J. But I could be half-way to New York in WTP with the 3-4 hours (and I bet it's more in some cases) I've just effectively wasted going back and forth to one of these places. And that's before you even consider what you do about the return leg and whether you drop the flight or not. Barring a TP effort, it all seems like one massive faff to be honest.
To NYC (TP aside) you could be right, but to somewhere like CPT it works well. Allow a few hours to do a CE return to AMS, which for those us of who are relatively infrequent flyers is enjoyable enough, then with an overnight flight in J you can have a proper sleep and get up and go on arrival as normal. Money: the saving over direct J is massive. Time: the time 'wasted' in AMS is made up for in CPT by being much more rested in J vs W/Y so no recovery time on arrival. On the return either drop the leg or have a day sightseeing with a long boozy lunch in AMS (or wherever). Worse ways to finish a trip. Of course it helps living in Zone 1 so we have a lot of flexibility over airports and destinations.
SirToby likes this.
Horatio is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 19, 5:07 am
  #110  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Basel
Posts: 367
Originally Posted by Brisbane Road View Post
Slightly off the point in hand but I've just never understood the appeal to an Ex-EU for a London based traveler..
FRA - TPE return in business in April: £1750
LHR - TPE return in business same dates: £3930

As a random example. Plus, of course, the cost of a LHR-FRA return (which can usually be done using avios and around £35). If it was a business trip and/or I was short of time, it would be a bit crazy. But it isn't, and I enjoy flying. I don't even drop the last leg It's every one or two years for me.
travellingwigbury likes this.
adrianlondon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 19, 5:13 am
  #111  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: UK
Programs: BAEC Gold, Flying Blue Peon, TK M&S Nobody
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by Petrus View Post
If you for some reason don't make your final leg, they will put a standby in that seat and in effect get paid twice for that seat. If flight is less busy, they still get dollars for an empty seat.

I cannot see any judge with common sense and a moral compass giving carriers a pass with this re-pricing tactic. It's immoral.
Money making corporations will more or less engage in dubious or criminal tactics to make profit if not regulated and reprimanded. That's a given and proven over and over again historically.
I don't think you can claim "getting paid twice" or "dollars for an empty seat" when the price is lower. What is actually happening is the carrier is giving you a discount for taking a less convenient, less desirable route. If you don't fly the less convenient route, you have not qualified for the discount - in just the same way that you can't get 1 product for half-price just because there is a 2-for-1 offer on it.
Big Bad D likes this.
etiene is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 19, 5:20 am
  #112  
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 158
Fair enough. But the purpose of travelling is to reach your destination. Through my lens, I most frequent New York as my choice of Long Haul travel on BA. There's far, far more to enjoy in New York then on a plane/ in an airport- so why would I bother heading out to Amsterdam and back and adding on at least 3-4 hours to my journey. No matter what cabin, travel is also tiring, that's an additional 2 flights plus any traverse across airports. I take the Cape Town argument that Horatio raised as all NYC flights are obviously going to get you there same day. But whereas New York has a degree of protection if you miss your connection due to volume of flights, I think there are only 2 LHR flights to CPT, so you're also banking a fair bit that nothing goes wrong on that AMS leg.
Brisbane Road is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 19, 5:25 am
  #113  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
2019 FlyerTalk Awards
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Berlin, Germany; Toronto, Canada; and SW Florida, USA
Programs: UA 1K, BA Gold, Hyatt Globalist, and assorted others
Posts: 21,735
Originally Posted by etiene View Post
Surely every "it's wrong to charge more for using less" argument neglects to include any premium for convenience. The reason London-Bangkok on BA [or Thai] is more expensive is that it can be done more quickly and conveniently than LON-BKK on KL, AF, LH or any number of others. You can see this reflected in the relative pricing of the Y and J fares: many Y consumers [vacationers especially] will put up with a lot to save a few pounds and thus the differential for a direct routing is often not great [consequently ex-EU Y is generally pointless]. For J fares, if we look at the purported target market of business travellers, time and convenience are hugely valued: hence the "savings" possible with ex-EU fares: they cost anything from a few extra hours to a couple of days.
Yes. But it confuses a lot of people who don't distinguish between a good and a service. It is hard to argue that having more of the same good you purchased is bad for you, but the same doesn't apply (necessarily) to a service.
etiene likes this.
LondonElite is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 19, 5:31 am
  #114  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 5 miles from EMA
Programs: BD, BAEC Bronze, Hertz 5*, Accor Plat, HHonors Diamond, Big White Season Pass
Posts: 4,915
Originally Posted by Brisbane Road View Post
Slightly off the point in hand but I've just never understood the appeal to an Ex-EU for a London based traveler. Put simply, it would just seem such a hassle to have to get over to Dublin/Oslo/Stockholm etc and then back again before transferring to a flight to New York/similar.

Yes, of course I understand the appeal to others because of price differences, particularly in J. But I could be half-way to New York in WTP with the 3-4 hours (and I bet it's more in some cases) I've just effectively wasted going back and forth to one of these places. And that's before you even consider what you do about the return leg and whether you drop the flight or not. Barring a TP effort, it all seems like one massive faff to be honest.
I kind of get where youíre coming from. But for those of us out in the sticks, itís a massive faff for us to get to LHR and quite frankly itís somewhere not on my immediate list of places Iíd fall over myself to fly out of.

In the old days (when we had millions of *A miles to burn), we preferred to fly out of BHX to say FRA or ZRH to pick up a connection to wherever from there.

Mr TL and the kids much prefer the idea of a leisurely trip to any long haul destination these days, and itís all part of the holiday experience. So catching a cheap flight to somewhere in Europe from a local airport where parking is cheap and itís probably only 30 minutes drive away is a big bonus. The fact that we can then get the full fat J experience to the west coast or SE Asia for a much cheaper cost has a lot of attractions.

Thr Christmas ski trip is currently pricing up cheap enough out of BHX on *A and KLM for me not to even bother doing the ex-EU bit (much as I hate paying inflated APD)
Tiger_lily is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 19, 5:42 am
  #115  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 934
Originally Posted by snaxmuppet View Post
When we buy an airline ticket we aren't just buying the opportunity to travel... we are entering in to a contract with the airline... for them to get us to the destination, sure, and if there are irrops then they are obligated to get us there... but aren't we also under an obligation to follow the contract too? If the ticket (contract) is for JFK-AMS-FRA then the airline expects us to fly to FRA and if we don't then surely we are in breach of our agreement with the airline? Is it not unreasonable then for the airline to say that had we only wanted to travel JFK-AMS then they would have priced it differently and hence should they not then have the right to surcharge us for breaching that original contract as they didn't have the opportunity to charge us for JFK-AMS up front?
You are not entering into an obligation to travel, you are purchasing the ability to travel.

My take on this is the exact same as it was for the three day concert that I purchased tickets for. Tickets were priced higher for Fri/Sat than Fri/Sat/Sun. I have every intention of going on Sunday but if I have something else to do that day then I am not at all bothered about not turning up and would be astounded if anyone was to take me to court for not attending. Airline's pricing is intended to maximise revenue but when this leads to discrepencies that customers can benefit from then instead of going to court to try and force compensation, you really should be re-evaluating your pricing model.

Once again the airline industry is looking to have it cake and eat it. One would assume that if this decision is overturned then the next court case will be someone looking to recoup similar from airlines when they want to change routing to one with a lower cost.
strichener is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 19, 5:50 am
  #116  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Programs: BAEC Gold, EK Skywards (enhanced Blue !), Oman Air Sindbad Gold
Posts: 4,574
Originally Posted by Brisbane Road View Post
Slightly off the point in hand but I've just never understood the appeal to an Ex-EU for a London based traveler. Put simply, it would just seem such a hassle to have to get over to Dublin/Oslo/Stockholm etc and then back again before transferring to a flight to New York/similar.

Yes, of course I understand the appeal to others because of price differences, particularly in J. But I could be half-way to New York in WTP ..................................Barring a TP effort, it all seems like one massive faff to be honest.
In your own example of a trip to NY, and with your own personal priorities of speed over cost, then fair enough ..... it is, understandably, not a desirable strategy for you,

However you have highlighted the available price differences - and this, in many cases, is indeed the fundamental appeal for many travellers ; much more so, very often, than increasing one’s TP quota.

In many instances, the savings can be most attractive when flying East rather than West.

Looking at a trip to say, Sydney in mid- May lasting around 3 weeks, for someone keen to use BA (and yes, including London-based travellers !), it’s possible to fly from Oslo in CW for around £2400. Total journey time from Oslo to Sydney would be almost 28 hours each way, and all flights are with BA. The same journey would take almost 24 hours each way if departing from London, also on BA throughout, and with no ‘diversion’ via Oslo - BUT the fare would be around £2K more, at £4400.

So I guess the question is whether the additional journey time - which would, of course, be increased yet further by needing to take positioning flights - is a worthwhile trade-off for those sort of price differences. For some, the answer is obviously no. But for others, the prospect of maybe half a day or so of extra travel time, at either end of the trip, will not be seen as “one massive faff”, as you put it - but instead as a welcome option to save £2000 whilst travelling in the very same cabin .... a significant sum to be used perhaps to fund other travel ; or to spend at one’s destination.

PS : Multiply these figures for a family of four and you can be looking at a difference of £8000 .......

Tiger_lily likes this.
subject2load is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 19, 6:13 am
  #117  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 197
Originally Posted by snaxmuppet View Post
When we buy an airline ticket we aren't just buying the opportunity to travel... we are entering in to a contract with the airline...
Yes it is a contract but I think it must not be the case that the contract includes a requirement, as opposed to an option, for the purchaser to travel. I can't see how the courts can uphold this. It is the right of an airline to price however they wish, but if a consumer is smart enough to find a way to consume part of the good or service in a way to maximize his/her satisfaction, then I don't see how the airline should be allowed to deprive the consumer his/her freedom. It is just too far-fetched to take the position of the airline, in my view -- there will be too much mental and logical acrobatics involved that it would be untenable.
crazyanglaisy likes this.

Last edited by simpletastes; Feb 12, 19 at 6:19 am
simpletastes is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 19, 6:15 am
  #118  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 197
Originally Posted by etiene View Post
Surely every "it's wrong to charge more for using less" argument neglects to include any premium for convenience.
Yes, the airline can price based on convenience or however they wish but I think equally the consumer should be left alone to consume what he/she purchased in any way and in whatever part of what he/she purchased that maximizes his/her satisfaction.
simpletastes is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 19, 6:20 am
  #119  
2019 FlyerTalk Awards
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: LON
Programs: BAEC Silver, Avis PC, (Hilton, Accor, SPG, Radisson) Gold, Eurostar Carte Blanche
Posts: 205
Originally Posted by cauchy View Post
I guess a common scenario at CDG is that someone has booked ZYR-CDG-XXX, with ZYR being Bruxelles-Midi/Brussel-Zuid train station, thinking they can get away with not going to Brussels to get on the train, and then arriving at CDG to a very nasty surprise.

There have also been UK court cases on auto-cancellation - not sure how this one ended:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/n...ght-cancelled/
My 2 cents on this is indeed regarding the pricing difference. Since we're talking about CDG: I was once looking at La PremiŤre LON-CDG-SFO. Pricing for CDG-SFO on its own was 10k EUR, but if I originated in LHR, it was roughly 3k EUR return if booked roughly 3 months ahead (in both cases).

Now, I live in London so I could have done it. But I find that outrageous as a French citizen! I would happily book that from London, grab a Eurostar to travel the first leg, and then drop the last leg on the return. Nobody can justify 7k more for *LESS* flying. I guess it means we could lose some of the great mistake fares, but somehow I'm not 100% sure that we would lose overall... I hope LH lose big time.
alex67500 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 19, 6:25 am
  #120  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Oxford, UK
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, Krisflyer Gold
Posts: 501
Originally Posted by snaxmuppet View Post
When we buy an airline ticket we aren't just buying the opportunity to travel... we are entering in to a contract with the airline... for them to get us to the destination, sure, and if there are irrops then they are obligated to get us there... but aren't we also under an obligation to follow the contract too? If the ticket (contract) is for JFK-AMS-FRA then the airline expects us to fly to FRA and if we don't then surely we are in breach of our agreement with the airline? Is it not unreasonable then for the airline to say that had we only wanted to travel JFK-AMS then they would have priced it differently and hence should they not then have the right to surcharge us for breaching that original contract as they didn't have the opportunity to charge us for JFK-AMS up front?
I broadly agree with you, but i also think that there would need to be a 'fair and reasonable' clause applied in any legal judgement that works the other way too. So, if you get off a long haul flight in Heathrow and are feeling unwell, my view would be that it would be unrealistic for a court to conclude that you were required to take a further flight that you paid for, on the grounds that you entered into a contract with the airline and with you facing being escorted to that final flight or being charged large additional sums up money if you opted to miss it - especially when you can make the case that, at that point in your journey, you are close to either your home or your GP. I can imagine other scenarios when it would be equally unfair and/or unreasonable to expect you to fulfil your side of the contactual agreement you entered into with the airline as well. Thus, even if this appeal were successful and came to gain traction in an English court, I can't imagine that it would not come to be applied conditionally in this way.
crazyanglaisy is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread