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

Old Dec 12, 2018, 4:03 pm
  #16  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA GfL, Marriott PlatfL/Ambassador, TP Gold, IHG Spire
Posts: 1,654
Originally Posted by creflo


Cancelling the ticket is just one of the remedies. Collecting the difference is another. It’s a statutory remedy. I did not “forget” it.

Damages would be another.
​​​​​​The wording "you will be requested to pay" makes me think that you are not commited to accepting the repricing.

If BA wanted to come after you for missing the last sector all they had to do was to use clearer language such as "you will be required to pay".

They decided not to. Everyone knows that unclear terms in consumer contracts tend to be interpreted in favour of the consumer. Not that I think that these terms are unclear. BA clearly has no intention of going after people who miss a last sector.
Ldnn1 likes this.

Last edited by mario; Dec 12, 2018 at 4:10 pm
mario is offline  
Old Dec 12, 2018, 4:09 pm
  #17  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,334
Originally Posted by Shl
A German district court has ruled against Lufthansa. A passenger was charged € 2,100 (around Ł 2.300) for not flying his last leg to OSL (ex-EU flight). However, the passenger did not agree with Lufthansa's demand and sought advice from a law firm (Franz LLP).

As described in the report on the firm's website the man had booked a trip with Lufthansa from Oslo via Frankfurt to North America (and also back). He started his journey in OSL, but on the way back he broke off his journey in Frankfurt and flew - on a separate Lufthansa reservation - on to Berlin. In a first hearing the court showed a trend to decide in the favour of the customer. Lufthansa then wanted to withdraw the lawsuit, however the passenger wanted a verdict. The court ruled and declared the conditions of carriage partially ineffective. The passenger does not have to pay.

The judgement is not yet final and Lufthansa can still appeal. However, according to lawyer Matthias Böse this is unlikely, as the terms and conditions show massive deficiencies. In an interview with German blog travel-dealz.de he said: "The current decision has clarified that passengers under the previous conditions of carriage can at least forfeit flights at the end of a ticket without penalty."

This seems to be the first court ruling in such a case. It will be interesting to see how it finishes, as this would certainly effect other European carriers - and with this BA - as well. However, as stated, unlikely that Lufthansa appeals.
There's something wrong with the exchange rate here. Even with Brexit looming, 2100 Euro is worth about 1900 British pounds. One pound is still worth more than one Euro, so it cannot be the case that 2100 Europe would convert to 2300 British pounds regardless of which date is used for the calculation.
MSPeconomist is offline  
Old Dec 12, 2018, 4:12 pm
  #18  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 79
Originally Posted by mario
​​​​​​The wording "you will be requested to pay" makes me think that you are not commited to accepting the repricing.
if I have a right to request payment, you owe me. If you do not pay, I request it in court. I think that is quite clear.

But let’s not pre-litigate this. Right now BA has not gone as far as LH has (apart from the odd report of a closure or “review” of the Executive Club account).

I think everyone on FT skipping a leg knows about the risk. If they do and do not get “caught”, good for them. It is certainly nothing illegal, just against the contractual terms.
creflo is offline  
Old Dec 12, 2018, 4:32 pm
  #19  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Argentina
Posts: 40,168
Originally Posted by Sealink
Surely the number of people doing exEU is tiny.
I've done a few exINV (have family there) and find it exhausting. And if LH and BA are selling a route for a price, they should be aware of the extra revenue of positioning flights etc.
I suspect you're right. Anyway all the airlines need to do is implement a rule saying that they can withhold reward programme earnings if the member decides not to complete the itinerary. Although I suppose that'll only lead to yet another court case.
nancypants likes this.
HIDDY is offline  
Old Dec 12, 2018, 5:00 pm
  #20  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK and Southern France
Posts: 18,351
Originally Posted by UKtravelbear
LH have a simple remedy which is to update their T&Cs to allow them to reprice the ticket to flights actually flown and the sooner they do that the sooner this ruling will have no effects.
their conditions already say that and, I believe, have been saying that for quite a while.

From my quick reading of the judgment based on my very rusty German and the odd bit of help from google translate, it seems that the Court found that the clause was unfair due to lack of transparency, because, among other things, the passenger was not in a position to know when he booked the ticket what would be the cost of not taking the last leg. So, the implication seems to be that, if the airline want to reprice on the basis of the itinerary flown, the airline must let the passenger know in advance at the time of booking what the amount of the repricing will be. If my reading is correct, it may not be quite as straightforward to comply with as some posters in this thread seem to assume.
Often1 and royng like this.
NickB is offline  
Old Dec 12, 2018, 5:08 pm
  #21  
Shl
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Programs: BA Gold/ Star Alliance Gold
Posts: 399
Originally Posted by MSPeconomist
There's something wrong with the exchange rate here. Even with Brexit looming, 2100 Euro is worth about 1900 British pounds. One pound is still worth more than one Euro, so it cannot be the case that 2100 Europe would convert to 2300 British pounds regardless of which date is used for the calculation.
you are absolutely correct. I calculated the wrong way. Will change it.
Shl is offline  
Old Dec 12, 2018, 5:09 pm
  #22  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: London Stratford, E7
Programs: BAEC Gold! Thanks to FT
Posts: 3,338
It’s like the Starbucks Terminak C voucher abuse it and it gets removed.

BA could start to say right TP are from start to finish not per sector or they could close executive club account with a forfeit of status and Avios for what they perceive to be fraud,

Ive only done one ex EU and flown all the sectors in order, Clearly the airlines are aware of such practises an it doesn’t yet bother them but take the mickey enough and it will become an item on the agenda.
KeaneJohn is offline  
Old Dec 12, 2018, 5:30 pm
  #23  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Munich, Algarve, Sussex or S.F Bay Area
Programs: Mucci, BA Gold, A3*Gold, AA Plat, HH Gold, IHG Plat Amb, Marriott Plat
Posts: 4,126
Originally Posted by KeaneJohn
It’s like the Starbucks Terminak C voucher abuse it and it gets removed.

BA could start to say right TP are from start to finish not per sector or they could close executive club account with a forfeit of status and Avios for what they perceive to be fraud,

Ive only done one ex EU and flown all the sectors in order, Clearly the airlines are aware of such practises an it doesn’t yet bother them but take the mickey enough and it will become an item on the agenda.
Be careful when using the word Fraud. First of all, now the CoC terms have been found invalid, there is no question any more of this even being breach of contract. Secondly, the airlines choose to make tickets on indirect routings cheaper than direct. Taking advantage of that is neither fraudulent nor immoral. Thirdly, not taking a final sector of a journey will save the airline fuel you have paid for flying an empty seat you gave paid for. Failure to use what you have purchased is no reason to retrospectively change the price at which an airline was earlier prepared to sell you transportation. If airlines could sell all the seats to point-to-point passengers for inflated prices they would do so. They sell indirect routings cheaper to fill their aircraft.
moneypooraviosrich likes this.
Tafflyer is online now  
Old Dec 12, 2018, 5:59 pm
  #24  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,433
Originally Posted by KeaneJohn
It’s like the Starbucks Terminak C voucher abuse it and it gets removed.

BA could start to say right TP are from start to finish not per sector or they could close executive club account with a forfeit of status and Avios for what they perceive to be fraud,

Ive only done one ex EU and flown all the sectors in order, Clearly the airlines are aware of such practises an it doesn’t yet bother them but take the mickey enough and it will become an item on the agenda.
Emirates's FF scheme can work well in this - points are only awarded for the one way journey once the entire journey is completed

If someone was to do the equivalent of LAX-LHR-AMS and not fly the AMS leg, then would earn nothing
Dave Noble is offline  
Old Dec 12, 2018, 6:14 pm
  #25  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: BOS/UTH
Programs: AA LT PLT; QR GLD; Bonvoy LT TIT
Posts: 12,658
Originally Posted by NickB
... the Court found that the clause was unfair due to lack of transparency, because, among other things, the passenger was not in a position to know when he booked the ticket what would be the cost of not taking the last leg.
From a legal/travel perspective, that's a very interesting rationale. There are all sorts of consumer laws, in most/all countries requiring various forms and degrees of transparency in pricing. I would be interested to see that approach attempted in the U.S. in a similar situation.
Dr. HFH is online now  
Old Dec 12, 2018, 6:54 pm
  #26  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: London Stratford, E7
Programs: BAEC Gold! Thanks to FT
Posts: 3,338
Originally Posted by Tafflyer


Be careful when using the word Fraud. First of all, now the CoC terms have been found invalid, there is no question any more of this even being breach of contract. Secondly, the airlines choose to make tickets on indirect routings cheaper than direct. Taking advantage of that is neither fraudulent nor immoral. Thirdly, not taking a final sector of a journey will save the airline fuel you have paid for flying an empty seat you gave paid for. Failure to use what you have purchased is no reason to retrospectively change the price at which an airline was earlier prepared to sell you transportation. If airlines could sell all the seats to point-to-point passengers for inflated prices they would do so. They sell indirect routings cheaper to fill their aircraft.
i said perceive to be fraud.

Since I started flying even budget I flew Icelandair London to Reykjavik to New York and Gulf Air London To Bahrain to Bangkok to Hong Kong as it was cheaper than flying direct and yes airlines price accordingly to get bums on seats.

If the CoC become an area of vagueness for airlines to curb this they could consider other options : they could change earning levels for people not living in the country of departure , increase thresholds for tiers , only award TP/Avios on completed itineraries once they’ve been completed etc etc.

They could make it compulsory for all ex Eu to visit a check in desk rendering B2B virtually impossible s

The argument of fuel saving is fake news because the revenuewould have been significantly higher on an AMS-LHR-MIA-LHR journeynthsn it would have been on an AMS-LHR-MIA-LHR-AMS booking.

If there were no TP or Avios awarded because you dropped the last leg would people really still fly OTP to PHX for 24 hours.

Airlines are not stupid. Nobody wants to be the test for legislation that could impact everybody but as sure as night follows day if legislation makes abuse of ex Eus easier they are not going to toll over blindly and be the victim.

KeaneJohn is offline  
Old Dec 12, 2018, 8:59 pm
  #27  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: ZYR, BRU
Programs: QR Silver
Posts: 132
By imposing such conditions, airlines openly demonstrate they don't care at all about their CO˛ emissions.
kaka likes this.
gumbleby is offline  
Old Dec 12, 2018, 9:01 pm
  #28  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,433
Originally Posted by gumbleby
By imposing such conditions, airlines openly demonstrate they don't care at all about their CO˛ emissions.
Gee - hope that they are not emitting Carbon Monoxide with Oxygen 2 - Bad enough with carbon dioxide emissions
jfallesen likes this.
Dave Noble is offline  
Old Dec 13, 2018, 12:15 am
  #29  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Great Britain
Programs: Air: QR Silver. BA Silver Emirates, Hotels: CC Gold, IHG Spire AMB, Hilton Diamond.
Posts: 1,486
Might this become EU law just as we leave he EU ?!
Sisyphus1carus is offline  
Old Dec 13, 2018, 12:49 am
  #30  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: North of Watford Gap
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 602
Originally Posted by Sisyphus1carus
as we leave he EU ?!
What gives you that impression?
babats is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.