Interesting Court Decision In Germany - Passenger does not need to fly last leg
#61
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
I'll preface this by saying I'm not a lawyer and not versed in European contract law, but it appears when I'm buying an air ticket I'm buying an option to travel. The air carrier is obligated to carry me, but I am not obligated to travel any or all coupons of a ticket. I can't see why a story is needed at all, other than I didn't wish to travel. It's my option, not obligation to use all, some or none of the legs of an air ticket.
Nobody has suggested that one must fly any or all segments. The sole question is what one must pay. If one's new routing costs more and there is a fee to change the routing as is fairly common, one is then obligated to pay that fare difference plus change fee (presuming that the carrier has written its contract properly).
The examples here are of passengers who have changed their routing by skipping the last segment of a ticket.
#62
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Netherlands
Programs: BA | A3 | AFKL | Hertz | SPG | Avis
Posts: 748
A Dutch consumer rights organisation is currently suing KLM for their T&Cs, specifically on the issue of auto-cancellation if one does not use flight coupons in their sequence as booked (https://nltimes.nl/2018/12/10/consum...m-show-policy; this has meanwhile been taken to court, but I cannot find an English-language source for that).
#63
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,289
That's very interesting; wonder how a court would interpret the Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ...3L0013:en:HTML), which states in its annex that the following shall be regarded as unfair vis-a-vis the consumer: "(...) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;".
A Dutch consumer rights organisation is currently suing KLM for their T&Cs, specifically on the issue of auto-cancellation if one does not use flight coupons in their sequence as booked.
A Dutch consumer rights organisation is currently suing KLM for their T&Cs, specifically on the issue of auto-cancellation if one does not use flight coupons in their sequence as booked.
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/
#64
Ambassador, British Airways; FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Leeds, UK
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, GfL, HH Diamond
Posts: 43,137
That's very interesting; wonder how a court would interpret these terms against the Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ...3L0013:en:HTML), which states in its annex that the following shall be regarded as unfair vis-a-vis the consumer: "(...) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;".
auto-cancellation seems to be a separate issue and not one being raised in this case.
#65
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 1,604
If Lufthansa win the case, which I'm pretty sure they won't, wouldn't it set a huge precedent?
As an example: A 2 litre carton of milk costs 1. A 1 litre carton costs 70p and a 500ml carton costs 50p. I want 1.5 litres so buy the 2 litre bottle and throw the rest away. The precedent would imply I'm breaking the law in doing so. Sure, Tesco isn't going to take me to court for 20p but then unlike the airlines they can't grab the 500ml I didn't use and resell it, either.
I'm (obviously) no lawyer, but what makes airlines such a special case here? Is it the amount of savings?
As an example: A 2 litre carton of milk costs 1. A 1 litre carton costs 70p and a 500ml carton costs 50p. I want 1.5 litres so buy the 2 litre bottle and throw the rest away. The precedent would imply I'm breaking the law in doing so. Sure, Tesco isn't going to take me to court for 20p but then unlike the airlines they can't grab the 500ml I didn't use and resell it, either.
I'm (obviously) no lawyer, but what makes airlines such a special case here? Is it the amount of savings?
#66
Ambassador, British Airways; FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Leeds, UK
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, GfL, HH Diamond
Posts: 43,137
If Lufthansa win the case, which I'm pretty sure they won't, wouldn't it set a huge precedent?
As an example: A 2 litre carton of milk costs 1. A 1 litre carton costs 70p and a 500ml carton costs 50p. I want 1.5 litres so buy the 2 litre bottle and throw the rest away. The precedent would imply I'm breaking the law in doing so. I'm (obviously) no lawyer, but what makes airlines such a special case here?
As an example: A 2 litre carton of milk costs 1. A 1 litre carton costs 70p and a 500ml carton costs 50p. I want 1.5 litres so buy the 2 litre bottle and throw the rest away. The precedent would imply I'm breaking the law in doing so. I'm (obviously) no lawyer, but what makes airlines such a special case here?
#68
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: South East England
Programs: Status with BA Exec Club; KrisFlyer; Hilton Honors; IHG One; Marriott Bonvoy
Posts: 543
IANAL
Traditional airline ticketing has - for a very long time - been driven by pricing at the highest level the market will support, and the conditions and terms are written to support that. LCCs have come along and disrupted that with transparent, single sector pricing.
Now its also becoming apparent that traditional pricing is completely at odds with unfair contract terms legislation. Its obviously unfair to cancel a whole itinerary if I miss sector one (and notify the airline). Its at the very least arguably unfair to reprice under these circumstances (excepting taxes and a reasonable admin fee). As for charging more for missing a final sector, again, not much justification from a consumer standpoint , and the way the UK law is framed its the consumers viewpoint thats important. The airlines may have built their hub-and-spoke pricing around a legally unsound approach to consumer law. I certainly hope Lufthansa loose.
Traditional airline ticketing has - for a very long time - been driven by pricing at the highest level the market will support, and the conditions and terms are written to support that. LCCs have come along and disrupted that with transparent, single sector pricing.
Now its also becoming apparent that traditional pricing is completely at odds with unfair contract terms legislation. Its obviously unfair to cancel a whole itinerary if I miss sector one (and notify the airline). Its at the very least arguably unfair to reprice under these circumstances (excepting taxes and a reasonable admin fee). As for charging more for missing a final sector, again, not much justification from a consumer standpoint , and the way the UK law is framed its the consumers viewpoint thats important. The airlines may have built their hub-and-spoke pricing around a legally unsound approach to consumer law. I certainly hope Lufthansa loose.
#69
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
Nobody suggests that one must fly all segments, only that one pay for the routing one chooses to fly. If one changes the routing and it costs more, so be it.
People who salivate for a court to upend the "all segments must be flown in the order ticketed"" rules, ought to be careful what they wish for. Germany did this some time ago, Accordingly tickets from Germany which do not have such a provision are available. But, they are extraordinarily expensive. Better not to skip a segment than pay multiples of a standard penalty fare.
#70
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,644
The problem arises because of two basic things:-
- [*]
That's why (as Often1 says) your cheap ticket isn't just an option to fly whatever bits you choose. Like in any physical shop, if you pay for a cheaper product but decide to take a more expensive product, the shopkeeper would like to charge you the extra. The physical side of air transport, though, makes all of this much more problematic.
#71
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Glasgow or London or elsewhere
Programs: BA Gold, Hilton Diamond, IHG Rewards Spire Ambassador
Posts: 142
Just a quick thought, but a number of people have described the ticket in question in this case as being "exEU". It isn't - it's from Norway, which is in the EEA but not the EU. I think it would be illegal totally within the EU to try to claim the differential cost (or alleged differential cost) from someone if the ticket was for a journey entirely within the EU - though who knows what the ECJ might say?! I'm on an "ex OSL" just now (in South America) and have booked the last leg back from LHR to OSL some months after my arrival in LHR so I can either use it as the positioning flight to start another trip, or for a weekend away in Oslo (where I've only been in the city centre for a few wintry hours and never in the summer).
(Edit: The article about this on the Flyertalk homepage is a bit misleading I thought, as it read to me that someone had bought a ticket from OSL (which they called OSO!) to SEA, via FRA, and stopped their journey in FRA).
(Edit: The article about this on the Flyertalk homepage is a bit misleading I thought, as it read to me that someone had bought a ticket from OSL (which they called OSO!) to SEA, via FRA, and stopped their journey in FRA).
#72
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK and Southern France
Posts: 18,379
As for charging more for missing a final sector, again, not much justification from a consumer standpoint , and the way the UK law is framed its the consumers viewpoint thats important. The airlines may have built their hub-and-spoke pricing around a legally unsound approach to consumer law.
#73
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK and Southern France
Posts: 18,379
Just a quick thought, but a number of people have described the ticket in question in this case as being "exEU". It isn't - it's from Norway, which is in the EEA but not the EU. I think it would be illegal totally within the EU to try to claim the differential cost (or alleged differential cost) from someone if the ticket was for a journey entirely within the EU
#74
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
Everybody wants dirt cheap airfares, full flexibility in all respects, and all of the trappings of F.
Can't blame them. But, it comes at a cost and there is a push and pull.
As German passengers found when they "won" the right to fly segments out of order, it is entirely doable, but expensive.
So, perhaps that is a good business model to adopt, even where not required by law. Offer a standard ticket for EUR 100 and one permitting what some here want for EUR 750 and let those people pay that.
Can't blame them. But, it comes at a cost and there is a push and pull.
As German passengers found when they "won" the right to fly segments out of order, it is entirely doable, but expensive.
So, perhaps that is a good business model to adopt, even where not required by law. Offer a standard ticket for EUR 100 and one permitting what some here want for EUR 750 and let those people pay that.
#75
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Glasgow or London or elsewhere
Programs: BA Gold, Hilton Diamond, IHG Rewards Spire Ambassador
Posts: 142
I don't disagree, but if it was entirely within the EU there would be other reasons to attack why they airline couldn't do what they're trying to do. That was my point. (And also, Norway isn't in the EU...which is why the description that some people were using is wrong - sorry to be so pedantic)!
I believe that the difference is immaterial. The issue is essentially a consumer protection issue that applies in the same way regardless of the destination. It does not make a difference either that the trip originates in the EEA as the EU rules on fairness in consumer contracts apply across the whole of the EEA.