Interesting Court Decision In Germany - Passenger does not need to fly last leg
Feb 15, 2019, 5:51 am
#242
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA Gold, Hilton Diamond, IHG Spire
Posts: 1,242
The airline's loss is very easy to work out. To take simplified round numbers: Suppose that a LHR-JFK-LHR ticket costs Ł4,000. Suppose that you can instead buy a FRA-JFK-FRA ticket for the equivalent of Ł2,000, with a routing that connects through LHR in both directions. In those circumstances it is likely that a FRA-JFK-LHR ticket (with an outbound connection at LHR) would cost Ł3,000.
So if you buy the less expensive FRA-JFK-FRA ticket but take advantage of the physical opportunity that you have of not flying the last FRA-LHR sector, you have taken travel worth Ł3,000 but only paid Ł2,000 for it.
And airline CoCs do often (usually?) have a provision that allows them to collect from you the fare for the travel you have actually taken.
The problem is about enforcement. It's very easy to enforce the outbound half of the FRA-JFK-FRA ticket, and nobody seems to claim that it's a clearly unfair term that one can only fly LHR-JFK after actually flying FRA-LHR. If it were truly the case that the airline suffers no loss from you not flying the short-haul, it wouldn't have a leg to stand on if you were simply to turn up at LHR for your LHR-JFK flight and demand to be allowed to take it on your Ł2,000 ticket even though you hadn't flown FRA-LHR.
So if you buy the less expensive FRA-JFK-FRA ticket but take advantage of the physical opportunity that you have of not flying the last FRA-LHR sector, you have taken travel worth Ł3,000 but only paid Ł2,000 for it.
And airline CoCs do often (usually?) have a provision that allows them to collect from you the fare for the travel you have actually taken.
The problem is about enforcement. It's very easy to enforce the outbound half of the FRA-JFK-FRA ticket, and nobody seems to claim that it's a clearly unfair term that one can only fly LHR-JFK after actually flying FRA-LHR. If it were truly the case that the airline suffers no loss from you not flying the short-haul, it wouldn't have a leg to stand on if you were simply to turn up at LHR for your LHR-JFK flight and demand to be allowed to take it on your Ł2,000 ticket even though you hadn't flown FRA-LHR.
Feb 15, 2019, 6:45 am
#243
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: AMS
Programs: BAEC Silver, Flying Blue Gold, TK M&S Nobody
Posts: 2,451
I know what are you saying and of course the airlines would claim that (in your example the Ł1000) difference but my argument is that the actual loss for the airline is not Ł1000. Yes you broke the contract yes you missed your last leg but are you really caused Ł1000 of loss for the airline? I'm not saying you haven't but I don't think it was Ł1000 either...Also the airline has a duty to mitigate the loss and I would argue they failed on the basis that prices for the let say FRA-LHR-JFK-LHR fare is not available online or it is significantly more complex to see that prices when you book your flight.
1) BA's handling of multi-city is pretty pants
and
2) We all say a prayer for the return of multiple origin country ITA searches
I think we can probably say that this particular edge case isn't really a sensible pathway for the discussion. Unless one wishes to mix classes and cities, it is fairly simple to get prices for these itineraries at one of the metasearch sites if the airline happens to be rubbish [more side-eye for BA.com!].
Feb 15, 2019, 6:47 am
#244
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: 4,156
I believe you have completely misunderstood my post 
You still haven't got the point I was making, and have been making all along.
It isn't anything to do with reselling the last flight... it is about having the opportunity to sell a direct flight to the intermediate airport.
If I buy a cheap ticket from JFK - AMS and chose to route JFK-LHR-AMS then I am taking a seat on the JFK-LHR flight on a cheap ticket but had I actually bought a ticket JFK-LHR direct then being a direct flight it would probably be more expensive. So by buying a cheap JFK-AMS I have prevented the airline selling a more lucrative JFK-LHR direct.
So it is about conning the airline into letting you have a ticket on the direct flight to LHR as part of your cheap, non-direct flight, to AMS. Basically, you would have taken a seat on the JFK-LHR on a cheap ticket that the airline could have sold on a more expensive, direct, ticket for someone who wanted a JFK-LHR flight... LIKE YOU!!!! I can understand you would want the cheap flight to LHR but if you buy a ticket to AMS to get a cheap ticket to LHR then in my book that is buying a ticket deceptively.
It is true that the airline is happy to sell you the JFK-LHR cheaply... but only as part of a JFK-AMS routing.
That might not make any sense to us as a passenger but that is how it is.
You do seem to have a blind spot over this point.
You still haven't got the point I was making, and have been making all along.
It isn't anything to do with reselling the last flight... it is about having the opportunity to sell a direct flight to the intermediate airport.
If I buy a cheap ticket from JFK - AMS and chose to route JFK-LHR-AMS then I am taking a seat on the JFK-LHR flight on a cheap ticket but had I actually bought a ticket JFK-LHR direct then being a direct flight it would probably be more expensive. So by buying a cheap JFK-AMS I have prevented the airline selling a more lucrative JFK-LHR direct.
So it is about conning the airline into letting you have a ticket on the direct flight to LHR as part of your cheap, non-direct flight, to AMS. Basically, you would have taken a seat on the JFK-LHR on a cheap ticket that the airline could have sold on a more expensive, direct, ticket for someone who wanted a JFK-LHR flight... LIKE YOU!!!! I can understand you would want the cheap flight to LHR but if you buy a ticket to AMS to get a cheap ticket to LHR then in my book that is buying a ticket deceptively.
It is true that the airline is happy to sell you the JFK-LHR cheaply... but only as part of a JFK-AMS routing.
That might not make any sense to us as a passenger but that is how it is.
You do seem to have a blind spot over this point.
But please do not misunderstand, I totally respect your point of view. I have my own, and may be a little stubborn about it too.
Feb 15, 2019, 6:55 am
#245
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
While at first blush it appears to be semantics, in reality it underlies the entire legacy air carrier pricing system.
There is no penalty for failing to fly a segment. At least in most countries, one cannot be forced to board an aircraft.
But, one does contract for a route and that route is at an agreed upon price. Thus, if the price of a single A-B is EUR 500 and a return is EUR 450 for the same route and one purchases the return but flies just the outbound, it is theoretically possible for the carrier to recover the EUR 50 price difference between the ticket for which one contracted and the cost of the ticket one chose to fly. That is because air tickets are not priced by the km., segment, or any metric other than supply & demand (with the overlay of EU pricing constraints relative to point of origin.
Don't think for a minute that if the current pricing system goes out the window that overall travel will become cheaper.
There is no penalty for failing to fly a segment. At least in most countries, one cannot be forced to board an aircraft.
But, one does contract for a route and that route is at an agreed upon price. Thus, if the price of a single A-B is EUR 500 and a return is EUR 450 for the same route and one purchases the return but flies just the outbound, it is theoretically possible for the carrier to recover the EUR 50 price difference between the ticket for which one contracted and the cost of the ticket one chose to fly. That is because air tickets are not priced by the km., segment, or any metric other than supply & demand (with the overlay of EU pricing constraints relative to point of origin.
Don't think for a minute that if the current pricing system goes out the window that overall travel will become cheaper.
Feb 15, 2019, 7:04 am
#246
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,642
I know what are you saying and of course the airlines would claim that (in your example the Ł1000) difference but my argument is that the actual loss for the airline is not Ł1000. Yes you broke the contract yes you missed your last leg but are you really caused Ł1000 of loss for the airline? I'm not saying you haven't but I don't think it was Ł1000 either...Also the airline has a duty to mitigate the loss and I would argue they failed on the basis that prices for the let say FRA-LHR-JFK-LHR fare is not available online or it is significantly more complex to see that prices when you book your flight.
In any event, without getting to deeply into the technicalities, if the contract specifies that in these circumstances you must pay that difference, then that is what the contract obliges you to pay. It could be that the measure of loss that might be applied in a tort claim is completely irrelevant.
It's dead easy to get a price for FRA-JFK-LHR online. Even ba.com can handle it without difficulty. However, if we get away from hypothetical numbers and start looking at what is the actual cost of a FRA-JFK-LHR ticket, you may not like the answer.
Feb 15, 2019, 7:29 am
#247
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: London. Or a plane.
Programs: "Only" 50,000 TPs until BA GGLfL
Posts: 2,773
If the price you should have paid for the product is Ł3,000, and you have only paid Ł2,000 because you have paid for a different product, then I can't see how you couldn't measure the loss at Ł1,000.
In any event, without getting to deeply into the technicalities, if the contract specifies that in these circumstances you must pay that difference, then that is what the contract obliges you to pay. It could be that the measure of loss that might be applied in a tort claim is completely irrelevant.
In any event, without getting to deeply into the technicalities, if the contract specifies that in these circumstances you must pay that difference, then that is what the contract obliges you to pay. It could be that the measure of loss that might be applied in a tort claim is completely irrelevant.
The Conditions of Carriage say:
3c2) Your ticket is no longer valid if you do not use all the coupons in the sequence provided in the ticket. Where you change your travel without our agreement and the price for the resulting transportation you intend to undertake is greater than the price originally paid, you will be requested to pay the difference in price. Failure to pay the price applicable to your revised transportation will result in refusal of carriage.
Feb 15, 2019, 7:31 am
#248
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Plymouth, UK
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 1,159
I have understood your point perfectly but I am of a different opinion. Just like an airline will never give a passenger indemnity against consequential loss as a result of their failings, as a passenger I do not owe the airline anything in regard to paid for travel that I decide not to take up. Indeed, the airlines themselves will tell me that if I no-show I will lose all downstream reservations. The purely speculative position of "the airline could have sold seat ABC-XYZ at a higher price" has no relevance as soon as any given seat is booked to a passenger. At that point the airline has agreed to carriage on all sectors of the itinerary for a total of the costs paid. That does not change in the case of the final leg being missed or skipped. That the airline may try and present it as you do, and that this activity gives rise to further liabilities is its prerogative and this will hopefully be finally tested in court, but it is my firm belief that this is wrong and borders on greed.
But please do not misunderstand, I totally respect your point of view. I have my own, and may be a little stubborn about it too.
But please do not misunderstand, I totally respect your point of view. I have my own, and may be a little stubborn about it too.
- You are entitled to your opinion
Feb 15, 2019, 7:36 am
#249
Ambassador, British Airways; FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Leeds, UK
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, GfL, HH Diamond
Posts: 42,867
Feb 15, 2019, 7:44 am
#250
Join Date: Sep 2013
Programs: BAEC Gold, EK Skywards (enhanced Blue !), Oman Air Sindbad Gold
Posts: 6,393
NO. BA's Conditions of Carriage does not specify that you must pay the difference (most likely because it would be unlawful).
...........................................
Key phrase: "You will be requested". A request is not an obligation. Declining Ba's "request" means you won't be allowed to take more flights on your ticket.
...........................................
Key phrase: "You will be requested". A request is not an obligation. Declining Ba's "request" means you won't be allowed to take more flights on your ticket.
Do we know of any documented incidents where such a scenario - ie request and refusal - has actually been played out ?
Feb 15, 2019, 8:15 am
#251
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: 4,156
I think the point is that this would have to work both ways. If an airline dynamically reprices your itinerary up to Ł3,000 when you do not take the last segment, then the passenger must be able to reprice it down to zero by not flying at all. Either both sides have the flexibility or neither do. The airline being able to reprice upwards must be balanced by the ticket becoming refundable if not used. The German court found that Lufthansa's pricing policy is not transparent to consumers. The example was mentioned of the airline having to say that dropping the final leg of an itinerary would cost €xxx. However, that would still not completely fulfill any measure of transparency. To do this, the airline would have to show ALL sectors of the flight as well as some kind of matrix of what it cost to take each possible combination of booked sectors. This level of both complexity and transparency is IMHO not in the airlines' interest.
Feb 15, 2019, 8:21 am
#252
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,642
I think the point is that this would have to work both ways. If an airline dynamically reprices your itinerary up to Ł3,000 when you do not take the last segment, then the passenger must be able to reprice it down to zero by not flying at all. Either both sides have the flexibility or neither do.
Feb 15, 2019, 8:32 am
#253
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: 4,156
That doesn't follow. You have already voluntarily given up a claim to have the flexibility to reprice it downwards, whether to zero or otherwise, when you selected a low fare. There is no necessary connection between this and the airline's right (which clearly both exists and is enforceable if anything other than the last sector is being considered) to reprice upwards on a change of itinerary. And if hypothetically you were correct, all non-refundable tickets would already be unfairly non-refundable, because they are all already subject to the airline's undoubted right to reprice upwards when the itinerary is changed.
Feb 15, 2019, 8:37 am
#254
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: AMS
Programs: BAEC Silver, Flying Blue Gold, TK M&S Nobody
Posts: 2,451
I think once a contract has been entered into, then rights of both parties must be balanced. Non-refundable and non-changeable must then apply both ways. If the airline can reprice out of some perceived passenger action, then the passenger must be able to reprice out of some airline action. So, if for example I find myself downgraded or delayed for the return long-haul section, then regardless of any other legislated possibilities, I can dynamically not take that sector and insist on a refund of the amount of that and following sectors in full in the same way as the airline would cancel if I no-showed.
Feb 15, 2019, 8:41 am
#255
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,642
I think once a contract has been entered into, then rights of both parties must be balanced. Non-refundable and non-changeable must then apply both ways. If the airline can reprice out of some perceived passenger action, then the passenger must be able to reprice out of some airline action. So, if for example I find myself downgraded or delayed for the return long-haul section, then regardless of any other legislated possibilities, I can dynamically not take that sector and insist on a refund of the amount of that and following sectors in full in the same way as the airline would cancel if I no-showed.
But that's not the situation you mentioned before: the passenger has bought a non-refundable fare and the airline is ready and wiling to carry the passenger to their ticketed destination, but the passenger wants to change something. The non-refundability of the ticket does not bar the airline from charging for the change. It happens all the time.
