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 Feb 16, 2019, 10:12 am
  #301  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
Originally Posted by Greg66
Not really. Whatever the position may be under German law, and whatever LH claimed in German proceedings, the discussion here is what remedies BA might have under English law (the governing law of its COCs).

In England one can claim damages in lieu of specific performance of a contract (enforcement), and in any event it is commonplace to speak of enforcing contractual rights with a claim for damages.

The misdirection here here is not to focus on what the passenger’s obligations under the COCs are, and what remedies are available for breach of those obligations. The terms of the contract are the starting point for a discussion about breach and remedies.
One can do the same in the US. But, I doubt that any carrier would want to sue for damages rather than simply recalculating the fare, e.g. performance of the contract. The goal for most carriers is not to generate revenue but to render hidden city ticket fraud an unprofitable endeavor.

Hence my reference to the AF contract. It eliminates the complex and opaque process of refaring a ticket and permits the customer to make a quick and clear judgment as to what the practice will cost should he choose to engage in it. I cannot speak for every AF flight in existence, but an educated guess that the amounts are likely to deter most and that is all AF ought to want.

Any non-compliant use by the Passenger (for example, if he or she does not use the first Coupon or if the Coupons are not used in the order in which they were issued) noticed on the day of travel will result in the payment of a extra fixed-rate fee at the airport: €125 on short-haul flights (metropolitan France and Corsica), €250 for an Economy medium-haul flight, €500 for a Business medium-haul flight, €500 for an Economy or Premium Economy long-haul flight, €1,500 for a Business long-haul flight and €3,000 for a La Premičre long-haul flight (or the equivalent in the local currency).
Often1 is offline  
Old Feb 16, 2019, 12:56 pm
  #302  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: Complete Pleb, former BAEC Gold, former MH Silver
Posts: 194
Originally Posted by snaxmuppet
It isn't shutting the stable door if they refuse to carry you permanently! That is their most severe action I suspect that is easily open to them without resorting to the courts. Obviously that would only apply to the worst of repeat offenders but it is quite a severe result if you end up losing status along with all your Avios. IIRC, BA has done that in the past for other breaches of their CoC.
The CoC doesn't mention permanent refusal of carriage, just refusal of carriage (which reasonably would be taken to be related to the itinerary booked). That said it isn't explicitly specified either way, so I guess that it could be possible to argued ​​​​either way.

However an airline which permanently refused all future carriage to all passengers who dropped legs, segments or returns would surely be cutting of its nose to spite its face.
Jon Baker is offline  
Old Feb 16, 2019, 2:29 pm
  #303  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Plymouth, UK
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 1,159
Originally Posted by Jon Baker
The CoC doesn't mention permanent refusal of carriage, just refusal of carriage (which reasonably would be taken to be related to the itinerary booked). That said it isn't explicitly specified either way, so I guess that it could be possible to argued ​​​​either way.

However an airline which permanently refused all future carriage to all passengers who dropped legs, segments or returns would surely be cutting of its nose to spite its face.
I wouldn't imagine it would do it to all... Just persistent re offenders
snaxmuppet is offline  
Old Feb 16, 2019, 2:52 pm
  #304  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: YYC
Programs: BA bronze, Aeroplan peon
Posts: 4,735
Originally Posted by Often1
Any non-compliant use by the Passenger (for example, if he or she does not use the first Coupon or if the Coupons are not used in the order in which they were issued) noticed on the day of travel will result in the payment of a extra fixed-rate fee at the airport: €125 on short-haul flights (metropolitan France and Corsica), €250 for an Economy medium-haul flight, €500 for a Business medium-haul flight, €500 for an Economy or Premium Economy long-haul flight, €1,500 for a Business long-haul flight and €3,000 for a La Premičre long-haul flight (or the equivalent in the local currency).
Doesn't say anything about dropping the last segment there. It says "non-compliant use" Can not using the last coupon be considered use of the coupon? That seems a stretch, as the coupons are clearly treated as individual things not an overall package of flights as one thing. The first coupon is used, and the remaining (except the last) are used in order, which is in compliance. It doesn't say that all must be used, just that they need to be used in order.

Similarly the penalty for out of order use is demanding payment at the airport on day of travel, if I wish to travel. So if I don't travel and don't go through the airport, the condition is also not met, the last coupon is simply forfeited.
Jagboi is offline  
Old Feb 16, 2019, 2:56 pm
  #305  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK (currently)
Programs: BA Gold (and many other greater and lesser distinctions)
Posts: 7,192
Originally Posted by Often1
LH did not sue for its losses, it sued to enforce its contract. If it's contract had been better written (and perhaps on appeal it will be found to have been written perfectly well). the contract would have called for OP to pay the price for the new route flown. Thus, if he purchased A-B-C and dropped B-C, his ticket is repriced to A-B. If that is more than A-C, he owes the difference.

The entire argument about loss is irrelevant.
As I read the judgment (and my German is pretty good but not 100% fluent") that is exactly what LH did sue for i.e. the fare difference. More importantly they were found entitled to succeed on that claim, as their T&C did allow them to do so, and the terms was not so unusual as to be unenforceable in a contract containing standard terms. So LH actually won the point of principle. However, they lost the case because - ironically - they were unable to provide sufficient evidence as to what the fare would have been, on the relevant date, for the flights actually flown.

Am I the only person who read the judgment that way ?
KARFA likes this.
Frequentflyer99 is offline  
Old Feb 16, 2019, 4:14 pm
  #306  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Singapore
Programs: BAEC Silver (Touching distance GFL after 31 years!)
Posts: 465
Originally Posted by alexwuk
I doubt there are many examples of case law for what the vendor's loss is for a failure to eat all four apples?
But there is well settled case law in England that if you get off a train a station early, and the fare to that station is higher than the station you have the ticket to, you pay the difference.
Midships is offline  
Old Feb 16, 2019, 4:35 pm
  #307  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SW18, UK
Programs: Mucci Diamond Hairbrush. And Nouveau Bronze
Posts: 1,384
Originally Posted by Midships
But there is well settled case law in England that if you get off a train a station early, and the fare to that station is higher than the station you have the ticket to, you pay the difference.
Share it please.
Greg66 is offline  
Old Feb 16, 2019, 4:51 pm
  #308  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Singapore
Programs: BAEC Silver (Touching distance GFL after 31 years!)
Posts: 465
Thompson v London, Midland and Scottish Railway Co
Midships is offline  
Old Feb 16, 2019, 4:57 pm
  #309  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Singapore
Programs: BAEC Silver (Touching distance GFL after 31 years!)
Posts: 465
Belay that - wrong case....
Midships is offline  
Old Feb 16, 2019, 5:07 pm
  #310  
 
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 Frequentflyer99
As I read the judgment (and my German is pretty good but not 100% fluent") that is exactly what LH did sue for i.e. the fare difference. More importantly they were found entitled to succeed on that claim, as their T&C did allow them to do so, and the terms was not so unusual as to be unenforceable in a contract containing standard terms. So LH actually won the point of principle. However, they lost the case because - ironically - they were unable to provide sufficient evidence as to what the fare would have been, on the relevant date, for the flights actually flown.

Am I the only person who read the judgment that way ?
Not quite. The judgement ruled that the AGB’s applied, this the the German term for General Trading Conditions, so not quite CoC, and that in principle a part of a journey might have a higher price than the full journey. However, Lufthansa’s calculation was considered neither transparent nor could it be comprehended by the court let alone the passenger.

Lufthansa sued for the fare OSL-FRA-SEA-FRA-TXL, despite the fact that the victim of their vindictivness had purchased OSL-FRA-SEA-FRA-OSL plus FRA-TXL. The court did not have any evidence that the amount Lufthansa was demanding (over €2,700) was either realistic or transparent to the passenger. It may have had something to do with Lufthansa’s attitude that the passenger had only paid €657 for the business class ticket, which feels like one of those super flash sales that were corrected quite quickly after being discovered.

Incidently, Lufthansa tried to withdraw the lawsuit before judgement against them was passed but failed, which might explain why they now feel the need to appeal rather than letting the matter be, which they had at one stage decided to do. They filed the suit to scare the passenger, who fought valliantly and then wanted his day in court after feeling bullied. There is more to this case than just skipping the last sector. Lufthansa may have been trying to recoup losses on a mistake fare here.

I would also ask some posters to refrain from calling the passengers action fraud. The passenger, for now at least, has won his case and therefore no fraud is judged to have taken place.
Tafflyer is offline  
Old Feb 16, 2019, 5:51 pm
  #311  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: South East England
Programs: Status with BA Exec Club; KrisFlyer; Hilton Honors; IHG One; Marriott Bonvoy
Posts: 543
Originally Posted by Midships
But there is well settled case law in England that if you get off a train a station early, and the fare to that station is higher than the station you have the ticket to, you pay the difference.
The conditions of carriage on the railways are not subject to unfair contract law, or it would seem most other consumer protection law. I’m not going to defend this, but that is the case.

Airlines are subject to UCTA and other consumer protection legislation, subject to a few exemptions that stem from things like the Warsaw/Montreal agreements.

BA have form for chasing a travel agent for facilitating ‘hidden city’ ticketing whilst simultaneously doing absolutely nothing to the passengers who did the booking and final sector dropping. This suggests to me:

1. BA really don’t like smart arses booking a cheaper itinerary and flying a more expensive subset of it -but-
2. They are not confident that this practice by customers is actionable

IANAL but I’m confident trying to force a mandatory reprice at a higher level for not consuming all the sectors on ticket is going to be deemed unfair. I know some people have suggested here it is dishonest and/or a breach of contract to (say) book ex-eu and intend to drop the final sector. To those people I’d point out it’s not dishonest if you genuinely believe the terms and conditions are illegal/unenforceable and there’s no obligation to actually fly whatsoever as part of any airline ticket sold in the UK. It’s an option to fly, not an obligation.
memesweeper is offline  
Old Feb 16, 2019, 6:10 pm
  #312  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: Complete Pleb, former BAEC Gold, former MH Silver
Posts: 194
Originally Posted by Frequentflyer99
​​​​​However, they lost the case because - ironically - they were unable to provide sufficient evidence as to what the fare would have been, on the relevant date, for the flights actually flown.
Indeed pricing is non-transparent by design (and to the benefit of the airline), there's no consistency based on route, time of day, advanced purchase period.

As such, very difficult to retrospectively shown the exact fare a consumer would/should have paid on date X vs date Y for a fare A-B-C-B-D vs A-B-C-B-A

Clearly if segment pricing was simple and consistent, it would be straight-forward. But the airlines actively choose not to make it so (to their general advantage, but on occasion to the benefit of the minority consumer).

The problem would immediately go away if airlines charged each segment at a consistent and transparent price (thought this would make them hugely non-competetive outside of home markets - the opposite of what they are seeking to achieve now).

​​​In addition this really opens up the accusations of price gauging (in that if A-B-C-B-A costs ŁŁ, then you are gauging people by charging ŁŁŁ for B-C-B on the same flights/services)

It all seems like a fine line which would be dangerous to cross for a small number of individual cases (albeit LH appear to be trying just that - and one wonders what they really hope to practically achieve, especially given they effectively lost their first attempt).
​​
Jon Baker is offline  
Old Feb 16, 2019, 6:16 pm
  #313  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: London. Or a plane.
Programs: "Only" 50,000 TPs until BA GGLfL
Posts: 2,770
Originally Posted by Bear96
Nope.

1. Airlines are not selling a bundle of specific flights, and (despite the disingenuous denials in this thread) consumers know this when they purchase transportation services from A to B. So any analogy along the lines of multiple apples is inapt.
So what are the airlines selling?? They are selling a specific series of flights: a proffer of Zurich-Timbuktu-Durban which is accepted and paid for by a Buyer ais not the same product as a realised journey of Zurich-Dubai-Durban, unless you live an airline fares departments.

Originally Posted by Bear96
2. Pricing is not based on the cost to the provider, so that is irrelevant. It is based on what the market will bear. People are willing to pay more for direct itineraries (if they weren't this thread wouldn't exist), so the airlines legitimately charge accordingly, and gaming the system costs them the opportunity to sell direct capacity at the higher prices - those are the damages.
I didn't say pricing was based on cost, I said cost was based on cost - so consuming less meant a lower cost and therefore a nil loss to the producer of underconsumption Read what I wrote: which is that that extracting "convenience premiums" is a hallmark of Monopoly Pricing. Just because someone is willing to pay more doesn't mean they are "legitimately charged" more! What's a "legitimate" subway fare for a billionaire if it is the fastest journey from where he is to his his next meeting?

Originally Posted by Bear96
To those arguing to the contrary and are so sure you are legally correct, I really wish one of you would put your money where your mouth is by skipping the first segment of an ex-EU itinerary, try to board in LHR and then take legal action against the airline after it cancels your other segments.
Please be so kind as to read what I've posted above: all my postings are around the legal issues of missing the last segment of a journey, and I make it clear that the BA-Passenger contract gives BA the legal right to cancel all segments after one segment is not flown.

Last edited by alexwuk; Feb 17, 2019 at 4:44 am Reason: toning it down
alexwuk is offline  
Old Feb 17, 2019, 2:04 am
  #314  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada, USA, Europe
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 31,452
Originally Posted by alexwuk
So what are the airlines selling?? They are selling a specific series of flights: a proffer of Zurich-Timbuktu-Durban which is accepted and paid for by a Buyer ais not the same product as a realised journey of Zurich-Dubai-Durban, unless you live an airline fares departments.
Ignorance is no defence. Unless you specifically bought a fare which allowed a stopover in the middle city, you bought Zurich to Durban. You the airline gets you there is not for you to say. You arguing the opposite doesn’t make it so.

I didn't say pricing was based on cost, I said cost was based on cost - so consuming less meant a lower cost and therefore a nil loss to the producer of underconsumption Read what I wrote: which is that that extracting "convenience premiums" is a hallmark of Monopoly Pricing. Just because someone is willing to pay more doesn't mean they are "legitimately charged" more: you clearly don't have a qualification in economics! What's a "legitimate" subway fare for a billionaire if it is the fastest journey from where he is to his his next meeting?
I’m not convinced of your qualifications in economics either, to be honest. There is no need for a price to be based on cost or anything else. I don’t know what you mean by cost is based on cost, but there is a clear loss of revenue to an airline in this pricing model if people use hidden city fares. And you keep kicking yourself an own-goal with reference to goods-based arguments over consumption. You are not consuming a good with air travel. You have contracted to be transported to your final destination, and it is not for you to say what routing, whether short or long or circuitous, to take to achieve this.
LondonElite is offline  
Old Feb 17, 2019, 3:19 am
  #315  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA GfL, Marriott PlatfL/Ambassador, TP Gold, IHG Spire
Posts: 1,654
Originally Posted by LondonElite


Ignorance is no defence. Unless you specifically bought a fare which allowed a stopover in the middle city, you bought Zurich to Durban. You the airline gets you there is not for you to say. You arguing the opposite doesn’t make it so.
This is not true. A stopover is defined as

Stopover - a scheduled stop on your journey at a point between the place of departure and the place of destination

If the flight coupons were issued with a specific connection in, say DEL instead of TLV, that specific connecting point is now part of your contract with BA. This makes sense as a passenger may not want to connect via certain airports or countries for a multitude of reasons.

If you buy a HEL-OSL-LHR-JFK-IAD-SFO ticket, BA is not entitled to change your routing just because their contract is to carry you from HEL to SFO. Purely because that's not what you contracted with them. You contracted that specific routing with those specific stopover points.
mario 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.