Interesting Court Decision In Germany - Passenger does not need to fly last leg
#316
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2000
Location: TPA for now. Hopefully LIS for retirement
Posts: 13,682
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.
Assuming you selected one way or round trip, this is simply wrong. You have in fact contracted for BA to get you from HEL to SFO (and back, if round trip); that is all.
In your example, if on the day of travel a certain segment cancels or one of the intermediate airports is closed due to (say) weather, and they re-route you but still get you to SFO - let's say earlier than originally scheduled because your new routing is simply HEL-LHR-SFO - you have no claim because they will have upheld their end of the contract, which is to get you from HEL to SFO. Similarly if an intermediate leg is delayed so that you will miss a connection (i.e., LHR-JFK is delayed so they reroute you LHR-SFO; or JFK-IAD is delayed so they fly you straight from JFK to SFO).
If on the other hand you in fact selected multi-city and then built the itinerary with the layover points you identified, then you would be correct. And you would accordingly pay more (most likely) to route through those specific cities.
Last edited by Bear96; Feb 17, 2019 at 4:29 am
#317
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 1,575
When you purchased your ticket on the website, did you check one way or round trip, or did you check multicity?
Assuming you selected one way or round trip, this is simply wrong. You have in fact contracted for BA to get you from HEL to SFO (and back, if round trip); that is all.
Assuming you selected one way or round trip, this is simply wrong. You have in fact contracted for BA to get you from HEL to SFO (and back, if round trip); that is all.
A couple of years ago I was doing an ex-EU (as mentioned before, I don't drop the last leg and actually live in "EU" most of the time anyway) and BA had an equipment change and wanted to fly me HKG-FRA on Lufthansa instead of HKG-LHR-FRA. I told them, truthfully, that I had items in my bag to give to a family member I was meeting in LHR. They put me back on that route. I was actually gutted as I've never flown anyone else apart from BA in business and really wanted to try Lufthansa!
I believe the only way for BA to stop this is to amend their T&Cs (and potentially defend them in court to ratify them). I'm totally unsure (as in it sounds very wrong to me!) how the UK railways have gotten their T&Cs validated. Luckily, I'm not a lawyer. Not even an armchair one.
Last edited by adrianlondon; Feb 17, 2019 at 4:20 am
#319
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA GfL, Marriott PlatfL/Ambassador, TP Gold, IHG Spire
Posts: 1,656
When you purchased your ticket on the website, did you check one way or round trip, or did you check multicity?
Assuming you selected one way or round trip, this is simply wrong. You have in fact contracted for BA to get you from HEL to SFO (and back, if round trip); that is all.
In your example, if on the day of travel a certain segment cancels or one of the intermediate airports is closed due to (say) weather, and they re-route you but still get you to SFO - let's say earlier than originally scheduled because your new routing is simply HEL-LHR-SFO - you have no claim because they will have upheld their end of the contract, which is to get you from HEL to SFO. Similarly if an intermediate leg is delayed so that you will miss a connection (i.e., LHR-JFK is delayed so they reroute you LHR-SFO; or JFK-IAD is delayed so they fly you straight from JFK to SFO).
If on the other hand you in fact selected multi-city and then built the itinerary with the layover points you identified, then you would be correct. And you would accordingly pay more (most likely) to route through those specific cities.
Assuming you selected one way or round trip, this is simply wrong. You have in fact contracted for BA to get you from HEL to SFO (and back, if round trip); that is all.
In your example, if on the day of travel a certain segment cancels or one of the intermediate airports is closed due to (say) weather, and they re-route you but still get you to SFO - let's say earlier than originally scheduled because your new routing is simply HEL-LHR-SFO - you have no claim because they will have upheld their end of the contract, which is to get you from HEL to SFO. Similarly if an intermediate leg is delayed so that you will miss a connection (i.e., LHR-JFK is delayed so they reroute you LHR-SFO; or JFK-IAD is delayed so they fly you straight from JFK to SFO).
If on the other hand you in fact selected multi-city and then built the itinerary with the layover points you identified, then you would be correct. And you would accordingly pay more (most likely) to route through those specific cities.
Most people would gladly accept a rerouting that is more efficient when things go wrong, but you're entitled to keep the original routing.
#320
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: 4,158
Some people may select specific connecting points due to visa or passport restrictions. An airline being permitted to unilaterally change that would be unacceptable. Most passengers would be happy to change an intermediate connecting point but the airline must ask first.
#321
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2000
Location: TPA for now. Hopefully LIS for retirement
Posts: 13,682
Look everyone, I am not saying I like the way things are with how air fares are constructed, nor am I saying don't try to change it. But it makes no sense to use logical contortions to deny the reality of the present situation (or pretend you really don't understand why an airline would price nonstops higher than connections). What people are doing with the hidden city / ex-EU fares is comparable to paying for something cheaper than a Dyson, but actually wanting to use a Dyson.
#322
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2000
Location: TPA for now. Hopefully LIS for retirement
Posts: 13,682
Please read the conditions of carriage. In particular the part related to remediation available if BA fails to stop at your stopover point. A stopover has nothing to do with multi-city itineraries.
Most people would gladly accept a rerouting that is more efficient when things go wrong, but you're entitled to keep the original routing.
Most people would gladly accept a rerouting that is more efficient when things go wrong, but you're entitled to keep the original routing.
It is interesting that people here are pointing to the CoC when they think it supports their argument, but are ignoring the parts that clearly show dropping the last segment is not permitted without re-pricing the entire itinerary to match what the passenger is actually intending to fly (specifically Section 3c).
Last edited by Bear96; Feb 17, 2019 at 5:23 am
#323
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SW18, UK
Programs: Mucci Diamond Hairbrush. And Nouveau Bronze
Posts: 1,388
Yes I understand the three remedy options that are laid out. They essentially say BA will carry you to the "destination shown on your ticket" or refund the fare (my emphasis).
It is interesting that people here are pointing to the CoC when they think it supports their argument, but are ignoring the parts that clearly show dropping the last segment is not permitted without re-pricing the entire itinerary to match what the passenger is actually intending to fly (specifically Section 3c).
It is interesting that people here are pointing to the CoC when they think it supports their argument, but are ignoring the parts that clearly show dropping the last segment is not permitted without re-pricing the entire itinerary to match what the passenger is actually intending to fly (specifically Section 3c).
#324
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK (currently)
Programs: BA Gold (and many other greater and lesser distinctions)
Posts: 7,202
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.
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.
#325
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Singapore
Programs: BAEC GFL (Only took 30 years)
Posts: 492
Addressing the common law associated with railway travel:
If a passenger misuses his ticket by breaking the conditions on which it was issued to him, he breaks his contract and may be liable to pay the fare or part of it over again.
Whilst most ticket types permit the passenger to stop his journey at a station short of that shown on his ticket, the Train Company may in some cases at certain times charge a higher fare for the shorter journey. In those cases, the passenger must pay the appropriate fare for the journey actually made. The cases for this are, GN Ry v Winder [1892] 2 Q.B. 595; GN Ry v Palmer [1895] 1 Q.B. 862. I can't see that either of these cases have been changed by subsequent courts, in the absence of which there is no reason to believe that they are not still binding precedent.
At common law a passenger has no right to break his journey at an intermediate station and resume it later. See Ashton v L & Y Ry [1904] 2 K.B. 313; Bastaple v Metcalfe [1906] 2 K.B. 288.
If a passenger knowingly does takes advantage in this manner, he or she may be guilty of a criminal offence under s.11 of the Fraud Act 2006, an offence that carries a maximum sentence of five yeas.
I see a few posters saying that this is a breach of this, that or the other consumer protection legislation. For my part I know of no judicial interpretation of this protective legislation that would cover this. If there are any that could point me to such cases, I'd certainly be interested to read them.
Now the forgoing all refers to common law, clearly BA is a liberty to modify the common law with their T&Cs and I am really not that interested in sitting down and reading these.
I would however make two points, the first is that if you have a return ticket from A to C via B, and you stop at B, there is a high risk you will be asked to pay for a return ticket from A to B, before you can board at B to go back to A.
The second point is from my days in Cyprus. Cyprus Airways used to fly on a very low fare to MAN. BA did not. So BA matched the the Cyprus Airways fare, connecting through LHR. Many of us, including me, used to jump off at LHR as the LCA - LHR - MAN fare was a lot cheaper than the LCA - LHR fare.
Then on one occasion, one of my colleagues was intercepted by the station manager at LCA, and advised that BA would decline to sell him any tickets at all if he continued the practice. In those day if you flew BA from LCA to JFK via LHR Club the whole way, you got upgraded to Concord for one leg. None of us wanted to lose that perk, so we stopped playing the game. My advice, if any one is interested, its a dangerous game, leave it to others to play until such time as you have binding judicial authority that has considered the BA T&Cs in its judgement, and that says it is fine to do it. (Though if that time is ever reached, I suspect that BA will simply change their T&Cs)
If a passenger misuses his ticket by breaking the conditions on which it was issued to him, he breaks his contract and may be liable to pay the fare or part of it over again.
Whilst most ticket types permit the passenger to stop his journey at a station short of that shown on his ticket, the Train Company may in some cases at certain times charge a higher fare for the shorter journey. In those cases, the passenger must pay the appropriate fare for the journey actually made. The cases for this are, GN Ry v Winder [1892] 2 Q.B. 595; GN Ry v Palmer [1895] 1 Q.B. 862. I can't see that either of these cases have been changed by subsequent courts, in the absence of which there is no reason to believe that they are not still binding precedent.
At common law a passenger has no right to break his journey at an intermediate station and resume it later. See Ashton v L & Y Ry [1904] 2 K.B. 313; Bastaple v Metcalfe [1906] 2 K.B. 288.
If a passenger knowingly does takes advantage in this manner, he or she may be guilty of a criminal offence under s.11 of the Fraud Act 2006, an offence that carries a maximum sentence of five yeas.
I see a few posters saying that this is a breach of this, that or the other consumer protection legislation. For my part I know of no judicial interpretation of this protective legislation that would cover this. If there are any that could point me to such cases, I'd certainly be interested to read them.
Now the forgoing all refers to common law, clearly BA is a liberty to modify the common law with their T&Cs and I am really not that interested in sitting down and reading these.
I would however make two points, the first is that if you have a return ticket from A to C via B, and you stop at B, there is a high risk you will be asked to pay for a return ticket from A to B, before you can board at B to go back to A.
The second point is from my days in Cyprus. Cyprus Airways used to fly on a very low fare to MAN. BA did not. So BA matched the the Cyprus Airways fare, connecting through LHR. Many of us, including me, used to jump off at LHR as the LCA - LHR - MAN fare was a lot cheaper than the LCA - LHR fare.
Then on one occasion, one of my colleagues was intercepted by the station manager at LCA, and advised that BA would decline to sell him any tickets at all if he continued the practice. In those day if you flew BA from LCA to JFK via LHR Club the whole way, you got upgraded to Concord for one leg. None of us wanted to lose that perk, so we stopped playing the game. My advice, if any one is interested, its a dangerous game, leave it to others to play until such time as you have binding judicial authority that has considered the BA T&Cs in its judgement, and that says it is fine to do it. (Though if that time is ever reached, I suspect that BA will simply change their T&Cs)
#326
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2000
Location: TPA for now. Hopefully LIS for retirement
Posts: 13,682
That isn’t what cl 3c says. In outline, the gist of it is that if you change your plans and *you still want to fly*, then your ticket will be repriced having regard to your new plans. It doesn’t say anything about what happens if your change of plans means that you *don’t* intend to fly.
Again, if you are so sure I am wrong, go ahead and test it out! As I said earlier, if you are so sure you are right, buy an ex-EU, try to board in LHR and start legal action against BA because they have cancelled the remaining segments, or to get the difference back when they re-price it from LHR. Good luck! Maybe I will be proven wrong with the final court decision. But I think there is a good reason why no one here has tried to do that, despite the confidence in the arguments being put forth.
#327
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Singapore
Programs: BAEC GFL (Only took 30 years)
Posts: 492
What I'd like to know is which part of which consumer protection legislation you would recommend a passenger relying on an argument that this is unfair to defend their position in court and any decided cases based on similar fact evidence that would support their arguments. Because if you are wrong, (and I'm not saying that you are), then if that repricing is fair, and the traveller knowingly did it to pay less money for the journey, then that passenger could find themselves charged under the Fraud Act.
Highly unlikely of course, but you wouldn't want it on your conscience would you?
#329
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2000
Location: TPA for now. Hopefully LIS for retirement
Posts: 13,682
#330
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2000
Location: TPA for now. Hopefully LIS for retirement
Posts: 13,682
Where's the fraud?