Bear96

When you purchased your ticket on the website, did you check one way or round trip (with HEL as the origin and SFO as the destination), 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.

adrianlondon

That argument doesn't hold up. If I go to Amazon and search for "vacuum cleaners" and then click on a dyson, I would not accept them sending me some other random vacuum cleaner based on the fact that that is what I searched for. Or it someone wants to bring up the "services vs goods" argument then swap vacuum cleaner for hire car. Whatever.

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.

Dave Noble

...del

mario

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.

Tafflyer

Bear96

Right. And as I pointed out above, if you really want to be routed through OSL, LHR, JFK and IAD to get from HEL to SFO, you can do that if you are willing to potentially pay more for that option. But most people just want to get from A to B for good value, and as long as they have to connect anyway (based on their price range - as in they don't want to pay the premium for a nonstop), there is no material difference to them if they have to change planes in AMS or MUC, or in ATL or DFW, all else such as arrival / departure times being relatively equal.

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.

Bear96

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).

Greg66

Frequentflyer99

Just for accuracy, I do not believe that what you have described is necessarily a stopover. As I understand the position (subject to correction) for IATA ticketing purposes, a stop of less than 24 hrs is actually a transfer. A stop of more than 24 hrs is a stopover. I am not sure what difference that makes to the argument, but best to be accurate in any event if the argument depends on the definition of a specific word.

Midships

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)

Bear96

But in the context of this discussion (skipping the last segment), you are intending to fly - to a different destination from where you were ticketed. You are looking to change your itinerary from how it was ticketed.

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.

Midships

Good for you. I like folk that are confident.

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?

Dave_C

Surely, one could argue conversely, that the airlines are by intentionally making ticketing so complex, so arcane and so opaque, that they are also potentially guilty of Fraud under S.3 of the Fraud Act 2006?

Bear96

Excellent!

When are you planning on testing that by skipping a first segment?

Bear96

What is so complex? Go to the website, enter the origin, destination and dates you want, and you get a price. Simple.

Where's the fraud?