Bait and Switch on codeshare EQM?
 

My wife and I have been platinum for some time. Naturally we purchase in a way to maximize EQM where possible. Twice in the last two months we have been victimized by what I would consider Bait & Switch tactics on the part of CO's website.

Our itinerary involved a stop in Frankfurt. We had a choice of returning either on a Continental-operated or a Lufthansa codeshare, The LH flight was marginally more convenient so that is what we booked on continental.com.

Continental.com stated, and the written receipt verifies, that the class of service was L, and that the EQM was 100%. I now know to my sorrow that L class in fact is 50% EQM--but continental.com, and the receipt, both state otherwise. Consequently, each of us is getting around 2,000 EQM less than continental.com promised.

I have just been on the phone with a CSR and her supervisor at the OnePass center for almost an hour. They absolutely refuse to budge. They say they are not responsible for what continental.com says or what the receipt says. It was my responsibility to go to Lufthansa's site and research the actual rules before buying the ticket.

They point also to a disclaimer at the bottom of the receipt, which says that the second carrier may change my class of service, in which case EQM may vary. But this did not apply. The ticket was purchased in L class, we flew in L class, the receipt says L class--100% EQM but as awarded it says L class--50%.

I obviously would never have purchased the ticket under these conditions and I reject the idea that I need to go to Lufthansa's site to verify that what continental.com is saying is true. It is Continental's responsibility IMHO to know what its agreements with Lufthansa are. Again, this is not a misunderstanding or a flight change--the ticket receipt clearly states, as did continental.com, 100% EQM for flying L class on a Lufthansa-operated CO codeshare.

To fight this further I see only the options of going to CO corporate or of filling a dispute to the ticket charge with the credit card company on the grounds of material misrepresentation. With my receipt in hand I think I would almost certainly prevail.

I'm almost up to a million miles on CO and have never had to fight city hall like this before. Is it worth it?

It certainly is incredibly confusing, and it should have been fixed long ago. It's made even worse by the fact that not all fare classes map to the same fare class on the operating airline. In your case you can tell from this page http://www.continental.com/CMS/en-US...spx?ItemId=298 that you will only earn 50% for the LH L class but I agree, it certainly isn't shown that way when you search for the flights on co.com...

Did you read the * details?

I agree that it sucks that we have to, but they are there on every reservation in my account

In Star Alliance, operating metal counts, not the marketing carrier. Lufthansa and Continental, respectively. So you're awarded miles, regardless of what the marketing carrier sells, based on the operating carrier's fare codes. Not saying it's right or wrong, but that's *A.

You were sold an L fare ticket on Lufthansa, not Continental. Lufthansa fares earn according to this table.

Regardless of all of those hidden details, the misrepresentations by CO constitute IMHO unfair and deceptive trade practices which would be in violation of consumer protection laws of most states and actionable in court. Those laws often provide for the consumer to recover treble damages plus attorney fees.

Also you have not received all you bargained for in your transaction with CO. CO represented that you would receive a certain number of miles and they have failed and refused to deliver them. You have not received the full benefit of the bargain. I would cite your state's consumer protection law, by statute number in your challenge with your credit card. I would calculate the value of the missing miles based on the rate at which CO sells them to members.

Also, CO was functioning as the agent of LH and operating within the scope of its duties, and there is an argument that the principle is liable for the representations of its agent.

If they provide the warning text on every page in a font that it is the same size then how is it "hidden" from the user?

On these facts, I am not sure that the ''warning'' really covers the situation. He flew the same class as he bought. Also, it is a rule of construction that ambiguities are construed against whoever drafted them, and the BEST you can say about CO's representations here is that they are ambiguous.

They ought to get this right and they should be hammered on situations like this to give them a motive to do so.

The OP bought an L fare ticket on Lufthansa, sold by CO. He did not buy a ticket for a CO flight. *That* is the key difference.

That’s the essence of the problem. Quite simply:

L on CO != L on LH

That all sounds good on paper, but what is the person's real "damages"?

The lost "value" of the "2000 EQMs" --- which can be purchased from the airline (via e.g., Mileage Maximizer) for about 7.5 cpm..... hence their "value" is about $150 per ticket.

Is someone REALLY going to hire an attorney to sue the airline in a superior court for $300? (treble damages/attorneys' fees, etc. etc. aren't usually recoverable in small claims courts).

An A- for "wishful thinking" perhaps, but a D- for practicality/reality. ;)

Which two of the following were your options:
1) CO marketed, CO operated
2) CO marketed, LH operated
3) LH marketed, CO operated
4) LH marketed, LH operated

Regardless, if your receipt says 100% I'd file a DOT complaint. CO probably won't react to it, but if the DOT receives enough similar complaints they'll look into it and may resolve the issue long term.

The first two only. I went only to continental.com, which indicated that both yield 100% EQM. It would have been easy to choose #1 if continental.com had been truthful about the actual EQM.

The "warning"--which, BTW, is about 1/5 the size of the "100%"--warns me that if the class of service changes, the EQM may change also. It doesn't apply in this case. I bought L class and flew L class. continental.com explicitly says L class, 100%.

On my screen they display the same size. And co.com does not explicitly say that L class = 100%. It says that CO-operated L-class = 100%. Read this again:
A LH-operated L fare has very specific earning rates that are displayed on the co.com site under OnePass | Earning | Partners | Lufthansa.

You can fight it and they might give it to you or they might not, but the rules are what they are and they are stated as such on the page where you see the reservation.

Well, to be exact, the 100% is in bold type, 1.4x larger than the light type of the disclaimer. I apologize for the previous exaggeratior, and suggest we move on.

Here is the precise wording of my receipt.

OnePass Miles/Elite Qualification: 3,869/100%*
Flight: CO 5008
Aircraft: Airbus A340-300
Fare Class: Economy (L)
Meal: Meal
*Flight CO 5008 is operated by Lufthansa

This certainly suggests to me that Continental is aware that they have sold me an L-class ticket, that they are aware that Lufthansa operates the flight, and nevertheless they promised me 100%. I see no statement there that the flight must be operated by CO--quite the opposite.

Not relevant. CO offered to sell me a ticket under certain conditions. When I gave my credit card information and CO accepted my money, we established a contract--under the conditions they offered to me in writing, which supersede anything anywhere else on their site.

If they are permitted to vary from the EQM they offered, then they must also be able to vary the *price*. If they charged me an extra $1,000 on top of the quoted ticket price, I don't think that referring me to another part of their site saying that they were authorized to do so would have any merit.

I know I can fight it. I can complain to the DOT, I can ask the state attorney general to open an investigation, I can instruct the credit card company that I dispute the transaction, and if these things fail I know methods that will work. However, this is not a good use of my time or that of CO. Unlike other members of this forum, I've had almost all positive experiences with CO over a considerable period of time. I do not relish jeopardizing my relationship with them. However, I am not prepared to just be a good boy and ignore a practice that we all know is deceptive and unacceptable (or, as you yourself said, "I agree that it sucks, but...". I was hoping that someone might suggest a more constructive approach than the ones I just mentioned.

And fraud is fraud. It is shameful that CO would represent something one way and then not stand behind their representation. The contract term for what happened to the OP was ''fraud in the inducement''.

So you are denying that the text associated with the * I have now quoted twice appears on your receipt?

Good luck with that. It is difficult for someone to conjure up something that doesn't exist.