German district court rules in favor of pax in hidden city case
Feb 13, 2019, 3:49 am
#31
Moderator: Lufthansa Miles & More, India based airlines, India, External Miles & Points Resources
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: MUC
Programs: LH SEN
Posts: 48,152
Doubt it. The average Joe thinks this is all too complicated, especially since you can't check in your luggage. Big corporation suing a maximiser can generate two sentiments: confirmation that all big companies are bad or shadenfreude that someone who could play the system got 'caught'.
Feb 13, 2019, 4:55 am
#32
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: CPH
Programs: UAMP S, TK M&S E (*G), Marriott LTP, IHG P, SK EBG
Posts: 11,082
Is LH only going against that particular pax or they are suing every single hidden city users?
I don't think LH will win the case as LH has no extra cost for having a pax finishes his journey early - plus if LH sold his seat to another paying passenger LH is getting double paid.
I don't think LH will win the case as LH has no extra cost for having a pax finishes his journey early - plus if LH sold his seat to another paying passenger LH is getting double paid.
Feb 13, 2019, 4:59 am
#33
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Stoke on Trent, UK (MAN ), BUE, BKK, DBV
Programs: LH HON***,UA,BA.EK Gold,AV.
Posts: 11,627
Feb 13, 2019, 6:19 am
#34
Senior Moderator, Moderator: Community Buzz and Ambassador: Miles & More (Lufthansa, Austrian, Swiss, and other partners)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: 150km from MAN
Programs: LH SEN** HH Diamond
Posts: 29,510
And FT's frontpage article reports nonsense (not for the first time).
According to the article the passenger bought a ticket from Oslo to Seattle via Frankfurt and did not fly the transatlantic leg of the trip. This is nonsense. The article the author cited correctly (I assume) states like all other articles on this topic that the passengers did not board the last leg (FRA-OSL) on the return trip.
Also the author used a wrong airport code for Oslo.
According to the article the passenger bought a ticket from Oslo to Seattle via Frankfurt and did not fly the transatlantic leg of the trip. This is nonsense. The article the author cited correctly (I assume) states like all other articles on this topic that the passengers did not board the last leg (FRA-OSL) on the return trip.
Also the author used a wrong airport code for Oslo.
Feb 13, 2019, 6:29 am
#35
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Rhineland-Palatinate
Programs: *A Gold (A3), HHonor Gold
Posts: 5,688
Yes but remember:
Only this case is public. However I am confident they are not suing every single hidden city users. I am going to assume this is the only case, and I wonder why this one in particular.
Is LH only going against that particular pax or they are suing every single hidden city users?
Feb 13, 2019, 7:48 am
#36
Moderator: Lufthansa Miles & More, India based airlines, India, External Miles & Points Resources
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: MUC
Programs: LH SEN
Posts: 48,152
In this case the respondent not only dropped the last leg of the ticket, but also specifically booked a seperate ticket on LH to get home to TXL from FRA which was in direct conflict with the other ticket. The latter part was the obvious evidence that he never had any intention to use the rest of the ticket. My feeling is that LH thought this would convince the judge. The judge denied the ruling because of a technicality about how a calculation of the penalty can be done for a passenger, not disputing the fact that the customer was in breach of the contract.
That said the ruling cannot be used by others, the legal system in Germany is unlike the Anglo-Saxon system where precendents count and contracts have to go into or cover every possibile potential situation. So even if the appeal is decided in favor of LH, they have to sue each customer separately and each case is heard individually.
That said the ruling cannot be used by others, the legal system in Germany is unlike the Anglo-Saxon system where precendents count and contracts have to go into or cover every possibile potential situation. So even if the appeal is decided in favor of LH, they have to sue each customer separately and each case is heard individually.
Feb 13, 2019, 9:38 am
#38
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Capetown
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Plat, IHG and Hilton Diamond, LH SEN, BA Gold
Posts: 10,167
LH did not lose on the hidden city ticketing grounds, but on the grounds that its COC were unclear and that the passenger cannot determine what he will be required to pay if he engaged in hidden city ticketing fraud. If LH loses on appeal, it can amend its COC quite easily as AF has already done.
Presuming that LH has a decent word processing program, it too can make this right.
Presuming that LH has a decent word processing program, it too can make this right.
Feb 13, 2019, 9:59 am
#39
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,393
Is the LH COC part of the contract if one purchases the ticket directly from LH, for example from the LH website?
Feb 13, 2019, 1:24 pm
#41
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Capetown
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Plat, IHG and Hilton Diamond, LH SEN, BA Gold
Posts: 10,167
I am aware that certain people from DC know everything better than others and this includes German law. However, GTCs like COCs and fare rules only become binding in a civilised jurisdiction like ours when they were made known to the other party and are accepted by the other party. If not, our Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch applies. In a civilized jurisdiction a contract does not require 100 pages but just the essentialia negotii and these are simple: I pay 100 Euro and you fly me from A to B. And unless the airline does not manage to make GTCs part of the contract, everything else is to be found in the civil code. Quite comfortable, believe me.
Feb 13, 2019, 1:29 pm
#42
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Capetown
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Plat, IHG and Hilton Diamond, LH SEN, BA Gold
Posts: 10,167
I restrict my answer again to the German market: if they have a link on their website to the COC in a language understandable to the average customer (German) yes. If not, no. LH tries a intermediate route by using symbols and small spreadsheets for certain rules. I would consider the information contained in there as binding. You will however find nothing about the question relevant in this discussion.
Feb 13, 2019, 2:32 pm
#43
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: CH
Programs: LX SEN
Posts: 899
I am not a German lawyer, but was tought that general conditions applicable to customers got very much scrutinized by German courts. Accordingly, I hope that a German court would not consider the disputed provisions of the COC as opposable to the customer.
To my view, any obligation for the customer to fly should not be enforced by the court, whether on the first legs or last. If the airlines wish to segment the market, they should find other ways.
To my view, any obligation for the customer to fly should not be enforced by the court, whether on the first legs or last. If the airlines wish to segment the market, they should find other ways.
Feb 13, 2019, 3:12 pm
#44
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreux CH
Programs: FB Platinum, M&M FTL, BA Blue
Posts: 11,619
But surely, those of us and other maximizers who do this sort of thing are such a minority that it's hardly worth all the effort and money of pursuing? I have not even done it myself, having always needed to fly the flights booked, and that alone makes me think that really very few people do this in the end. The way we are writing and discussing here sounds as if millions of people are doing it. I know of one friend who was doing it, leaving from BUD instead of VIE, and I cautioned him to be very careful about doing it. Maybe once or twice, ok, but not every time.
Feb 13, 2019, 6:43 pm
#45
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: ORD
Posts: 869
In this case the respondent not only dropped the last leg of the ticket, but also specifically booked a seperate ticket on LH to get home to TXL from FRA which was in direct conflict with the other ticket. The latter part was the obvious evidence that he never had any intention to use the rest of the ticket. My feeling is that LH thought this would convince the judge. The judge denied the ruling because of a technicality about how a calculation of the penalty can be done for a passenger, not disputing the fact that the customer was in breach of the contract.
That said the ruling cannot be used by others, the legal system in Germany is unlike the Anglo-Saxon system where precendents count and contracts have to go into or cover every possibile potential situation. So even if the appeal is decided in favor of LH, they have to sue each customer separately and each case is heard individually.
That said the ruling cannot be used by others, the legal system in Germany is unlike the Anglo-Saxon system where precendents count and contracts have to go into or cover every possibile potential situation. So even if the appeal is decided in favor of LH, they have to sue each customer separately and each case is heard individually.