German district court rules in favor of pax in hidden city case
Mar 3, 2019, 2:00 pm
#106
Suspended
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PVG, FRA, SEA, HEL
Programs: UA Premier Gold
Posts: 4,783
Just remembering this case:
Ticket states PHL-STR; Arrival delay of 5 hours at STR;
The airline would only pay EUR 250 and not EUR 600, because the delay occured on the LHR-STR feeder flight. And that feeder flight was less than 2500km.
This is how airlines see it:
a. If the passenger skips LHR-STR, he passenger is on the hook to pay a recalculated fare (new: PHL-LHR vs. old: PHL-STR), because old ticket was PHL-STR.
b. If LHR-STR is delayed by more than 4 hours, the airline suddenly forgets that the ticket states PHL-STR. Now, the airline only looks at the last segment LHR-STR.
My point: Airlines cannot have it both ways. In case a) the airline is claiming the ticket states PHL-STR. In case b) the airline doesn't even want to know that the ticket started in PHL, and not LHR.
Ticket states PHL-STR; Arrival delay of 5 hours at STR;
The airline would only pay EUR 250 and not EUR 600, because the delay occured on the LHR-STR feeder flight. And that feeder flight was less than 2500km.
This is how airlines see it:
a. If the passenger skips LHR-STR, he passenger is on the hook to pay a recalculated fare (new: PHL-LHR vs. old: PHL-STR), because old ticket was PHL-STR.
b. If LHR-STR is delayed by more than 4 hours, the airline suddenly forgets that the ticket states PHL-STR. Now, the airline only looks at the last segment LHR-STR.
My point: Airlines cannot have it both ways. In case a) the airline is claiming the ticket states PHL-STR. In case b) the airline doesn't even want to know that the ticket started in PHL, and not LHR.
Mar 3, 2019, 3:29 pm
#107
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
Just remembering this case:
Ticket states PHL-STR; Arrival delay of 5 hours at STR;
The airline would only pay EUR 250 and not EUR 600, because the delay occured on the LHR-STR feeder flight. And that feeder flight was less than 2500km.
This is how airlines see it:
a. If the passenger skips LHR-STR, he passenger is on the hook to pay a recalculated fare (new: PHL-LHR vs. old: PHL-STR), because old ticket was PHL-STR.
b. If LHR-STR is delayed by more than 4 hours, the airline suddenly forgets that the ticket states PHL-STR. Now, the airline only looks at the last segment LHR-STR.
My point: Airlines cannot have it both ways. In case a) the airline is claiming the ticket states PHL-STR. In case b) the airline doesn't even want to know that the ticket started in PHL, and not LHR.
Ticket states PHL-STR; Arrival delay of 5 hours at STR;
The airline would only pay EUR 250 and not EUR 600, because the delay occured on the LHR-STR feeder flight. And that feeder flight was less than 2500km.
This is how airlines see it:
a. If the passenger skips LHR-STR, he passenger is on the hook to pay a recalculated fare (new: PHL-LHR vs. old: PHL-STR), because old ticket was PHL-STR.
b. If LHR-STR is delayed by more than 4 hours, the airline suddenly forgets that the ticket states PHL-STR. Now, the airline only looks at the last segment LHR-STR.
My point: Airlines cannot have it both ways. In case a) the airline is claiming the ticket states PHL-STR. In case b) the airline doesn't even want to know that the ticket started in PHL, and not LHR.
The law would provide for EUR 250 in your case. That has nothing to do with the contract one enters and which governs how the ticket itself is fared.
Mar 4, 2019, 3:06 am
#108
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: HAG
Programs: Der 5* FTL
Posts: 7,982
Apples and oranges. This has nothing to do with what the carrier determines and is determined by EC 261/2004 and the decisions interpreting it.
The law would provide for EUR 250 in your case. That has nothing to do with the contract one enters and which governs how the ticket itself is fared.
The law would provide for EUR 250 in your case. That has nothing to do with the contract one enters and which governs how the ticket itself is fared.
Mar 4, 2019, 3:23 am
#109
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: CH
Programs: LX SEN
Posts: 899
Just remembering this case:
Ticket states PHL-STR; Arrival delay of 5 hours at STR;
The airline would only pay EUR 250 and not EUR 600, because the delay occured on the LHR-STR feeder flight. And that feeder flight was less than 2500km.
This is how airlines see it:
a. If the passenger skips LHR-STR, he passenger is on the hook to pay a recalculated fare (new: PHL-LHR vs. old: PHL-STR), because old ticket was PHL-STR.
b. If LHR-STR is delayed by more than 4 hours, the airline suddenly forgets that the ticket states PHL-STR. Now, the airline only looks at the last segment LHR-STR.
My point: Airlines cannot have it both ways. In case a) the airline is claiming the ticket states PHL-STR. In case b) the airline doesn't even want to know that the ticket started in PHL, and not LHR.
Ticket states PHL-STR; Arrival delay of 5 hours at STR;
The airline would only pay EUR 250 and not EUR 600, because the delay occured on the LHR-STR feeder flight. And that feeder flight was less than 2500km.
This is how airlines see it:
a. If the passenger skips LHR-STR, he passenger is on the hook to pay a recalculated fare (new: PHL-LHR vs. old: PHL-STR), because old ticket was PHL-STR.
b. If LHR-STR is delayed by more than 4 hours, the airline suddenly forgets that the ticket states PHL-STR. Now, the airline only looks at the last segment LHR-STR.
My point: Airlines cannot have it both ways. In case a) the airline is claiming the ticket states PHL-STR. In case b) the airline doesn't even want to know that the ticket started in PHL, and not LHR.
Mar 4, 2019, 3:27 am
#110
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada, USA, Europe
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 31,452
Mar 4, 2019, 8:57 am
#111
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: HAG
Programs: Der 5* FTL
Posts: 7,982
But it had all the role in deciding what constitutes the "flight" point of departure, destination being explicitely defined in the regulation.
The decision to treat LHR-STR separately is even contrary to the case law and intepretative guidelines based thereupon.
The decision to treat LHR-STR separately is even contrary to the case law and intepretative guidelines based thereupon.
Mar 4, 2019, 11:14 pm
#112
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada, USA, Europe
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 31,452
Mar 5, 2019, 5:42 pm
#113
Join Date: Feb 2016
Programs: MM, EK, HH, etc.
Posts: 381
The whole purpose is for them to make passengers try and get the money back, and avoid the carrier having to attempt to get it post-event. Just sending the bill takes them back to square one, i.e., the airline has to sue (see LH).
Oct 2, 2019, 6:08 pm
#116
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: hamburg
Posts: 1,390
Oct 3, 2019, 1:13 am
#117
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,481
1. That judgment only applies on that specific case. LH could sue other customers (even if it‘s likely that LH will lose again).
2. Even the first judgment is not about skipping the last segment in general. It is about skipping the last segment without the passenger knowing exactly the additional cost for that action during the booking process. So if LH starts to show that cost during the booking process, skipping the last segment could be expensive.
However, that are still very good news for passengers who wants to skip the last segment(s) of their flights. Everyone who wants to do that on further bookings should watch out during the booking process, if LH starts to show the costs/a fee for skipping last segment(s). If LH does that, you can‘t rely on the first judgment for new bookings.
Oct 3, 2019, 5:42 am
#119
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 64
Especially given that the article is in German?
