An $8000 "entry fee" for LH Gold lounge

Old Apr 18, 2007, 2:02 am
  #91  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Capetown
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Plat, IHG and Hilton Diamond, LH SEN, BA Gold
Posts: 10,163
Originally Posted by nnn
In this case, on the other hand, the ticket is refundable. It is irrelevant that the passenger has checked in and received a boarding pass. Checking in and receiving a boarding pass is not an irrevocable promise to take the flight. On the contrary, the airline's rules completely allow the passenger to cancel the checkin and receive a refund on the ticket. This holds true even after the passenger has used the lounge! (This may be a bad loophole, but it is the rule nonetheless.)
You again mix up the OP's intentions and the rules. Of course there is not a "irrevocable promise" to take the flight you have checked in for. But it is at least the representation that you have a slight intention to take that flight because that is what you say at checkin: "I want to check in for that flight". You would for sure not get a boarding pass if you tell the CIA: "Hei, I do not want to fly but just want to have dinner", would you?

I always use a "thick thumb check" and this is very reliable:
  • Would you disclose your plan in details to the contractual counterpart's management (not to a salesgirl)?
  • Do you expect the contractual counterpart's management to agree to your plan on full knowledge of the details?
  • Are you definitely sure that you are right from an ethical point?
If you cannot answer these questions with a clear "YES" I would be careful. But again the challenge: Who has got the balls to ask LH??? Nobody, because you certainly know their answer and this answer would not please you.
Flying Lawyer is offline  
Old Apr 18, 2007, 2:04 am
  #92  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: BCT. Formerly known as attorney28
Programs: LH HON,BA GGL GfL,Hyatt LT Glob,Mrtt LT P,Hilt LT D,IC Amb,Acc P,GHA Tit,LHW Strlg,Sixt/Av/Hz D/Pres
Posts: 6,819
Originally Posted by Flying Lawyer
Wait and see what the BGH will say one day . Just rememeber the "sitting-on-a-train-without-a-ticket-and-not-notifiying-the-conductor-case". It is fraud. Or the "ordering-a-beer-in-a-pub-without-having-the-ability-to-pay-case". It is fraud. It is very simple to alledge without and reasoning that I am "wrong claiming". The German BGH developed a great creativity to define unethical behaviour as fraud. I really do not believe that you would advise your clients - if being asked as professional - that there is no risk. If so, your are a brave guy but should increase your professional indemnity insurance.
Your examples have no bearing on this case. The facts are distinctly different. You seem to remember some cases from law school and you are desperately trying to make the facts of this case fit to those cases, which is a typical mistake called "Tatbestandsquetsche" by some. I wouldn't even bother explaining it to you as it should be obvious, but since you felt the need to make comments about increasing professional indemnity insurance, I will address your false legal opinion briefly.

As was already pointed out, if you follow the facts as stated by the OP, there was no misrepresentation, and there was no error.


Originally Posted by kevinsac
However, for what it's worth, I acted in full disclosure. Both the ticket agent and the warden(s) knew what I was doing. The ticket agent told me to come to the front of the line when I was ready to return the ticket; she knew I would be back in a few hours and had no intent of flying because I only wanted the ticket for lounge entry. She told me not to stand in the long line.

The lounge warden(s) also knew that I had no intent to fly. Warden 1 refused me entry, according to the rules. She stated I had to have an onward flight. (Skip the first ticket to MUC.) When I presented my Hong Kong ticket at the counter, Warden 1 was busy, so I gave the ticket to Warden 2. She asked if I had any baggage (huh?) and when I replied "No", she offered to check me in. When I asked her not to check me in (did not know if I could still get a refund then), Warden 1 turned to Warden 2 and said "This is the gentlemen who was here a few minutes ago...." and then told her that I only wanted to use the lounge but was not eligible until I had an onward ticket. I specifically told Warden 2 (with Warden 1 listening) that I was returning the ticket upon leaving the lounge. I did not have a boarding pass. They let me in only with an onward ticket and without a boarding pass.
There was no misrepresentation there, no matter how much you wish to construe it.


Originally Posted by Flying Lawyer
For those who like a quick lesson in German criminal law.

Fraud requires:

* Missrepresentation: At the latest the moment he asked for a boarding pass in the clear intention not to fly and at the very latest he presented the pass to the lounge dragon he conducted a missprepresentation.
Fact: He didn't even ask for a boarding pass. He told the lounge dragon he wanted to return the ticket, so there was full disclosure = no misrepresentation.

Originally Posted by Flying Lawyer
* Creating an error: The lounge dragon obviously was in error about his real intentions.
Fact: Since he told the lounge dragon he wanted to return the ticket later, she was not in error. It rather seems like she "gave in because she got tired of arguing with him".

Check facts first - give lessons in law later.

(Moreover, if he had purchased a ticket and had had the boarding pass which entitles him to enter the lounge, he would have had a contractual right to enter the lounge with it, so the "Rechtswidrigkeit des Vermgensvorteils" would have been missing at the time the boarding pass would be presented to the lounge dragon. And if you want to construe fraud at the moment of the ticket purchase, there was no misrepresentation to the LH ticket agent either (and no error), if he expressly tells her he only wants the ticket to get into the lounge and that he'll return it later.)
Football Fan is offline  
Old Apr 18, 2007, 2:14 am
  #93  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,229
Oh boy

I think the OP has done the only thing he could do at this instance.
He has played them, as (assuming) learned on this forum.
So, whats the problem?? He has been honest about his intentions to the sales person as well as the lounge dragon.
If the purchase incurred fees, who cares what he does with his money.
Did he steal from the lounge and/or LH? No, he was holding a valid ticket.
All he did was using a little loop hole. And the least important one that could ever be in the german / Lufthansa system.
Does one always has oblige the: Tu was man Dir sagt! / Do what you are ordered to!???
I say: well done^
SwissCircle is offline  
Old Apr 18, 2007, 2:30 am
  #94  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Capetown
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Plat, IHG and Hilton Diamond, LH SEN, BA Gold
Posts: 10,163
Originally Posted by attorney28
Fact: He didn't even ask for a boarding pass. He told the lounge dragon he wanted to return the ticket, so there was full disclosure = no misrepresentation..
Without a BP there would have been no access to the lounge. There were at least two employees involved. One selling the ticket and the other one in the lounge.

Originally Posted by attorney28
Check facts first - give lessons in law later..)
I fully agree.

Originally Posted by attorney28
(Moreover, if he had purchased a ticket and had had the boarding pass which entitles him to enter the lounge, he would have had a contractual right to enter the lounge with it, so the "Rechtswidrigkeit des Vermögensvorteils" would have been missing at the time the boarding pass would be presented to the lounge dragon.
Ok, next time you buy a ticket tell the airlines sales agent you just want to buy it for the sake of getting a meal in the FCL and you have no intention to fly at all and and tell the girl at check in that you don't want to fly but just want to check in for that very same reason and wait whether or not she will check you in. If not, you should reconsider your thoughts.

But honestly, I have to earn some real money now. Some FT'ler know me personally and know who I am - maybe I am too careful based on the type of people and entities I advise - I would never ever take the risk even to advise my clients in a way that they bring themselves in inappropriate situations. And you read from other posters here that LH takes it seriously. So, give any advice you like but be aware that there can be unpleasant consequences.
Flying Lawyer is offline  
Old Apr 18, 2007, 2:40 am
  #95  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: BCT. Formerly known as attorney28
Programs: LH HON,BA GGL GfL,Hyatt LT Glob,Mrtt LT P,Hilt LT D,IC Amb,Acc P,GHA Tit,LHW Strlg,Sixt/Av/Hz D/Pres
Posts: 6,819
Originally Posted by Flying Lawyer
Without a BP there would have been no access to the lounge. There were at least two employees involved. One selling the ticket and the other one in the lounge.
Again, read the facts - he got access only with his ticket.


Originally Posted by Flying Lawyer
Ok, next time you buy a ticket tell the airlines sales agent you just want to buy it for the sake of getting a meal in the FCL and you have no intention to fly at all and and tell the girl at check in that you don't want to fly but just want to check in for that very same reason and wait whether or not she will check you in. If not, you should reconsider your thoughts.

But honestly, I have to earn some real money now. Some FT'ler know me personally and know who I am - maybe I am too careful based on the type of people and entities I advise - I would never ever take the risk even to advise my clients in a way that they bring themselves in inappropriate situations. And you read from other posters here that LH takes it seriously. So, give any advice you like but be aware that there can be unpleasant consequences.
Just to make it clear, since you seem to have misunderstood this as well, I am not giving any advice to act like the OP did. I merely pointed out that your insistance that the OP committed fraud was incorrect, and I see that you seem to have understood this by now, as you are unable or unwilling to defend your previously stated incorrect legal opinion.
Football Fan is offline  
Old Apr 18, 2007, 2:51 am
  #96  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Capetown
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Plat, IHG and Hilton Diamond, LH SEN, BA Gold
Posts: 10,163
Originally Posted by attorney28
Again, read the facts - he got access only with his ticket..
I did not say that I buy the full story. According to the rules you do not get lounge access with a ticket only.

Originally Posted by attorney28
Just to make it clear, since you seem to have misunderstood this as well, I am not giving any advice to act like the OP did. I merely pointed out that your insistance that the OP committed fraud was incorrect, and I see that you seem to have understood this by now, as you are unable or unwilling to defend your previously stated incorrect legal opinion.
Again an error but let me quote from your post:

Originally Posted by attorney28
It rather seems like she "gave in because she got tired of arguing with him"
Thats my personal position at this moment. I have my clear opinion on the issue and the given fact that at least two lawyers keep discussion on this shows what I personally never would do. But my hourly rate is to high to continue this interesting discussion. But I promise you, I will present the case either to my students or when I sit next time on the panel in the second exam. Can be an interesting discussion there, too.
Flying Lawyer is offline  
Old Apr 18, 2007, 2:53 am
  #97  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: MUC/LAX/SMV
Programs: LH, UA, BD, AA, NW, FB, NH, AC, Sixt, Hertz, Avis, *W, HH, Marriott, PC, Leaders Club, AMEX
Posts: 12,406
Originally Posted by Flying Lawyer
But I promise you, I will present the case either to my students or when I sit next time on the panel in the second exam. Can be an interesting discussion there, too.
Poor students.
flysurfer is offline  
Old Apr 18, 2007, 3:03 am
  #98  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: BCT. Formerly known as attorney28
Programs: LH HON,BA GGL GfL,Hyatt LT Glob,Mrtt LT P,Hilt LT D,IC Amb,Acc P,GHA Tit,LHW Strlg,Sixt/Av/Hz D/Pres
Posts: 6,819
Originally Posted by Flying Lawyer
I did not say that I buy the full story. According to the rules you do not get lounge access with a ticket only.
Okay, so now you are justifying your incorrect legal opinion by "changing the facts of the case" through saying you "don't buy the full story". LOL ^ .


Originally Posted by Flying Lawyer
Thats my personal position at this moment. I have my clear opinion on the issue and the given fact that at least two lawyers keep discussion on this shows what I personally never would do. But my hourly rate is to high to continue this interesting discussion. But I promise you, I will present the case either to my students or when I sit next time on the panel in the second exam. Can be an interesting discussion there, too.
Make sure you report the facts as the OP stated them, and you will have the same outcome I explained to you, if your students know the law.

Oh, and I personally wouldn't do it either.

And your hourly rate is of no concern to anyone here at FT, and neither does the mention of it impress anyone .
Football Fan is offline  
Old Apr 18, 2007, 3:12 am
  #99  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7
T-Mobiles&more

Originally Posted by Flying Lawyer
I always use a "thick thumb check" and this is very reliable:
  • Would you disclose your plan in details to the contractual counterpart's management (not to a salesgirl)?
  • Do you expect the contractual counterpart's management to agree to your plan on full knowledge of the details?
  • Are you definitely sure that you are right from an ethical point?
If you cannot answer these questions with a clear "YES" I would be careful. But again the challenge: Who has got the balls to ask LH??? Nobody, because you certainly know their answer and this answer would not please you.
How would those 16 (?) T-Mobile-subscriptions just for the mileage fare under this test?

Would you have the balls to take that business model to T-Mobiles's board?

no-show is offline  
Old Apr 18, 2007, 3:24 am
  #100  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Capetown
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Plat, IHG and Hilton Diamond, LH SEN, BA Gold
Posts: 10,163
Originally Posted by no-show
How would those 16 (?) T-Mobile-subscriptions just for the mileage fare under this test?

Would you have the balls to take that business model to T-Mobiles's board?

Certainly not in every detail. But at least I pay the monthly fees for the contracts and certainly DTAG is aware of the modell -that might be one of the reasons why they stopped it.

But I would certainly tell T-Mobile that I will rent 16 lines and pay the monthly rent and I will fulfill every contractual obligation until the bitter end. Nothing more but nothing less. In our lounge case, the disclosure will certainly not be to that detail...

Last edited by Flying Lawyer; Apr 18, 2007 at 3:33 am
Flying Lawyer is offline  
Old Apr 18, 2007, 3:28 am
  #101  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Capetown
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Plat, IHG and Hilton Diamond, LH SEN, BA Gold
Posts: 10,163
Originally Posted by attorney28
And your hourly rate is of no concern to anyone here at FT, and neither does the mention of it impress anyone .
I was not meant to impress somebody and I did not give you any figure, did I? Difficult to construe an intention to impress with no information. I just wanted to comment on your absurd approach that I change my opinion just because you consider me to bu "unable or unwilling to defend" my "previously stated incorrect legal opinion.". Period.
Flying Lawyer is offline  
Old Apr 18, 2007, 3:32 am
  #102  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: CH-3823 Wengen Switzerland
Programs: miles&more, MileagePlus
Posts: 27,041
But I promise you, I will present the case either to my students or when I sit next time on the panel in the second exam.

you are aware, that legally this 'case', having been posted here (and applying the general terms of FT that we all agreed to once) is © of FlyerTalk?

(but never mind: I am interested in the outcome: please post here afterwards. Thank you).
Rudi is offline  
Old Apr 18, 2007, 3:32 am
  #103  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: HAM, GVA
Programs: LH MM
Posts: 315
men and egos....
Lennart is offline  
Old Apr 18, 2007, 3:43 am
  #104  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Capetown
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Plat, IHG and Hilton Diamond, LH SEN, BA Gold
Posts: 10,163
Originally Posted by Rudi
you are aware, that legally this 'case', having been posted here (and applying the general terms of FT that we all agreed to once) is of FlyerTalk?
Even if I do not find it in the TOS, I will certainly change the details.
Flying Lawyer is offline  
Old Apr 18, 2007, 3:44 am
  #105  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: MUC/LAX/SMV
Programs: LH, UA, BD, AA, NW, FB, NH, AC, Sixt, Hertz, Avis, *W, HH, Marriott, PC, Leaders Club, AMEX
Posts: 12,406
Originally Posted by Lennart
men and egos....
Make that "lawyers and egos"...
flysurfer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.