Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Mileage Run Deals > Mileage Run Discussion
Reload this Page >

[PREM FARE GONE] RGN First class comes back again!!!!

[PREM FARE GONE] RGN First class comes back again!!!!

    Hide Wikipost
Old Oct 27, 14, 3:48 pm   -   Wikipost
Please read: This is a community-maintained wiki post containing the most important information from this thread. You may edit the Wiki once you have been on FT for 90 days and have made 90 posts.
 
Last edit by: fti
Wiki Link
People, please edit/use the wiki so same questions are not always asked.

The current CTA decision on the Yangon deal is only for tickets canceled by SWISS Airlines for the seven merged complaints/companions and tickets canceled by Jet Airways for one complainant and companions
- It's not about other carriers because each carrier submits different tariffs.
- If you are not one of the complainants or their companions above who were mentioned in the respective cases, you need to submit a case yourself for hearing.
- There's currently one person who is on Iberia for CTA decision, one can either wait for results or submit a complaint to CTA.

Result of the current case for LX in brief is:
- CTA found 5(F) in the tariff used to be unclear for canceling tickets on erroneously quoted fares.
- 5(F) is unjust and unreasonable and must be revised or taken down by July 9, 2013 (or SWISS can appeal by then)
- SWISS did not use its tariff correctly to cancel the tickets.
- SWISS must compensate one complainant's First Class ticket and any related expenses by July 18, 2013 provided with evidence.
- SWISS must transport other complainants (and their companions) in the original price charged with same booking class and routing by June 18, 2014.

Result of the current case for 9W in brief is:
- Tariff on file had no clauses for "erroneous fares" and was updated subsequently, which means it is not relevant to this event
- Therefore, 9W is to reinstate the tickets with a 1-year validity for transport between the same points and the same booking class.


CTA official news can be read here for general overview of the case.

Actual CTA case review can be found here for reference should you wish to file a complaint.

If you have a similar case that's with SWISS, you need to file with CTA to get a result through informal process first before it gets to formal process. The entire procedure can take up to 3 months for each and the result may not be same cause it's case-by-base and the reviewer of the case can be different.

To file an informal complaint with CTA, see here. Click through all of the pages to get to the online form for the informal complaint. Or click here.

To file a formal complaint after informal complaint has been closed, see here. Continue on to the next page to see the address or email address for the formal complaint.

The July 17th and 18th responses from LX can be found here:
Other Letters:


Feel free to add dates, flights, etc., in order to plan DOs, etc.

Aug 4: SFO-ICN (UA893)
Jason8612

Aug 5: ICN-SFO (UA892)
Jason8612

Aug 7: SFO-ICN (UA893)
Jason8612

Aug 11: ICN-NRT-ORD (UA78, UA882)
Jason8612

Aug 14: BOS-IAD-NRT-ICN (UA285, UA803, UA79)
Deltspygt

Aug 19: ICN-NRT-IAD-BOS (UA78, UA804, UA352)
Deltspygt

Oct 1: UA433-UA893
JeredF +1

Oct 8: UA892-UA242
JeredF +1

Oct 9: BOS-SFO-ICN (UA433, UA893)
BigJC

Oct 13: ICN-NRT-ORD-BOS (UA78, UA882, UA744)
BigJC

Oct 21: BOS-SFO UA433 to SFO-ICN UA893
Sterndogg +1
flyerdude88 (SFO - ICN portion only)

Oct 23: ICN - SFO UA 892
flyerdude88

Oct 27: ICN-SFO UA892 to SFO-BOS UA286
Sterndogg +1

Nov 05: BOS-ORD UA521, ORD-NRT UA881
kokonutz, I012609, BingoSF +1

Nov 11: ICN-SFO UA892, SFO-IAD UA727
kokonutz, I012609, BingoSF +1

Nov 26: BOS-SFO UA433, SFO-NRT UA837, NRT-ICN UA79
thepla

Nov 27: BOS-ORD-NRT-ICN (UA501, UA881, UA196)
BigJC+1

Nov 29: Planning 2 days in TPE, been to ICN
thepla

Dec 1: ICN-SFO UA892, SFO-ORD UA698, ORD-BOS UA961
thepla

Dec 1: ICN-NRT-IAD-BOS (UA78, UA804, UA822)
BigJC+1

Dec 15: BOS-SFO UA433, SFO-ICN UA893
songzm

Dec 25: BOS-IAD UA285, IAD-NRT UA803, NRT-ICN UA79
Dinoscool3 +2

Dec 30: ICN-SFO UA892, SFO-BOS UA444
songzm

Dec 31: ICN-SFO UA892, SFO-BOS UA770
Dinoscool3 +2

Jan 11: BOS-SFO UA1523, Jan 12: SFO-ICN UA893
margarita girl

Jan 12: BOS-SFO UA433, SFO-ICN UA893
Zebranz

14 Jan: BOS-SFO UA433 to SFO-ICN UA893
ORDOGG

19 Jan: ICN-SFO UA892 to SFO-ORD UA698 to ORD-BOS UA961
ORDOGG

Jan 22: ICN-SFO UA892 SFO-BOS UA500
margarita girl

Feb 5: ICN-SFO UA892 SFO-BOS UA242
Zebranz



CMB-DFW EY F

FARE IS GONE

FARE RULES (thanks to SQ421)
FRTLK Fare Rules (RT)
FOWLK Fare Rules (OW)

WHEN ARE YOU FLYING?
Feel free to add any additional cities you're leaving from!
Please slot yourselves in!!!

ex-CMB
Feb

Mar
8 - Darmajaya
12 - Thaidai
22 - Deadinabsentia

Apr
21 - SQ421, penegal, jozdemir
26 - tahsir21

May
28 - Upperdeck744
29 - bonsaisai (positioning flights SIN-CMB, DFW-ORD)

Jun
12 - lelee

Jul
7 - HansGolden +6
8 - arcticbull + 1
11 - bonsaisai's friend (positioning flights: SIN-CMB, DFW-MCI)
25 - Tycosiao
30 - bonsaisai's friend (positioning flights: MCI-DFW, CMB-SIN)

Aug
17 - DC777Fan
26 - Yi Yang
31 - dcas

Sep

Oct

Nov
8 - harryhv
29 - stephem+4

Dec
6 - roastpuff and (soon) Mrs. roastpuff , JFKEZE (UL Code-share)
7 - DWFI
10 - jlisi984 + dad (CMB-AUH-DFW)
21 - bonsaisai (positioning flights SIN-CMB, DFW-ORD)

ex-AUH
Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr
27 - RICHKLHS

May


Jun
29 - yerffej201

Jul
9 - HansGolden +6
27 - Tycosiao

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov
30 - stephem+4 (to JFK)

Dec
7 - JFKEZE, DWFI [EY161 nonstop]
9 - roastpuff and (soon) Mrs. Roastpuff

ex-DFW
Jan

Feb

Mar
14 - Thaidai
15 - zainman +1

Apr
25 - SQ421, penegal, jozdemir

May

Jun

Jul

Aug
22 - arcticbull + 1

Sep
22 - bonsaisai (positioning flights ORD-DFW, CMB-SIN)


Oct

Nov
19 - harryhv->Paris

Dec
19 - Yi Yang, jona970318
24 - DWFI (EY160 nonstop)
26 - HansGolden +6 (CDG), LwoodY2K (AUH)
Print Wikipost

Reply

Old Dec 19, 13, 10:10 pm
  #9721  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Anywhere I need to be.
Programs: OW Emerald, *A Gold, NEXUS, GE, ABTC/APEC, South Korea SES, eIACS, PP, Hyatt Diamond
Posts: 16,043
Originally Posted by ChuckMango View Post
Saying they do not agree with CTA and that they will not honor. Basically making a mockery of the CTA implying they are a clueless and inexperienced government agency who has no idea what they are talking about.
Hence providing evidence that this is about their ego (especially if you read the affidavit, which I have seen.)
AA_EXP09 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 13, 1:29 am
  #9722  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,865
my lx case is dragging out forever.... by the time we finish lx will probably have gotten their new 77w's. LOL!
yerffej201 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 13, 11:17 am
  #9723  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tucson, AZ, USA. UA 1K, reluctant but * best in class * DL FO/MM. Former BA jumpseat rider and scourge of Dilbertian management and apologists. As LX might - and do - say: "....an experienced frequent flyer of international airlines"
Posts: 3,386
And now from BA...response to informal complaint

Originally Posted by ChuckMango View Post
Iberia sent us a long email with a sob story on why or how they are not liable for their own mistake. Quite comical and very onesided. Most of it based on their opinion and nonsense as if consumer protection laws do not apply to them and can do what and how they please. They are basically ignoring the CTA and alluding it does not matter what some agency in Canada says or does, the CTA was CC'd.
BA responded to me after I filed the informal with CTA and reminded CTA it's been four months since the complaint was registered with no followup other than acknowledgement.

It's taken some time to get there but now we know where we all stand (BA, CTA and I).

Some key points in the BA response are as follows:

Ticket was cancelled by "BA GDS robot"
Ticket could only be used from Yangon, therefore bona-fide purchaser would have to travel to Yangon, show evidence to prove...
BA not responsible for JL ticket, no liability.
Consumer "had to follow specific instructions available on internet blogs..." to book ticket.
Tarriff 25(H) provides for BA to refuse carriage without payment of "applicable fare"
Consumer possessed "actual knowledge" or "ought to have known" fare was error.
BA regards CTA decisions on LX and 9W "in error" because the agency didn't consider enforceabilty of contracts in law and considered "irrelevant" tarriff provisions.

What this proves to me (and in due course, I hope, to the CTA):

BA reneged unilaterally on this ticket
BA attempted and continue to attempt to deflect blame for their acknowledged action onto JL
BA thumb their noses directly, in writing, at the current CTA ruling on this matter.

So the lines are drawn. I will play no further part in this after filing the formal complaint. There are so many reasons to find this outrageous - all of which are to be expected from BA - but let the CTA determine what follows.

Note to BA: all the exchanges with CTA are not a private conversation. All correspondence on this matter is subject to AIA in accord with Canadian law. Any actions taken in attempted contravention of this principle - such as punitive actions directed at complainant to restrict information access - will be shared with the General Counsel and other Canadian government officials. Make your arguments to them and we'll see what happens.

I hate bully boy tactics and I won't stand for them now any more than I have in the past.
redtailshark is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 13, 1:39 pm
  #9724  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: SDF
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 13,115
Originally Posted by redtailshark View Post

...

Some key points in the BA response are as follows:

Ticket was cancelled by "BA GDS robot"
Ticket could only be used from Yangon, therefore bona-fide purchaser would have to travel to Yangon, show evidence to prove...
BA not responsible for JL ticket, no liability.
Consumer "had to follow specific instructions available on internet blogs..." to book ticket.
Tarriff 25(H) provides for BA to refuse carriage without payment of "applicable fare"
Consumer possessed "actual knowledge" or "ought to have known" fare was error.
BA regards CTA decisions on LX and 9W "in error" because the agency didn't consider enforceabilty of contracts in law and considered "irrelevant" tarriff provisions.

What this proves to me (and in due course, I hope, to the CTA):

BA reneged unilaterally on this ticket
BA attempted and continue to attempt to deflect blame for their acknowledged action onto JL
BA thumb their noses directly, in writing, at the current CTA ruling on this matter.

...
LX has essentially done the same - disagreeing with the CTA ruling in writing (ie by taking the matter to appeal).

I don't agree with the 'bona fide' purchaser issue - that's a red herring. Plenty of people buy one way fares for all sorts of reasons. And they are entitled to buy one way fares safe in the knowledge they will be honoured.

But the other points go to the essence of the case. The CTA doesn't appear to have considered contract law in reaching its decision.

Did the CTA act correctly? That is ultimately what the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal will have to decide, either by hearing the case or refusing leave to appeal.
LHR/MEL/Europe FF is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 13, 2:38 pm
  #9725  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,865
that's ridiculous...
yerffej201 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 13, 6:15 pm
  #9726  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: At an airport-on a cruise ship
Programs: UA-1K, MM, Hilton-Diamond, Marriott-Platinum, SPG-Platinum Thnks to FT
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by LHR/MEL/Europe FF View Post
LX has essentially done the same - disagreeing with the CTA ruling in writing (ie by taking the matter to appeal).

I don't agree with the 'bona fide' purchaser issue - that's a red herring. Plenty of people buy one way fares for all sorts of reasons. And they are entitled to buy one way fares safe in the knowledge they will be honoured.

But the other points go to the essence of the case. The CTA doesn't appear to have considered contract law in reaching its decision.

Did the CTA act correctly? That is ultimately what the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal will have to decide, either by hearing the case or refusing leave to appeal.

Who has more authority in this situation the CTA or the airline? If the CFC refuses to hear the case then would not CTA have the last, and hopefully final word? Appeals can not go on indefinitely.
cruisr is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 13, 6:29 pm
  #9727  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: SDF
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 13,115
Originally Posted by cruisr View Post
Who has more authority in this situation the CTA or the airline? If the CFC refuses to hear the case then would not CTA have the last, and hopefully final word? Appeals can not go on indefinitely.
It is not so much to do with 'authority' but rather with the parties exercising their legal rights. That's what the legal system is for (provided the litigant isn't being vexatious). Why should Swiss have any less right to the legal system than anyone else?

Swiss could go on appealing to the highest court in canada if it believes that the CFC has erred. Whether or not they would be granted leave to appeal is another matter. Each court will have to decide that on application (by Swiss). And the higher it goes the harder it potentially gets.
LHR/MEL/Europe FF is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 13, 6:45 pm
  #9728  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,560
Originally Posted by cruisr View Post
Who has more authority in this situation the CTA or the airline? If the CFC refuses to hear the case then would not CTA have the last, and hopefully final word? Appeals can not go on indefinitely.
I assume that Swiss can also appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
BrewerSEA is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 13, 7:18 pm
  #9729  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Left
Programs: FT
Posts: 7,285
Originally Posted by BrewerSEA View Post
I assume that Swiss can also appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
They can seek to request leave to appeal. Our SCc has better things to resolve of "national importance", their mandate. LX has zero chane of being granted leave.
mkjr is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 13, 8:00 pm
  #9730  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: SDF
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 13,115
Originally Posted by mkjr View Post
They can seek to request leave to appeal. Our SCc has better things to resolve of "national importance", their mandate. LX has zero chane of being granted leave.
The role of the SCc is listed on their website. And there is no restriction on matters of 'national importance'*:

http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/court-cour/role-eng.aspx

If a lower court has erred in applying the law, or if the SSc wishes to interpret the law on a particular subject given the circumstances of the case then it is free to grant leave to appeal if it so wishes.

(*in fact it would be correct to argue that the correct application of the law, no matter how minor, is a matter of 'national importance')
LHR/MEL/Europe FF is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 13, 8:33 pm
  #9731  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: MOW, RU
Programs: SU Gold; KL Plat; BA Gold
Posts: 1,969
I am still to go through the CTA reply and later posts re IB case but I think some may wish to check this statement I made earlier in 2012

Originally Posted by Keter View Post
I have made some brief search for treatment of mistakes in Spanish contractual law (which shall be applicable for IB tickets).

And what i found is actually saying that IB will lose every single court case unless stupidly managed.

So, Art 1265 of Spanish Civil Code is what has general guidance for mistakes. Nothing surpising here. However, the book refers to the ruling of the Supreme court on 21 June 1978 which says the contract can only be voided if the mistake is excusable. And my strong belief is that IB will never prove to the court that not monitoring the applicable prices for one week (especially those of high risk - business and first fares; it was posted on FT after one week the fares were published) is excusable. There can be a claim that it is IATA fare not IB but it is a routine part of their business and if they have no controls here it is under no circumstances excusable. That's just a simple business risk.

I could be wrong in my understanding so any constructive challenge is welcome.

You can get a summary of treatment of mistakes in different law in the following book accessible in Google: 'Contract Law and Practice: The English System With Scottish, Commonwealth ...' by Michael H. Whincup. See pages 304 or around.
Keter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 13, 8:43 pm
  #9732  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: SDF
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 13,115
Originally Posted by Keter View Post
I am still to go through the CTA reply and later posts re IB case but I think some may wish to check this statement I made earlier in 2012
dunno much about spanish law - but this article might be of interest (it has a section dealing with mistake):

http://www.upf.edu/dretcivil/_pdf/ma...ontractlaw.pdf

I can't seem to find a date on the article.
LHR/MEL/Europe FF is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 13, 10:57 pm
  #9733  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,560
Originally Posted by mkjr View Post
They can seek to request leave to appeal. Our SCc has better things to resolve of "national importance", their mandate. LX has zero chane of being granted leave.
Sure, but my point is we cannot seek judgements in foreign courts until that occurs. Once the SCC rejects their application for leave to appeal (or the deadline passes without Swiss filing) I will file in King County Superior Court under the uniform foreign-country money judgments recognition act if Swiss is slow to cut my check.
BrewerSEA is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 13, 11:01 pm
  #9734  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,560
Originally Posted by LHR/MEL/Europe FF View Post
The role of the SCc is listed on their website. And there is no restriction on matters of 'national importance'*:

http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/court-cour/role-eng.aspx

If a lower court has erred in applying the law, or if the SSc wishes to interpret the law on a particular subject given the circumstances of the case then it is free to grant leave to appeal if it so wishes.

(*in fact it would be correct to argue that the correct application of the law, no matter how minor, is a matter of 'national importance')
Just as is true in the United States, the vast majority of appeals to the SCC are denied. There is virtually zero chance that the SCC would allow an appeal on an issue that a 3-judge panel of the FCA didn't deem worthy to consider.
BrewerSEA is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 13, 11:05 pm
  #9735  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: 10^7 mm from Ȱ
Programs: Hyatt D/HHonors D/ SPG P/ Marriott P/ IHG P/ UA 1K/ AA EXP/ DL D
Posts: 1,943
Originally Posted by BrewerSEA View Post
Once the SCC rejects their application for leave to appeal (or the deadline passes without Swiss filing) I will file in King County Superior Court under the uniform foreign-country money judgments recognition act if Swiss is slow to cut my check.
Looking forward to that...
lewende is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread