Jun 19, 2013, 9:45 pm
Last edit by: fti
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)
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)
[PREM FARE GONE] RGN First class comes back again!!!!
Dec 20, 2013, 11:05 pm
#9736
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: 1,976
Dec 21, 2013, 12:42 am
#9737
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: US
Programs: AA/UA/DL
Posts: 2,773
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.
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.
I had flown the BA ticket from RGN to BOS.
If the first time was correct, how can they say the 2nd time is mistake?
Dec 21, 2013, 1:02 am
#9738
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,406
Dec 21, 2013, 1:44 am
#9739
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Programs: Hilton, IHG - BA, GA, LH, QR, SV, TK
Posts: 17,008
BA appears to question why a few hundred were then bought in the space of days, by purchasers not resident in Burma, who had then to make arrangements to travel to Burma on separate tickets to initiate the one-way journey on the mistake fare.
Essentially, the airline questions the good faith of purchasers it regards as opportunists taking commercial advantage of what they knew to be mistake fares. It adduces the need, post purchase of the RGN Canada ticket, for arrangements to be made to get to Burma as evidence of a lack of "good faith" motives for buying its tickets.
I'm aware there exists in the US legislation set up specifically to protect any purchaser of a ticket of this kind. But similar laws do not exist in all other jurisdictions: there the existence of a contract, and the manner in which the contract is established, is of the essence.
This is where establishing good faith in the conduct of BOTH parties is important.
The Canadian regulator has ruled on technical issues within its competence. The airlines appear to be asking for the courts to rule on the issue of contracts, and the implication on these of the irregularities discovered by the regulator.
It's an important issue for the airlines, going far beyond the compensation cases of the Rangoon fares.
Clearly, it's also an important issue for consumers in general, but one which will be better served by a very clear ruling on contractual obligations than the ad hoc muddle generated by CTA.
Dec 21, 2013, 3:50 am
#9740
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,406
Plenty of people buy one-way fares, but I think I read somewhere that prior to this adventure, absolutely no first-class, one-way fares had ever been purchased between Rangoon and Canadian destinations.
BA appears to question why a few hundred were then bought in the space of days, by purchasers not resident in Burma, who had then to make arrangements to travel to Burma on separate tickets to initiate the one-way journey on the mistake fare.
Essentially, the airline questions the good faith of purchasers it regards as opportunists taking commercial advantage of what they knew to be mistake fares. It adduces the need, post purchase of the RGN Canada ticket, for arrangements to be made to get to Burma as evidence of a lack of "good faith" motives for buying its tickets.
I'm aware there exists in the US legislation set up specifically to protect any purchaser of a ticket of this kind. But similar laws do not exist in all other jurisdictions: there the existence of a contract, and the manner in which the contract is established, is of the essence.
This is where establishing good faith in the conduct of BOTH parties is important.
The Canadian regulator has ruled on technical issues within its competence. The airlines appear to be asking for the courts to rule on the issue of contracts, and the implication on these of the irregularities discovered by the regulator.
It's an important issue for the airlines, going far beyond the compensation cases of the Rangoon fares.
Clearly, it's also an important issue for consumers in general, but one which will be better served by a very clear ruling on contractual obligations than the ad hoc muddle generated by CTA.
BA appears to question why a few hundred were then bought in the space of days, by purchasers not resident in Burma, who had then to make arrangements to travel to Burma on separate tickets to initiate the one-way journey on the mistake fare.
Essentially, the airline questions the good faith of purchasers it regards as opportunists taking commercial advantage of what they knew to be mistake fares. It adduces the need, post purchase of the RGN Canada ticket, for arrangements to be made to get to Burma as evidence of a lack of "good faith" motives for buying its tickets.
I'm aware there exists in the US legislation set up specifically to protect any purchaser of a ticket of this kind. But similar laws do not exist in all other jurisdictions: there the existence of a contract, and the manner in which the contract is established, is of the essence.
This is where establishing good faith in the conduct of BOTH parties is important.
The Canadian regulator has ruled on technical issues within its competence. The airlines appear to be asking for the courts to rule on the issue of contracts, and the implication on these of the irregularities discovered by the regulator.
It's an important issue for the airlines, going far beyond the compensation cases of the Rangoon fares.
Clearly, it's also an important issue for consumers in general, but one which will be better served by a very clear ruling on contractual obligations than the ad hoc muddle generated by CTA.
it becomes harder to argue if you look at the websites and blogs promoting the unintended fare, and the warnings not to call the airline.
Dec 21, 2013, 5:04 am
#9741
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2003
Programs: BA Silver, EY Gold, HH Diamond, IHG Plat
Posts: 12,210
I got to say this thread is hilarious. It quitens off for a week or so then someone starts it off with the same arguments again. A week or two of they were wrong, no they were right, no they were wrong then follows before it quietens off without anyone getting any kind of a win. A week or two later we start again....
Dec 21, 2013, 8:45 am
#9742
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: UA-1K, MM, Hilton-Diamond, Marriott-Titanium
Posts: 4,432
I got to say this thread is hilarious. It quitens off for a week or so then someone starts it off with the same arguments again. A week or two of they were wrong, no they were right, no they were wrong then follows before it quietens off without anyone getting any kind of a win. A week or two later we start again....
Dec 21, 2013, 8:59 am
#9743
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Near the pole, at the beach, top of mountains, underwater, golfing
Programs: AC E, FPC plat, TK E, VA G, HIlton diam, spg plat, CX gold, US air Plat, Hyatt Dia, A club Plat
Posts: 287
i agree.
please, either sides, do not stop posting! this is my favorite thread too.
i always look forward to read this one, and enjoy the show.
i wish there are some more swiss posters here.
please, either sides, do not stop posting! this is my favorite thread too.
i always look forward to read this one, and enjoy the show.
i wish there are some more swiss posters here.
Dec 21, 2013, 9:44 am
#9745
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: 16,046
Dec 21, 2013, 9:54 am
#9746
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: AMS
Programs: KL PFL; BA Gold; A3 Silver; EY Silver; SU Silver
Posts: 2,488
The timeline is:
12/09/2013 Informal claim submitted (text only)
15/09/2013 Related documentation submitted
18/09/2013 Complaint form acceptance/ confirmation from CTA
01/11/2013 A short note from CTA officer referring to the fact that each airline must have Canadian tariff
09/12/2013 A response from CTA
As I read it now, the CTA response (or originally IB comments I believe) do not contain clarification to as which tariff exactly they are referring to.
Added: Actually the CTA letter is saying IB refers to the tariff effective on 28 September 2012 when my ticker was issued; so its the tariff version which we don't have.
Last edited by Keter; Dec 21, 2013 at 10:28 am Reason: IB Tariff version
Dec 21, 2013, 10:26 am
#9747
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: AMS
Programs: KL PFL; BA Gold; A3 Silver; EY Silver; SU Silver
Posts: 2,488
I got an IB informal claim reply from CTA about a week ago but still did not have time to properly read it. To summarise (can't guarantee accuracy as of now):
1) IB Canadian tariff exists and contains provisions for error fares (?; would like to get it)
2) IB Canadian tariff only allows IB ticketed transatlantic fares if IB is the first carrier and this is one reason why IB claims the ticket was invalid - this is nonsense of course as all tickets were autopriced and its IB who failed to properly put the tariff rules into the system
3) They seem to know about LX case and refer to FT and other forums in a way I already saw here (probably in LX reply of case)
Once I have time to read it, I may post more depending on the circumstances.
1) IB Canadian tariff exists and contains provisions for error fares (?; would like to get it)
2) IB Canadian tariff only allows IB ticketed transatlantic fares if IB is the first carrier and this is one reason why IB claims the ticket was invalid - this is nonsense of course as all tickets were autopriced and its IB who failed to properly put the tariff rules into the system
3) They seem to know about LX case and refer to FT and other forums in a way I already saw here (probably in LX reply of case)
Once I have time to read it, I may post more depending on the circumstances.
IB is making the following statements:
1) Fares invalid due to ATPCO's error and Canadian law/ courts would support IB's position that travellers wanted to take advantage of IB mistake
2) 'Fundamental issues with contract enforceability' with ref to 3 provisions of their tariff (as I now read they refer to another version of the Canadian tariff in effect on 28 September 2012)
-2a) IB has right to change or cancel without any notice before travel has commenced
-2b) For transatlantic carriage ex Area3 IB had to be the first carrier in the ticket
-2c) IB can refuse transportation if the applicable fare etc was not paid (and they claim of course the fare paid was invalid)
My view
1) The reference to Canadian view of contract law is irrelevant because the applicable contract law is Spanish []. And under Spanish law they failed to perform the actions within a reasonable period of time. Full stop
And yes, some provisions of Canadian law may also apply, ie consumer protection
2) All irrelevant bla-bla
-2a) Ref irrelevant because it is bound law requirements contained in the same rule (ie a party cannot unilaterally cancel a contract)
-2b) Irrelevant because tickets were autopriced
-2c) Irrelevant because the fare was paid and validity is another question
Basically they are very very weak in their statements in my view.
Dec 21, 2013, 11:36 am
#9748
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 6,385
I got to say this thread is hilarious. It quitens off for a week or so then someone starts it off with the same arguments again. A week or two of they were wrong, no they were right, no they were wrong then follows before it quietens off without anyone getting any kind of a win. A week or two later we start again....
They also read my blog... i wonder how much they pay people to read ft. I wish i got paid to read FT!
Dec 22, 2013, 12:46 am
#9750
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Seattle
Programs: AS MVPG 75K
Posts: 2,574
My view
1) The reference to Canadian view of contract law is irrelevant because the applicable contract law is Spanish []. And under Spanish law they failed to perform the actions within a reasonable period of time. Full stop
And yes, some provisions of Canadian law may also apply, ie consumer protection