Jun 19, 2013, 9:45 pm

FlyerTalk Forums Expert How-Tos and Guides

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)

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

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Feb 11, 2014, 6:30 pm

#9811

set4life101

Join Date: Oct 2012

Programs: United 1k

Posts: 27

Hey Guys:
I haven't been on here for a while. Can't believe Swiss has dragged this out and this long. I got an email thru the CTA from the legal counsel of Swiss to have my CTA case adjudicated separately from the gang of 7. I actually filed a case in the US however withdrew my complaint for other reasons. I believe they are arguing that since I withdrew my complaint in the US that the legal facts are somehow different. I don't think this will stand up because Canada is a separate country etc.. and core facts of the case remain the same for everyone. Looks like the legal strategy they are trying to use is divide and conquer. Trying to find small differences in everyones case to stall this out even longer.

Feb 11, 2014, 7:00 pm

#9812

jfkeze

Join Date: Mar 2008

Location: Multiple locations

Programs: AAdvantage ExPlat LT Gold, BA Silver, Aegean Star Gold

Posts: 5,038

here is a T shirt idea... based on the Clash song...

"LX fought the law and the law won!"

(once we get good news, of course)

Quote:

Disclaimer: For any late night work being done by LX lawyer associate, go ahead and charge another 1/10 of an hour for reading this post and getting the reference...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsS0cvTxU-8

Feb 11, 2014, 7:04 pm

#9813

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Mar 2001

Location: AU

Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)

Posts: 14,406

Quote:

Originally Posted by set4life101

Does the email actually reference the USA? Or are they saying subsequent cases to the original 7 should be heard with all the additional evidence Swiss wanted to lead but were prevented from doing so (and hence the subject of the subsequent appeals?)

Feb 11, 2014, 7:23 pm

#9814

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Mar 2001

Location: AU

Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)

Posts: 14,406

Quote:

Originally Posted by FedUp2

Dr. HFH, is this concept of "unilateral mistake" only a phenomenon of German (or Austrian / Swiss law) or is it also a concept of English common law? If the former only, then would it have any relevance to a CMB-DFW fare purchased by an US resident and paid with a US CC?

PS. I presume (and please correct me if I am wrong), your legal qualifications have Germanic origins?

unilateral mistake is very much English common law. (And USA as well.)

not relevant in USA to this case because of the DOT regs, but Swiss has tried to make it relevant for the RGN fares in the Canadian context.

Last edited by LHR/MEL/Europe FF; Feb 11, 2014 at 7:30 pm

Feb 11, 2014, 7:34 pm

#9815

AA_EXP09

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfkeze

Anyone else feels like LX is the black knight from Monty Python? It’s just a flesh wound and still continues to try to fight.
I understand the principle basis, but hiring lobbyist? They must be at over 500k in legal fees, if not much more. Oh well, keep on spending the cash…

I will attach a link in case they do not want to do so themselves if they have not already read this post.
Link to reference
(though clicking on the link and watching it shouldn't take 6 minutes, including time to read this post, unless reading very slowly.)

Feb 11, 2014, 7:35 pm

#9816

AA_EXP09

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfkeze

here is a T shirt idea... based on the Clash song...

"LX fought the law and the law won!"

(once we get good news, of course)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsS0cvTxU-8

Feb 11, 2014, 7:51 pm

#9817

Dr. HFH

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Jan 2007

Location: BOS/UTH

Programs: AA LT PLT; QR GLD; Bonvoy LT TIT

Posts: 12,755

Quote:

Originally Posted by FedUp2

Quote:

Originally Posted by LHR/MEL/Europe FF

unilateral mistake is very much English common law. (And USA as well.)

Not relevant in USA to this case because of the DOT regs, but Swiss has tried to make it relevant for the RGN fares in the Canadian context.

Exactly, LHR/MEL/Europe FF. The US DOT regs supersede the common law of contract in this case and in all cases in which US DOT has jurisdiction. Were there no DOT, we would, indeed, have to deal with the unilateral mistake issue; and I believe that we would be unsuccessful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FedUp2

PS. I presume (and please correct me if I am wrong), your legal qualifications have Germanic origins?

I was born, raised and educated in the U.S. I am a member of the Massachusetts bar, a litigator in Massachusetts for over 25 years. My paternal ancestors, while having a Germanic name, are from Russia. My grandparents came to the U.S. as children.

Feb 11, 2014, 7:55 pm

#9818

Dr. HFH

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Jan 2007

Location: BOS/UTH

Programs: AA LT PLT; QR GLD; Bonvoy LT TIT

Posts: 12,755

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephem

Uh, not really. In interpreting what those words mean, we of course look to the spirit of the law or regulation...

I don't see where you're from in your signature, but in Massachusetts, both statutory and case law hold that interpretation of language (regardless of whether language in a statute or contract) is only possible where there is ambiguity in the language. If the language is clear as written, then there is no room for further interpretation by a court, mediator, arbitrator, etc.

Besides, if clear language were subject to further interpretation, then you'd have a notice problem, no?

Feb 11, 2014, 8:27 pm

#9819

cruisr

Join Date: Dec 2004

Programs: UA-1K, MM, Hilton-Diamond, Marriott-Titanium

Posts: 4,432

Quote:

Originally Posted by set4life101

I got the email also. Their arguement for kicking me out of the group is that a precedent had been set as the SCC in NJ had made their ruling and did not find LX guilty of breach of contract. So apparently, their arguement is I had no right to go to CTA.

I think the email PDF was almost 50 pages of attachments and Lexis nexus stuff.

Feb 11, 2014, 9:13 pm

#9820

stephem

Join Date: Nov 2004

Location: Manhattan Beach, California

Programs: BMI Diamond Club Gold forever

Posts: 6,367

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. HFH

First, we aren't talking about MA law-- what state you are I reside in is probably not relevant.

Second, if you dig around a bit, you can see that the Department has already worked around the edges of this issue, looking at whether price changes would be allowed under the regs for certain ancillary services which are normally not purchased with the ticket (and here they discussed baggage fees on the one hand and meals, blankets and other similar types of ancillary services on the other hand). Based on what I have read I feel comfortable that there is an open question as to whether a carrier could remove certain features of a purchase ticket as punishment for a passenger having paid less than the carrier wanted them to pay (i.e., the fare was a mistake) instead of canceling the ticket or raising the price (both of which are clearly prohibited by the regs).

Additionally, it's worth noting that the regs are promulgated under the authority of 49 U.S. Code § 41712 - which is "Unfair and deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition" a very broad swath of activity, giving the department wide lattitude to promulgate regs. And you really need to read not just the regs but the various FAQs that an agency issues to get a sense of the boundaries of what the agency would or would not enforce. I think if you read all of those, there is an interesting case that I don't think clearly falls outside of what the regs were intended to prevent. While I have never done work before this agency, I have done some before other federal agencies, in particular work in the final FAQ stage where the agency teases out the full scope of what its regs apply to (often surprising people who had read the regs one way and assumed the regs had a narrower reach).

I'm not challenging you to a legal smackdown, not saying this a sure winner-- But I am saying there is a novel interpretation issue here and it's not DOA. English isn't exact like math and questions of intent and interpretation arise in regs all the time. If you have tickets and want to think you have no chance, fine. If you don't have tickets, please go troll somewhere else.

Feb 11, 2014, 9:19 pm

#9821

calvinoeh

Join Date: Jul 2008

Location: Penang, Malaysia

Programs: OZ *G, HHonors Gold, Aclub Plat

Posts: 1,025

Quote:

Originally Posted by cruisr

and more $$ to the lawyers...

Feb 11, 2014, 9:21 pm

#9822

AA_EXP09

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

Not exactly...
Interpretation can be backed up by referencing a text, and taking a portion of the text into context of the entire text.
(this was very much the case for essay writing and reading comprehension.)

Feb 11, 2014, 9:23 pm

#9823

AA_EXP09

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5DMarkIIguy

LX lawyer just sent another email asking for continued stay of the Decision.
They mentioned the Court of Appeal denied their appeal on Feb 5 and Feb 12 is fast approaching.

They are using a Supreme Court case as a basis for their request to stay the decision until their lobbyists are done lobbying the Governor in Council.

Their legal fee should cross 1 million anytime now.

Unless they are lobbying for other things as well.

Feb 11, 2014, 9:35 pm

#9824

thexfactor

Join Date: Jun 2011

Location: New York City

Posts: 801

Quote:

Originally Posted by AA_EXP09

Legal/statutory interpretation ≠ essay writing and general rules of reading comprehension.

As Dr. HFH rightly points out, barring unusual circumstances, or patent ambiguity, words mean what they say, and say what they mean, without the need to (or indeed the allowance of) resorting to legislative history or other possible red herrings.

Yes, context is important, but again, it doesn't take precedence over the simple plain meaning.

Feb 11, 2014, 10:22 pm

#9825

danger

Join Date: Apr 2007

Programs: QF, VA, AC, Hyatt, Marriott

Posts: 3,784

Quote:

Originally Posted by set4life101

If I remember correctly one of LX's very early arguments against the CTA taking action was because one or two authorities in the US had dismissed action. In their ruling the CTA, quite rightly in my opinion, retorted 'So what? That's the US and this is Canada', so I don't think the CTA will give a similar argument by LX any weight.