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 Feb 14, 14, 11:34 am
  #9886  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Programs: AA Plat, Hyatt Diamond
Posts: 386
Originally Posted by BrewerSEA View Post
I would love to hear an answer to this question, because this morning the Agency denied Swiss' motion to stay 416/417, and ordered Swiss to compensate me by March 17 and fly the rest of the 7 over the next year! Not sure as of yet how this applies to other merged complaints. Tariff Rule 5F is also finally disallowed as of February 21st.
Fantastic news! Given what you reported about A-402-13 -- any idea how this fits with that?
palefire is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 14, 12:34 pm
  #9887  
 
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 RCyyz View Post
Dunno. I'm not a lawyer! But the CTA is a Crown agency that operates under the auspices of the Governor-in-Council. So essentially, the CTA is a representative of Her Majesty the Queen. LX can make whatever noise they want but ultimately Her Majesty outranks them, at least in a Canadian judicial / legislative perspective.

Basically if Her Majesty chooses to ignore her own rules, there's nothing anyone can do about it other than stage a coup and cut off her head. I somehow doubt LX will succeed at that!

So if CTA does not grant a stay, I think LX will simply have to uphold whatever decision was made at the Federal Court.
Again, thank you very much.

Since the Federal Court already told LX to go away and have a nice life, governor in council is actually LX' last hope.

Based on the most recent CTA decision (please refer to post #9942), LX was told since there is no evidence of "irreparable harm" will come from honoring tickets to the original 7, LX's motion to stay decision is dismissed. LX may, however, come back to CTA to revoke the decision for original 7 once governor in council decides to overturn CTA decision (back to your point, most likely governor in council will do nothing so that this won't happen).

Hence, LX has exhausted all its alternatives and after spending so many man hours and $$ it still goes back to square one on June 18, 2013 (or "status quo" by our dear friend at Davis LLP).

Hey, I have to say: this show is much better than any courtroom dramas I've ever watched...
lewende is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 14, 12:53 pm
  #9888  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,560
Originally Posted by palefire View Post
Fantastic news! Given what you reported about A-402-13 -- any idea how this fits with that?
The initial stay (on request of Swiss) of 416/417 was justified by the Agency as an issue of efficiency, pending the outcome of the petition to the GiC and the application for leave to to appeal (13-A-35). Neither Swiss nor the Agency mentions A-402-13, which is an application for judicial review pursuant to the Federal Courts Act. 13-A-35 was dismissed on February 5th.

On February 11th Swiss wrote a letter requesting the Agency extend the stay of 416/417 while the petition to the GiC remains pending. The Agency denied this after applying a three-prong test, ultimately determining the balance of inconvenience favored the public.

A-402-13 was also stayed by the Court pending a decision by the GiC. In its motion the Agency claims that staying the judicial review process is not prejudicial to Swiss, as paragraph 28 of 417 was stayed until February 12th. But we have passed February 12th, the GiC has not issued any decision on that petition, and the Agency has refused to extend the stay. Considering this, perhaps the Court would order a stay if Swiss so requests.

I believe that the true reason the Agency is ordering this now is that there no longer exists any venue for Swiss to argue the case. 13-A-35 was dismissed, and the Agency has some reason to believe the petition to the GiC will fail (the executive branch must talk to itself, right?). It is confident that it will win A-402-13 because Swiss has no statutory authority for judicial review. Swiss claims that the Agency made errors of fact reviewable by the Court, but the Canada Transportation Act states "The finding or determination of the Agency on a question of fact within its jurisdiction is binding and conclusive."
BrewerSEA is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 14, 12:57 pm
  #9889  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,405
NH didnt allow me to change the dates either during the rgn fare.
The lax call center gave me the high and mighty attitude because I paid a low price.
HawaiiO is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 14, 1:00 pm
  #9890  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: BOS, NYC, SFO
Programs: AA EXP, UA Gold, SPG Platinum
Posts: 3,855
Originally Posted by HawaiiO View Post
NH didnt allow me to change the dates either during the rgn fare.
The lax call center gave me the high and mighty attitude because I paid a low price.
Frankly that shouldn't matter. We all paid for a fully refundable and changeable product; this was in the fare rules when we purchased.

For EY to proclaim that "no changes are allowed" is a clear non-honoring of the original conditions. If it was me, I'd pay the reprice and then take them to court over it.
DWFI is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 14, 1:23 pm
  #9891  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: LHR
Posts: 441
Originally Posted by margarita girl View Post
Well done RC!
I echo this sentiment. You are one of the smartest, most analytical people I know. Thanks for the advice.
huntk is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 14, 1:33 pm
  #9892  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Penang, Malaysia
Programs: OZ *G, HHonors Gold, Aclub Plat
Posts: 921
Woohoo.. time to do the happy dance!
calvinoeh is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 14, 1:34 pm
  #9893  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: DFW
Programs: UA Pleb, HH Gold, PWP General Secretary
Posts: 23,142
Originally Posted by BrewerSEA View Post
I would love to hear an answer to this question, because this morning the Agency denied Swiss' motion to stay 416/417, and ordered Swiss to compensate me by March 17 and fly the rest of the 7 over the next year! Not sure as of yet how this applies to other merged complaints. Tariff Rule 5F is also finally disallowed as of February 21st.

Here's a copy of the decision:
I just used this as a basis for filing a reply to LX's request for a stay.
colpuck is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 14, 1:53 pm
  #9894  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Programs: LH SEN
Posts: 206
Thank you for this information, very helpful.

I'm not a lawyer either, but I believe you make some mistakes.

The following is not correct, this case never touched a Federal Court. Appeals to CTA decisions, go to the Federal Court of Appeal.

Originally Posted by RCyyz View Post

Now, presumably the Federal Court has heard arguments from Swiss and from peeps like you. The Federal Court presumably told Swiss thanks for coming out, now go away and have a nice life.

Swiss applied for leave (permission) to appeal that decision. As Section 1(C) notes, the Federal Court of Appeal told Swiss thanks for coming out, now go away and have a nice life.
I absolutely fail to see how the CTA ignored its own rules.

Yes, the GiC can pretty much do what he/she wants, at any time (but there are also checks and balances built into the in-Council system). That is clear.

The Rules state that the Agency may, at the request of a party, grant a stay of an order or decision of the Agency pending the disposition of a petition to the Governor in Council.

The use of "may" in that rule implies that the Agency is not obliged to wait for a GiC decision, which may indeed never come.

Originally Posted by RCyyz View Post

Basically if Her Majesty chooses to ignore her own rules, there's nothing anyone can do about it other than stage a coup and cut off her head. I somehow doubt LX will succeed at that!

Last edited by Van_Looy; Feb 14, 14 at 2:02 pm
Van_Looy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 14, 2:47 pm
  #9895  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: SDF
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 13,121
Originally Posted by BrewerSEA View Post
The initial stay (on request of Swiss) of 416/417 was justified by the Agency as an issue of efficiency, pending the outcome of the petition to the GiC and the application for leave to to appeal (13-A-35). Neither Swiss nor the Agency mentions A-402-13, which is an application for judicial review pursuant to the Federal Courts Act. 13-A-35 was dismissed on February 5th.

On February 11th Swiss wrote a letter requesting the Agency extend the stay of 416/417 while the petition to the GiC remains pending. The Agency denied this after applying a three-prong test, ultimately determining the balance of inconvenience favored the public.

A-402-13 was also stayed by the Court pending a decision by the GiC. In its motion the Agency claims that staying the judicial review process is not prejudicial to Swiss, as paragraph 28 of 417 was stayed until February 12th. But we have passed February 12th, the GiC has not issued any decision on that petition, and the Agency has refused to extend the stay. Considering this, perhaps the Court would order a stay if Swiss so requests.

I believe that the true reason the Agency is ordering this now is that there no longer exists any venue for Swiss to argue the case. 13-A-35 was dismissed, and the Agency has some reason to believe the petition to the GiC will fail (the executive branch must talk to itself, right?). It is confident that it will win A-402-13 because Swiss has no statutory authority for judicial review. Swiss claims that the Agency made errors of fact reviewable by the Court, but the Canada Transportation Act states "The finding or determination of the Agency on a question of fact within its jurisdiction is binding and conclusive."
I am confused!

If leave to appeal (judicial review) was granted (as per your earlier post, Madame Justice Sharlow), how can the CTA enforce its earlier decision?

Swiss is claiming the CTA made a number of errors of law in reaching its decision not to reopen the case on the grounds of further evidence - a course of action that was open to it under an earlier Supreme Court ruling. (Swiss is not contesting the facts of the case as the CTA heard them... which was solely on the tariff clause 5 - it is arguing the CTA did not reopen the case once the other evidence was given that this was a mistake fare.)

The appeals that have been denied so far have related to the CTA determination on the tariff (5) - which is fair enough. But it appeared the request for judicial review (in addition to the GIC) was allowed?

Last edited by LHR/MEL/Europe FF; Feb 14, 14 at 3:01 pm
LHR/MEL/Europe FF is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 14, 3:00 pm
  #9896  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Body in Downtown YYZ, heart and mind elsewhere
Programs: UA 50K, refugee from AC E50K.
Posts: 4,925
Originally Posted by Van_Looy View Post
I'm not a lawyer either, but I believe you make some mistakes.

The following is not correct, this case never touched a Federal Court. Appeals to CTA decisions, go to the Federal Court of Appeal.
Ah. Judicial procedural error on my part. Mea Culpa! Thanks for the correction!
RCyyz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 14, 3:37 pm
  #9897  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: SFO
Programs: AA EXP,AS MVPG,MR Platinum,HH Gold
Posts: 1,343
Originally Posted by HawaiiO View Post
NH didnt allow me to change the dates either during the rgn fare.
The lax call center gave me the high and mighty attitude because I paid a low price.
I mentioned this already but I had a lot more success with NH at the airport than I did by phone.
arcticbull is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 14, 4:07 pm
  #9898  
 
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: 4,178
Originally Posted by calvinoeh View Post
Woohoo.. time to do the happy dance!
Don't do the happy dance until either you have the money or the ticket in your hand. I still think LX will keep delaying if at all possible.
cruisr is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 14, 4:16 pm
  #9899  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: SDF
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 13,121
Originally Posted by RCyyz View Post

Canada is a constitutional monarchy. So the Crown (Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II) is the head of state. (This is an important distinction from say, the American way where the President is head of state. Here, our Prime Minister is merely head of government, but he technically reports to Her Majesty who is head of state.) At the pleasure of Her Majesty, a government may be formed. The Governor General of Canada (David Johnston) is the Crown’s direct representative in Canada and is tasked with the day-to-day job of running the country and making sure that only important stuff is filtered up to Her Majesty. Direction / wisdom on certain issues will be sought from the Crown as required.

In order to help decide which issues are important (and need Crown input), the GG appoints (for life!) learned persons to the Privy Council. In theory, a member of the Privy Council - specifically one who commands the confidence of the House of Commons - is selected to be the Prime Minister. The PM then requests the GG to appoint select individuals to a special sub-committee of the Privy Council. This special sub-committee is known as Cabinet. Cabinet Ministers are Members of Parliament who carry special duties (& privileges) such as being the head of Foreign Affairs, or Finance Minister etc. In theory, the Crown and the GG will only take direction from this particular group. So Cabinet is also technically known as the Queen-in-Council or more commonly the Governor-in-Council.

The “in-Council” bit is important because this is where an Order-in-Council comes from. Laws in Canada are created first from Bills which need to move through debate in Parliament (various readings in the House) then to the Senate for “sober second thought” then finally to the Crown for Royal Assent. The Crown however, retains ultimate power in Canada. So the Crown can simply pass an Order-in-Council and something can come into being (from a judicial / legislative perspective) without having to go through the long route of passing something into law. Theoretically the Governor-in-Council will draft an Order-in-Council in front of the Crown, then read it out loud. The Queen will simply say “Approved” and the Order comes into immediate effect.

So an Order-in-Council is basically a quick & dirty way of bringing something into effect without having to rewrite laws. For example, the various prostitution laws were recently found un-Constitutional (i.e. illegal) by the Supreme Court. The Government could have sought an Order-in-Council that would essentially still leave prostitution illegal, while keeping an illegal law still embedded in the Criminal Code. Technically possible, but clearly not the best course of action.
this is a good start on the powers of the Governor General in Canada but they are not an accurate reflection of how things work under the applicable conventions of the constitutional monarchy in Canada.

the governor general is not, in practice, responsible for the day-to-day running of the country. the government is, in practice, the crown is limited to acting solely on the advice of the prime minister (and cabinet) as this means decisions are ultimately subject to review by parliament.

in practice the GG doesn't do anything unless requested to do so.

an order-in-council is also subject to judicial review.
LHR/MEL/Europe FF is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 14, 4:29 pm
  #9900  
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
Originally Posted by LHR/MEL/Europe FF View Post
this is a good start on the powers of the Governor General in Canada but they are not an accurate reflection of how things work under the applicable conventions of the constitutional monarchy in Canada.

the governor general is not, in practice, responsible for the day-to-day running of the country. the government is, in practice, the crown is limited to acting solely on the advice of the prime minister (and cabinet) as this means decisions are ultimately subject to review by parliament.

in practice the GG doesn't do anything unless requested to do so.

an order-in-council is also subject to judicial review.
Some of the principles underlying the role of agents of the crown in commonwealth nations are archaic. Just ask the Australian PM, even back in 1975.

Of course LX would wish these still applied... business interests negotiating with sovereign powers over the heads of the plebs with no openness...probably, still the way it works in Switzerland. But not in Canada which after all scores high on transparency.org's Perception Index.

I like it that, just as LX details postings on this thread for presentation to legal entities, so we document their dealings with the CTA and other government entities. Unlike LX, I have no reason to fear transparency.
redtailshark is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread