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

Mar 26, 2014, 3:33 am

#10141

Van_Looy

Join Date: Mar 2005

Programs: LH SEN

Posts: 404

Quote:

Originally Posted by YYZC2

Even if the CTA takes SWISS to the proverbial woodshed, I believe SWISS is under no obligation to accede to the decision of a fairly toothless Canadian tribunal.

How do you come to that conclusion? The CTA is not toothless at all. Swiss is stubborn, but they are not stupid. Once the legal tricks are exhausted, they will comply.

Mar 26, 2014, 9:02 am

#10142

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 Deltahater

LX spends a lot of time highlighting the impact of social media, blogs, fori, etc. Why do they think that is relevant?

Can any lawyer shed some light on this?

Also, have you noticed how LX just can't get even the basic facts of this straight?

At one moment there are 145 tickets part of this complaint, then there are a total of 800 total outstanding tickets (making it 945 tickets), then LX issued 850 tickets. They make up numbers as they go.

They claim the fares we paid are $113-150, then in other parts of the filing they claim the fares are $130-$150.

Initially the claimed the ticket is $15,000, now they are claiming the COST (excluding profit) is $22,900. Do they really think the CTA is so dumb that they believe LX intentionally loses $7,900 per ticket? If they are that poor business people, it is no wonder that they publish fares (or allow fares to be published) they did not intend to be published.

This filing is riddled with mistakes, made up numbers, missing footnotes, self-serving affidavits from some CSR who has no clue what is going on, but states half the time that "I am advised by Dominique Bauman and I believe it to be true that..." WOW.. that is best you can do LX?

Not to mention that those numbers do not include YQ that was paid, if applicable (this was more than 3x the fare that I paid. I did not bother searching for a strike for this fare as I knew it was limited validity and did not want to screw the fare up.)

Mar 26, 2014, 10:19 am

#10143

YYZC2

Join Date: Dec 2001

Location: YYZ

Posts: 6,138

Quote:

Originally Posted by Van_Looy

How do you come to that conclusion? The CTA is not toothless at all. Swiss is stubborn, but they are not stupid. Once the legal tricks are exhausted, they will comply.

Sorry, I was unclear. I was making reference to previous posters who believe that the CTA's next decision will be an irrevocable ruling, which it is not.

Additionally, I get the feeling that some folks believe the CTA is the Canadian equivalent of the US DOT, which it is not. We have Transport Canada for that. The DOT can draft new regulations in response to consumer complaints; the CTA can only attempt to make airlines comply with existing legislation.

If the DOT were the party putting SWISS' feet to the fire on this issue, I think we would have seen SWISS capitulate long ago, lest they incur material punishment or bring on even more stringent consumer protection regs, both things the CTA can't do. I think SWISS views the CTA as something more analogous to the Better Business Bureau than a serious regulatory body, and they're really not that far off.

Last edited by YYZC2; Mar 26, 2014 at 11:01 am

Mar 26, 2014, 12:24 pm

#10144

IAN-UK

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Aug 2000

Location: London

Programs: Hilton, IHG - BA, GA, LH, QR, SV, TK

Posts: 17,008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. HFH

Adding a little to what LHR/MEL/Europe FF said, this would be considered a unilateral mistake. One party knew that it was a mistake; and the other did not.

So I'm guessing that most holders of mistake fares hope to establish a bilateral mistake - if that's the moniker attached to a mistake of which both parties are blissfully ignorant....

Mar 26, 2014, 4:00 pm

#10145

danger

Join Date: Apr 2007

Programs: QF, VA, AC, Hyatt, Marriott

Posts: 3,784

Quote:

Originally Posted by YYZC2

The complainants' knowledge of market rates for air transportation, their state of mind, their ethics or their choice of breakfast cereal on the date of the sale does not appear (in my layman's opinion) to be particularly relevant in the very limited context of the CTA's purview.

I couldn't agree more. When you first file with the CTA you get information sent to you explaining the agency's role and what they review. All the CTA is interested is (i) does the airline's tariff permit it to undertake the action it did and (ii) if so, is that particular section of the tariff too far-reaching or unfair. Nothing else matters to the CTA.

Mar 26, 2014, 4:38 pm

#10146

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 danger

but if there is no contract to start with then the CTA can't help the affected passengers.

the CTA can still rule on clause 5F as it stands, preventing Swiss from relying on that until it is redrafted with more clarity. But that wouldn't help anyone for the RGN fares if it is found that there is no contract (and therefore nothing to make clause 5F relevant to the current situation)

Mar 26, 2014, 6:04 pm

#10147

Dr. HFH

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Jan 2007

Location: BOS/UTH

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

Posts: 12,757

Quote:

Originally Posted by IAN-UK

So I'm guessing that most holders of mistake fares hope to establish a bilateral mistake - if that's the moniker attached to a mistake of which both parties are blissfully ignorant....

You're talking about "mutual mistake" -- when both parties made a mistake as to a fundamental term of the contract. Actually, that's not what you would want. Under the doctrine of mutual mistake, there is no legal contract because there was no "meeting of the minds" on the contract terms. Because they both were mistaken about the contract terms, they never really made an agreement. The contract, in this case the ticket, is cancellable by either party.

Remember, though, that the common law of contract (the above description) is superseded by DOT regulations in the U.S., so it doesn't really matter in these cases. It's the DOT regulations which control.

Mar 26, 2014, 6:06 pm

#10148

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 Dr. HFH

Remember, though, that the common law of contract (the above description) is superseded by DOT regulations in the U.S., so it doesn't really matter in these cases. It's the DOT regulations which control.

yes but RGN is a CTA issue, not DOT, so very much alive

Mar 26, 2014, 6:30 pm

#10149

jona970318

Join Date: Feb 2013

Location: LA/NY/CHI

Programs: AA EXP, AS 100K, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott Plat

Posts: 1,876

Quote:

Originally Posted by UVAhoo06

What the heck is going on with this craziness?

Also, has anyone flown on this ticket since the last posted trip report on here? Has EY remained obstinate in unwillingness to remove the "NOGO" status?

Just curious, are we able to see the nogo status on our end or is it within the internal notes of EY's system?

Mar 26, 2014, 8:22 pm

#10150

whimike

Join Date: Nov 2011

Location: West Coast, USA

Programs: Skywards Platinum

Posts: 3,747

Quote:

Originally Posted by LHR/MEL/Europe FF

the law of mistake works for everyone... even you as a passenger. If you entered into a contract and someone pulled the wool over your eyes, would you expect protection of the courts? Of course you would. It is no different that a company would want the same.

this is just a very brief summary, for something more detailed, a wiki will give you a good run down.

I wonder how this would actually play out considering the fare wasn't actually a mistake. The fare was priced in local currency at the same rate it was prior when Swiss would not have considered it a mistake, I think that is the key here. Swiss did not react to the currency devaluation and thus people from other parts of the world were able to take advantage of the currency changes.

If the Euro were to tank by 30%, would it be an error if I bought a ticket that wasn't yet adjusted for the 30% devaluation? Or if I bought it from a site that prices in Euro and I can take advantage of the currency swing?

Certainly to somebody living in Myanmar, they haven't seen the price change at all whether they bought pre or post currency devaluation. If a Myanmar local bought when we did, would he also be subject to it being a mistake?

Could this be the reason that LX avoids calling this a currency devaluation issue?

Mar 26, 2014, 8:31 pm

#10151

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 whimike

so why did everyone only book to YUL? Why was the fare only to a single destination?

this is why LX is trying to introduce evidence to support the notion of mistake by referencing blogs and FT. The 'do not call the airline under any circumstances' is strong evidence people knew it was unintended.

it comes down to proof by each side. a good idea to be prepared if that argument is raised by Swiss.

if it was a currency devaluation issue, I think LX's position would be significantly weakened

Mar 26, 2014, 9:17 pm

#10152

jfkeze

Join Date: Mar 2008

Location: Multiple locations

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

Posts: 5,038

I think was mentioned in an earlier thread or post, but IATA informed airlines about the currency issues in April 2012, Airlines knew and voted on the IATA report from April 18-20, and the memo went out April 25. Read page 7: http://www.airlineinfo.com/ostpdf84/195.pdf

" Due to the change to the IROE, and because there is no automated process to amend fare levels using new exchange rate, IATA fares from Myanmar were suspended and taken off system to protect consumer interests and member airlines revenue."

The airlines were informed, they were taken offline to correct it and then five months later Swiss claims a "mistake"?

Mar 26, 2014, 9:27 pm

#10153

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

wrong thread.

Mar 26, 2014, 10:13 pm

#10154

UVAhoo06

Join Date: Jul 2006

Programs: DL DM/MM

Posts: 2,276

delete

Mar 27, 2014, 1:06 am

#10155

IAN-UK

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Aug 2000

Location: London

Programs: Hilton, IHG - BA, GA, LH, QR, SV, TK

Posts: 17,008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. HFH

So your opinion is that if a mistake in calculating the fair leads a customer to purchase a ticket, then while a unilateral mistake could void the contract if the purchaser was shown to be fully aware of the mistake and took advantage of it, the airline could nevertheless be successful in voiding the contract even if the passenger had bought the ticket manifestly unaware of the the mistake? That is your understanding of mutual mistake under the Rangoon and other error fare scenarios????

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. HFH

I wonder if it's not better to leave the US out of Canada-bassed discussion - it muddies waters when the jurisdiction is clearly not the US.