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!!!!
May 27, 2014, 6:01 pm
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
I've certainly accidentally overpaid for travel out of Canada before and not noticed it until a few days later (if not even a few weeks later).
May 27, 2014, 6:07 pm
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: BOS/UTH
Programs: AA LT PLT; QR GLD; Bonvoy LT TIT
Posts: 12,757
Look, I hate to take an unpopular position, but I'm not so sure that the bottom line decision is wrong. We all knew that it was a mistake. It's possible that there were some innocents who didn't, but we did. We're experienced at finding, sharing and chasing mistake fares. And for nearly all of us, it's an itinerary that we're only flying because of the mistake. Just look at the number of posts regarding positioning flights. We need positioning flights because we have to be somewhere we wouldn't otherwise be (RGN) for the sole purpose of flying the mistake fare.
Certainly I see our position. Someone made a mistake and we want to take advantage of it, to hold them to their error (not repricing in the face of the devaluation of the Myanmar currency).
I know what you're thinking, -- when we make mistakes and book, say, on the wrong day, we don't get the same consideration. That's true. But the airline didn't know that we booked on the wrong day when it accepted our money for the ticket and had no way of knowing until we said something. We knew that the fare was a mistake fare, -- in fact, we knew before the airline did. That's one of the things which makes this different in my mind.
Please don't flame me too badly. I recognize that I'm taking an unpopular position; but I call 'em like I see 'em.
May 27, 2014, 6:37 pm
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: YVR
Programs: Marriott Gold
Posts: 952
May 27, 2014, 6:41 pm
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,259
CTA's decision is a disaster for consumers.
In paragraph 33, the decision acknowledges that one of the complainants called Swiss to confirm class of travel and schedule times.
In paragraph 50, the decision states "The fact that none of the complainants raised the mistake with the carrier leads the agency to conclude that they intended to benefit from it."
In other words, it's not enough just to call the airline after booking an unusually low fare. You have to ask "Hey, this looks like it might be a mistake, can you confirm the fare is valid and you intended to enter into a contract with me?"
CTA is placing a terrible burden on consumers with respect to their ability to rely on a ticketed reservation, and has dramatically shifted the playing field in favor of all airlines (not just LX).
Canada is now a jurisdiction that has zero protection for ticketed reservations, and airlines can cancel simply by arguing they made a mistake. SQ, NH, 9W, IB, BA, will all be studying this decision carefully and will follow LX's lead in the future.
While I congratulate LX on a hard-fought battle and their counsel at Davis for their persistence, I am deeply disappointed in the Canadian transport officials for their poorly reasoned and illogical decision.
In paragraph 33, the decision acknowledges that one of the complainants called Swiss to confirm class of travel and schedule times.
In paragraph 50, the decision states "The fact that none of the complainants raised the mistake with the carrier leads the agency to conclude that they intended to benefit from it."
In other words, it's not enough just to call the airline after booking an unusually low fare. You have to ask "Hey, this looks like it might be a mistake, can you confirm the fare is valid and you intended to enter into a contract with me?"
CTA is placing a terrible burden on consumers with respect to their ability to rely on a ticketed reservation, and has dramatically shifted the playing field in favor of all airlines (not just LX).
Canada is now a jurisdiction that has zero protection for ticketed reservations, and airlines can cancel simply by arguing they made a mistake. SQ, NH, 9W, IB, BA, will all be studying this decision carefully and will follow LX's lead in the future.
While I congratulate LX on a hard-fought battle and their counsel at Davis for their persistence, I am deeply disappointed in the Canadian transport officials for their poorly reasoned and illogical decision.
May 27, 2014, 6:53 pm
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,406
CTA's decision is a disaster for consumers.
In paragraph 33, the decision acknowledges that one of the complainants called Swiss to confirm class of travel and schedule times.
In paragraph 50, the decision states "The fact that none of the complainants raised the mistake with the carrier leads the agency to conclude that they intended to benefit from it."
In other words, it's not enough just to call the airline after booking an unusually low fare. You have to ask "Hey, this looks like it might be a mistake, can you confirm the fare is valid and you intended to enter into a contract with me?"
CTA is placing a terrible burden on consumers with respect to their ability to rely on a ticketed reservation, and has dramatically shifted the playing field in favor of all airlines (not just LX).
Canada is now a jurisdiction that has zero protection for ticketed reservations, and airlines can cancel simply by arguing they made a mistake. SQ, NH, 9W, IB, BA, will all be studying this decision carefully and will follow LX's lead in the future.
While I congratulate LX on a hard-fought battle and their counsel at Davis for their persistence, I am deeply disappointed in the Canadian transport officials for their poorly reasoned and illogical decision.
In paragraph 33, the decision acknowledges that one of the complainants called Swiss to confirm class of travel and schedule times.
In paragraph 50, the decision states "The fact that none of the complainants raised the mistake with the carrier leads the agency to conclude that they intended to benefit from it."
In other words, it's not enough just to call the airline after booking an unusually low fare. You have to ask "Hey, this looks like it might be a mistake, can you confirm the fare is valid and you intended to enter into a contract with me?"
CTA is placing a terrible burden on consumers with respect to their ability to rely on a ticketed reservation, and has dramatically shifted the playing field in favor of all airlines (not just LX).
Canada is now a jurisdiction that has zero protection for ticketed reservations, and airlines can cancel simply by arguing they made a mistake. SQ, NH, 9W, IB, BA, will all be studying this decision carefully and will follow LX's lead in the future.
While I congratulate LX on a hard-fought battle and their counsel at Davis for their persistence, I am deeply disappointed in the Canadian transport officials for their poorly reasoned and illogical decision.
)with respect to your bolded part it is not the end of consumer protection.
it only recognises that when a person knew it was a mistake (or can be deemed to know), and they (essentially) tried to conceal and benefit from that mistake, that they may not get protection.
this is not allowing an airline in any situation to simply claim 'mistake'.
to argue that is the case is scaremongering.
May 27, 2014, 6:55 pm
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the air
Programs: Occasional RTW club
Posts: 6,924
no!!! that is not correct (thankfully! )
with respect to your bolded part it is not the end of consumer protection.
it only recognises that when a person knew it was a mistake (or can be deemed to know), and they (essentially) tried to conceal and benefit from that mistake, that they may not get protection.
this is not allowing an airline in any situation to simply claim 'mistake'.
to argue that is the case is scaremongering.
)with respect to your bolded part it is not the end of consumer protection.
it only recognises that when a person knew it was a mistake (or can be deemed to know), and they (essentially) tried to conceal and benefit from that mistake, that they may not get protection.
this is not allowing an airline in any situation to simply claim 'mistake'.
to argue that is the case is scaremongering.
May 27, 2014, 6:57 pm
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Long Island, NY
Programs: United 1K, AA Plat Exec, DL Plat, Marriott Titanium Lifetime Elite, Hilton Gold, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 1,872
The answer to this, unfortunately, is to get press coverage that technically, NO AIRLINE PURCHASE IN CANADA is 100% confirmed until you have notified the airline of your purchase price and waited 72 hours. Technically, thats what this ruling is saying. If thats what the CTA wants, then its up to the airlines to publish an email address for us to send our receipts to, and we need to make 100% sure that the Canadian public knows this, and sends their receipts in as well. I don't LIKE the ruling at all, but lets make sure that the public now plays by the 'new' rules.
May 27, 2014, 7:03 pm
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,406
The answer to this, unfortunately, is to get press coverage that technically, NO AIRLINE PURCHASE IN CANADA is 100% confirmed until you have notified the airline of your purchase price and waited 72 hours. Technically, thats what this ruling is saying. If thats what the CTA wants, then its up to the airlines to publish an email address for us to send our receipts to, and we need to make 100% sure that the Canadian public knows this, and sends their receipts in as well. I don't LIKE the ruling at all, but lets make sure that the public now plays by the 'new' rules.
maybe if you add 'in the event of obvious mistake fares, where consumers conceal this and try to take advantage'... 'no airline purchase in Canada is 100% confirmed' it might be more accurate?
May 27, 2014, 7:10 pm
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,406
May 27, 2014, 7:24 pm
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Programs: AA Plat, UA Silver, DL Silver, Marriott Titanium, etc.
Posts: 4,210
Au contraire, it does leave the consumer quite vulnerable. There's no way to a priori exactly define what is a "mistake" fare and what is not. There will be always some uncertainty, some gray area, and you can bet the airlines will take full advantage of this if they have some regrets about a fare they offered. I'd be ok with giving airlines 48 or 72 hours to declare a fare invalid - but the onus should be on them to inform the customer and it must be clearly disclosed to the customer that if they make any related noncancellable reservations within such a period, they do so at their own risk. I for one now will not feel safe buying airline tickets from Canada unless the fare is pretty close to the historical average.
May 27, 2014, 7:25 pm
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Long Island, NY
Programs: United 1K, AA Plat Exec, DL Plat, Marriott Titanium Lifetime Elite, Hilton Gold, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 1,872
Please define 'obvious'. There is 0 legal definition for this term in this case. I just bought a walkup fare one way from NY to a California airport on UA for under $150. I am sure UA would consider that a 'mistake of pricing', as most ALL other OW fares to other airports in the region were 5-6X the fare I paid. Is this 'obvious'? Where is the line between 'mistake' and just a good deal? How do we know the AIRLINES even know this? How can we argue with a mistake declaration? You are trying to say that $1000 1st class fare is an obvious mistake, but what about when an airline claims that a fare was too low because of an event that was announced, or because of a storm? This is not the black and white issue that you keep trying to make it.
May 27, 2014, 7:33 pm
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: SAT
Programs: AA EXP BA Gold, TK Gold, Hyatt Globalist, Hilton Diamond, AS 100K, QR PLT, SAS Gold, IHG Spire, AMR
Posts: 5,898
Please define 'obvious'. There is 0 legal definition for this term in this case. I just bought a walkup fare one way from NY to a California airport on UA for under $150. I am sure UA would consider that a 'mistake of pricing', as most ALL other OW fares to other airports in the region were 5-6X the fare I paid. Is this 'obvious'? Where is the line between 'mistake' and just a good deal? How do we know the AIRLINES even know this? How can we argue with a mistake declaration? You are trying to say that $1000 1st class fare is an obvious mistake, but what about when an airline claims that a fare was too low because of an event that was announced, or because of a storm? This is not the black and white issue that you keep trying to make it.
Don't feed the troll. It just not worth it.
May 27, 2014, 7:33 pm
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Programs: AA Plat, UA Silver, DL Silver, Marriott Titanium, etc.
Posts: 4,210
No surprise in the ruling regarding those of us who didn't travel, but the ruling for the people who flew and were downgraded on the LX segment is terrifying. (I'm in the former group, and not the latter, for what it's worth.) The money lines in the ruling are "The fact that they were allowed to travel in part does not make the contract of carriage a valid one" and then "Swiss offered, as a gesture of good will, all passengers who were en route, transportation in economy class, however, it was under no obligation to do so."
That seems bizarre and terrifying to me -- basically CTA is saying, sure some of the carriers were flying you, but you didn't have a contract and you had no protection while in transit. Crazy... I would have thought that if the non-LX ticketing carrier carried you, that indicated on its face that you had a contract with them (and who is Swiss to say that you didn't).
Hopefully any future instances are covered by the CTA's new "expectations for carriers related to erroneous fares", but are those just "expectations" or are they something that the CTA is actually going to enforce? (If they intend to enforce them, why not enforce them now?)
That seems bizarre and terrifying to me -- basically CTA is saying, sure some of the carriers were flying you, but you didn't have a contract and you had no protection while in transit. Crazy... I would have thought that if the non-LX ticketing carrier carried you, that indicated on its face that you had a contract with them (and who is Swiss to say that you didn't).
Hopefully any future instances are covered by the CTA's new "expectations for carriers related to erroneous fares", but are those just "expectations" or are they something that the CTA is actually going to enforce? (If they intend to enforce them, why not enforce them now?)
This is a truly unbelievable ruling for those passengers who had tickets cancelled or downgraded while they were already in transit.