LHR/MEL/Europe FF

Has Swiss been successful on their appeals? I thought those were still pending.

The CTA points out Swiss did not lead the argument of mistake on the Original Seven, but it did with those who filed later. Hence the two different outcomes to date.

Pseudo Nim

My bad. I am, indeed, confusing the two avenues of argument.

Dr. HFH

You may be able to appeal, but it can be a painful process. I know absolutely nothing about Canadian law or court procedural rules. I've done appeals in the U.S.; and I can tell you that the appeal process has loads of very technical rules. For example, I practice in Massachusetts. We have 30 days from the docketing of the Judgment to claim an appeal. Note that the docketing date is different from the actual date of the Judgment. File a Notice of Appeal on the 31st day, and you're done, except in very specific circumstances, which are spelled out in the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

And that's just the beginning. Apart from numerous very specific dates for doing a number of things connected with the appeal, the Rules of Appellate Procedure also get into the format of your brief in a very detailed way, specifying the number of pages, size of the margins, font and font size, even the chemical composition of the paper.

Bottom line? If you're going to appeal, the best thing you can do is to get a lawyer experienced in appeals before the CTA or whatever court/authority will decide the appeal. You don't want to be thrown out on a technicality.

ChrisKSDF

Well played on an epic scale!

Thanks for the detailed play-by-play, and glad you had a great trip!

maverick17

I haven't read the decisions, emails, etc, so I might be bringing up a pointless thought, but I don't see why LX wouldn't have led with no contract due to mistake on the first group? I would think Davis was quite remiss if they missed that somehow. I think that's the obvious point of contention for anyone able to do some research.

Personally I feel the main point consumers had to hang their hat on is that LX chooses to use an automated reply system, to benefit their business and make the most profit possible, and thereby has given up that time period to review a fare as valid and not a mistake. By using an immediate reply, they are intentionally forfeiting review in favor of profit, and agreeing that they accept the customer's offer of airfare as sufficient and that they, LX, are accepting the terms of the contract.

Again, I haven't read the decision, but in minimal research I noticed in the UK this was a ruling a number of years ago. So it might not hold anymore or course.

But it was pretty likely to many that this was the likely outcome due to mistake, and I thought it was maybe the best argument to make. Just my $.02 (CAD if you prefer)

maverick17

This is the dumbest idea I've seen in 10k posts of this thread. And I've read all of them.

danger

I'm not involved in the LX case but enough of you who are want to get together to appeal and source an appropriate lawyer, I'll put USD250 into the pot to fight the battle.

Dr. HFH

You need to find out the appeal procedure before you will have any idea of the cost. I'm sorry to say that it's not going to be cheap, regardless of the procedure. I can provide some idea of what costs are in the U.S. court system if anyone is interested, but it really depends on the procedure for appeals from CTA decisions.

ahcjar103

now having taken the longhaul portion on a 9W wet lease here are some thoughts from that flight. check-in experience in post 2087.

reminder: our cmb-auh flight was swapped for a 9W plane with EY crew and non-operating first class (since there was no first on the original plane). as mentioned before, this was a great flight since we gained flat beds and the EY staff was on their game. also, the grilled salmon i had on this flight was very good, and i'm from seattle where salmon is king (see what i did there?).

so we had the same type of plane that we did for the long haul, however this time we had a 9W crew and there was a stark difference in the experience.

first, the 9W metal and crew (who were in 9W uniforms) took many by surprise. many, esp in F, were double checking to make sure it was an EY flight.

the seats were good, comfortable but IMO not as comfortable as CX F, and the all around finish of the seats looked a bit aged. screen resolution was great for a plane - might have been 720p - so that was good. doors closed, slept well, and everything worked. it was great for a 14 hour flight.

obviously the 9W crew had training from EY, but it was kind of like waiters from applebees were given a quick run down and then thrown into a l'atelier de joel robuchon, or replacement refs in the nfl, or replacement players in mlb during the 1996 strike. they were super friendly and kind and genuine and you could tell they were trying hard but stuff slipped through the cracks and they seemed just a bit scattered. i didn't get pjs and an amenity kit until i asked when we were up in the air, though everyone else around me did. i ordered a nicoise salad, soup, shrimp appetizer, and chicken entree and the shrimp never came. they took orders for drinks to be delivered after we were in the air and i was brought the wrong drink (they came back 10 mins later and said oh whoops, you didn't order that, let me fix). didn't get the customary bottle of water post meal while my gf did (who was sitting next to me). asked what the chef special was for the night (since they tell you to ask) and he said "i can stuff a piece of chicken with some fish." the person who did my gf's turndown service didnt know how to do it - this was weird. she kind of folded a sheet in half and placed it in the center of the seat. eventually she asked someone else to help her she she wasn't quite sure what to do and because "the sheet is too small." none of this is a big deal and we let all of it pass, however i doubt any of it would have flown with an EY crew.

the biggest difference between this and the EY operated/metal flights, and one that was mentioned earlier in this thread, is that on the 9W flights the menu is 90-95% indian. now we like indian food a lot, but after a week of eating pho and spring rolls and noodles and fried rice we were both really looking forward to ribeyes topped with a filet and a side of NY strip with t-bones for dessert. however, i asked the chef about steak and he said the flight had no beef. i realize that cows are sacred in indian culture and that it was a 9W plane with 9W crew, but this was supposed to be an etihad flight with etihad standards, et al. this was disappointing, but the food we did eat was good and presented well (although small things such as the placemats are different.

so yeah, no biggies and overall it was a great flight (esp for what we paid - i would do it all again). for F class on an airline that promotes itself as one of the world's leading carriers i wanted to point these thing out since they may matter more to some people, especially with the "operated by" tag. also, since we had taken CX 879 from SFO-HKG in F on the way in 6 days earlier and with the flight immediately before with an EY crew, both of which were on-point service-wise, this stuff may have been more noticeable.

we're on EY metal for our return in december so i'll be interested to compare.

any questions, let me know!

ps. i have pics of the menu; will try to update with these later.

IAN-UK

The kudos might be limited after the fall-out from the "good fight" becomes clear.

emma dog

Are you saying the group of 80+ shouldn't have filed a CTA complaint?

largeeyes

Is a $200 F class ticket RGN - Canada really what you want in your holster going to battle with Swiss at the CTA? I think the point was that this case wasn't exactly the strongest and the unintended consequences remain unclear.

whimike

Why do people keep quoting a $100-$200 ticket? The amount charged to my credit card wasn't remotely that low. In the US, at least, it would have been illegal, and considered deceptive, for any agency that sells the ticket we bought to advertise or sell it as being a $100-$200 ticket

$110 was the "base fare", which is irrelevant to the consumer as it isn't the complete price that the consumer pays, and is often just a fraction of what the consumer pays.

As a case in point, I paid $1500 for my tickets.

Deltahater

you are absolutely correct, but why let facts get in the way of a good story?

There are several people on here who have an airline affiliation which they refuse to disclose, but their posts are so blatant that it is easy to identify and dissmiss their self-serving posts.

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

Perhaps it is partly explained that in many parts of the world tickets come with massive fuel surcharges that are usually included in the base fare in the USA.

While component pricing has been stamped out in plenty of countries, the fuel surcharges still appear on our tickets... and can be half (or more) of the actual 'fare'.

Qantas for example might charge $400 fuel component on an $800 fare.

CX fares (if booking via their portals in Thailand or HKG just as an example) can sometimes double the advertised fare on the booking page by the time extras are added.

So if we see a $1000 fare, it would not necessarily be unreasonable for many to appreciate the base fare could be low... whereas in the USA you might think you are paying close to $1000 (less actual taxes).