unknown786

So does that mean the flights will stay the same on the OTA/CX websites and people will only find out when they get to the airport?!

napolivola

PLease give a look to the advices that CX sent to its Agents

The amendment of Hong Kong Trade Description Ordinance

Cathay Pacific Airways (CX) and Dragonair (KA) would like to remind all the travel agents that the amendment of Hong Kong Trade Description Ordinance (TDO) is in effect from 19July2013 which has broadened the scope of the TDO by:-

 extending the false trade descriptions offence to cover services;
 creating a number of new unfair trade practices offences;
 strengthening the enforcement mechanisms available to authorities;
 giving a right to individual consumer to claim damages;
 extending extraterritorial application

Given that similar consumer protection legislations have been adopted in many other jurisdictions, please be reminded to comply with the applicable requirements under the TDO and any other applicable consumer protection laws when you sell or supply any products or services on behalf of CX / KA. In particular when travel agents sell any products/services for and on behalf of CX/KA, agents should ensure :

1. They provide all materials and important information to customers about such CX and KA products/services (including, for example, pricing information, product features and availability), and the information should be provided in a clear and unambiguous manner, so that the customer can make a well informed transactional decision; and
2. That any information when provided/ communicated on behalf of CX and KA to customers are accurate and true, and if they have any questions about any particular information provided by CX and KA, please contact CX and KA for any queries.

Dos

- Travel agent must provide the full Trade Description, it includes any indication by whatever means direct or indirectly about how products/services is supplied, or its standard, quality, grade, availability (time and quantity) and price (including fares, taxes, fees, carriers imposed fees or how it may be calculated), terms for additional charges and payment, delivery arrangements and cancellation rights.
- Travel agent must provide customers with accurate, truthful and relevant
information about CX&KA services and products.
- Travel agent must check and verify information about services/products before publishing or providing to consumers.
Travel agent must present information about our services and products in a clear, intelligible and timely manner.

Don’ts

- DO NOT give any service/products information to consumers if agents think itmay not be true of accurate.
- DO NOT omit or hide any material information in our promotions, sales terms and conditions and any other communication (in whatever means) to customers about our services/products.
- DO NOT give/make any promises to consumers where agents have doubt as to whether agents can keep.

Do you think they observed what they reccomended to its Agents?

I'm far to be a lawyer, just found interesting this stuff, i was also not aware about the Hong Kong TOD.

beardie

talked to a person with access to GDS, but he cannot check tickets issued by different OTA, so he can't confim nor deny that statement
nevertheless, my booking is still confirmed on CX website

IAN-UK

oops! duplicate ..

skunker

This is true. Most OTAs will restrict the PNR so others cannot view it in the GDS.

AA_EXP09

depends-if it's within 2 weeks, then the ticket is protected by 261/2004 regulations.

IAN-UK

The airline doesn't need to "prove" anything. It will claims it reasonable to believe the purchaser was taking advantage of what he knew, or should have known, to be fares promulgated in error. And on that basis it cancelled his ticket, rescinded the contract. There's abundant, clear, evidence to support the claim. The onus will be on the consumer, who is suing the airline, to convince the court otherwise. And that will be difficult.

You don't make a successful argument based on wooly theories and "could have beens". You need an individual prepared to declare that he genuinely believed the fare to be published as the airline intended; that it never crossed his mind there was something odd in such an extraordinarily low cost ticket: he'll need to be prepared to face questions as to how exactly he came across the fare, how often he travelled to Europe to begin transcontinental journeys on separate tickets. Courts and tribunals are tough, brutal places: they ask hard questions and listen carefully to the quality of the answers.

There was a recent case in the UK where the purchaser of error tickets successfully established his bona fides, convincing a court that the tickets had been purchased in good faith. But the purchaser had a robust case, in which he was able to provide clear evidence of valid fares in the same ball-park as the error fares he'd purchased, that he'd habitually purchased such fares (and he also provided a reasonable explanation of why he'd bought himself multiple versions of the error ticket, but that was a twist specific to that case ).

You describe a consequential loss I would attribute to the purchaser's ill-judgement.

The question for the courts is always going to be was it reasonable of him to believe that the tickets he purchased were A1, good to go, kosher and hunky dory.

The consumer either bought the ticket in good faith, or he did not. If he did, then compensation and restitution flow from that. If he did not act in good faith then, well, it's tough: caveat emptor

For me, the question is why in heaven's name he made non-refundable arrangements based on a dodgy ticket.



Though hang on! I now understand that the hotel stay was bought from the agency offering the flight. If the the hotel was booked at rates contingent on, specific to and at the same time as the flight arrangements, and the accommodation was for the duration of the trip, the agency may have unwittingly created a package holiday.

This would afford much greater protection to the consumer (mainly under UK Package Travel Regulations) ..... but this being the case, the agency has probably been careful not to offer a package as defined by the regulations, essentially by making it clear there are separate contracts, one with the airline and the other with the hotel.

IAN-UK

I don't think EC261 has much to say about contract law ..... the airline's position would, presumably, be that he did not have a valid ticket.

That would be something argued out in the courts, and any compensation awarded would likely be much more satisfactory than anything offered under EC261

FlyingGnu

I've flow for the same prices even greater distances, with promotional fares that airlines intended to cause a *promotional* effect. A small number of very cheap fares can bring revenue by attracting media attention or new customers.

In Brazil there was an UA sale (not explicitly advertised by UA), with U$ 150,00 tickets to Orlando/FL, by far the most popular and sought after destinations by Brazilians. Prices were usually around U$ 1000,00. I bought 4 of those, flew 3 and gave up on one. BTW, I actually put those tickets on hold and called a day later to process the payment. The rep told me the tickets would probably take a little bit longer to be issued because of the current *promotional fares*. Only at this time UA itself was telling me it was a promotional fare.

Can I be considered a thief for buying a product/serviced priced at 15% its usual price when the company takes my money? What if it was 10%? What if it was 5%? Where do you draw the line?

Because of that, and the status I was achieving by flying those tickets, I bought another one, this time quite an expensive ticket with UA. Everyone seems to hate UA these days, but it's a company that won my business with promotional fares.

jorun

CX will not honor the tickets but at least they are giving us the possiblity to prove them that they are lying!

Look what they are sending:
http://postimg.cc/image/j5hzhz4gx/

Now let me explain:

We all paid taxes, surcharges AND we also paid the AIR FARE! Actually the AIR FARE should be 11 CHF because the BASE FARE is 0 EUR but we are paying 11 CHF Q.
The Q doesn't appear as "surcharges" but it is part of the Fare!!!
It means that our ticket price are Air fare 11CHF + Fuel surcharges!

It is clear that:
1) our ticket AREN'T free because CX will take the money above
2) Fare ISN'T 0 EUR but it is 11 CHF!


We don't have to sue the airline and they will not honor the ticket BUT we have the possibility to prove that they are lying and so we can write on their facebook / twitter page the true.

We have all the screenshots from GDS and also the screenshot above to prove what I'm saying.

Let me know what you think.

beardie

I wonder, why don't they just cancel it on CX website?

unknown786

I agree - this definately isn't true!!!!

Out of interest, did your OTA send you the notice?

jorun

CX sent it to some OTA. And they told about air fare 0 via phone and e-mail.

I don't care if they honor or not honor. I will not sue them.

I just want to prove that they are lying! Please open twitter and facebook post. you have screenshot of your e-ticket receipts and their official comunication.
Just explain what is wrong about their statment "free ticket".

unknown786

Still waiting for the OTA I used to communicate this to me as I still haven't heard from them!!!

jorun

https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&...cific&src=typd

Mat opened a tweet about this problem. Search for "Mat" tweet