Lack

Why not? The regulation scope has been expanded quite significantly via various court decision and I bet dollar to donuts if an airline would outright void tickets in a more traditional scenario to dodge responsibility they would be still compelled to fall back in line.
As with all EC261 claims there's virtually no downside for airlines to ignore or deny their responsibilities until passengers escalate.

irishguy28

Because it is totally the wrong "tool" for the job. (Furthermore, to open your battle against BA by referring to EC261/2004 would just advertise to them that you were a novice who had no chance of "convincing" them to reinstate the ticket).

It's a very common misconception here that, whenever an airline passenger has a grievance against an airline, that EC261/2004 is the best, or only, defence.

It is not.

You say the scope of protection has been expanded quite significantly - but it hasn't. The scope has been clarified, but it has not been extended beyond the only situations it was intended to cover - namely, assisting the passenger in cases of long delay, involuntary denied boarding, involuntary downgrading, and cancellation of flights.

If you are having trouble with lost baggage, you don't turn to EC261/2004. It is not about baggage disputes.
If you are making a claim for injury or death, you don't turn to EC261/2004. It is not about compensation for death or injury.
If an airline unilaterally cancels a ticket on the grounds that an obvious pricing error occurred and no valid contract ever existed, you don't turn to EC261/2004. It is not about disputes of contract.

There are other mechanisms to deal with these disputes. Here, you would have to bring a case claiming breach of contract, referring to the relevant national and case law in the field of contracts.

EC261/2004 simply has nothing to say, and no help to give you, in this case.

flieduk

On the face of it yes. But EU law has to be effective. The issue is that an airline could simply place a provision in their contract that they can cancel a ticket without notice. You could imagine the Ryanairs of the world then just saying "we have cancelled the tickets of everyone on this flight but not cancelled the flight which is just delayed by 48 hours".

By analogy to your statement that the Regulation only covers flights (and not tickets) that have been cancelled, the Regulation only explicitly provides compensation in respect of cancellations (and not delays) but hey presto the CJEU have since implied in to the Regulation a right to compensation for Delays!

Arguably, denied boarding could be relied upon as an alternative. The issue here is that it is quite bizarre that an airline would be obliged to re-accomodate you if they cancelled the flight because of issues beyond their control but is quite at liberty to cancel your ticket due to a clause they have put in the contract. I think the IDB provisions could be read wide enough to ecompass this issue. Whether or not a court would do so is another issue.

Note, however, I agree that any argument based on EU261 is not the strongest. It is a subsidiary argument. The key argument is the contractual one.

Thanks for noticing this. I just checked quickly. As I say, it does not effect me.

+1

I would agree that it is not the best tool for the job. Still a good back up though. Certainly would not lead with it.


Not sure I would agree. Long delays never appeared within the terms of the Regulation. CJEU (quite rightly on one view) had to engage in some judicial creativity to ensure that the Regulation could effectively be enforced and not circumvented by airlines.

Lack

And "give me back my ticket or I'll sue your ... in court" is advertising anything else?

Nope, the most common (and also present in here) misconception around EC261 revolves around it kicking within the 2 week mark.
I don't see how "ticket dispute" when you had a reservation and ticket numbers in hand would be anything different then clarifying the regulation like it was happening with connecting flights and delays constituting a cancellation.

irishguy28

The regulation arose in response to a perceived lack of customer care in certain specific cases.

The scenario of unceremonious cancellation of tickets with claims of obvious pricing error was not one of these cases.

Ergo, no go with this text.

Plenty of other legal texts apply; just not this one

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

error - deleted.

skba1

I would like to see the outcome once somebody here takes it to court in the UK or Germany.

To me it is not at all an "obvious mistake" to pay €1100 to fly BA's F to KUL. You can fly QR C for this price during a sale, and that product offers a similar seat and food to BA F - overall a very similar on board experience, and the ticket rules regarding flexibility are pretty similar.

It would be an obvious mistake if a fare was €41,34 instead of €4134, but paying €1100 for a longhaul premium cabin is very much normal - albeit for the initiated maybe more so in C than F - however I very much doubt it can be "obvious" to the general public, which is what a judge has to assume that the customer entering the contract with BA is.

Single_Flyer

Thank you. And I would say for 99% of the traveling public around the world, this would NOT be an obvious mistake. It it was €11 I think it would be hard to say it isn't obviously a mistake fare. But €1122 is a lot of money.

I told a friend I purchased a ticket from Germany to Malaysia for this price and she thought that was expensive. She doesn't travel much (never in first class). But this is in NO WAY an obvious mistake.

lorcancoyle

One for casual reading...

https://www.scribd.com/doc/165664646...Fare-Judgement

Guy Betsy

Actually by even commenting here in a public forum is enough for BA to argue that the general public knows it is a mistake fare and that you intend to take advantage of it. They can bring up where your registered address is, your normal travel patterns and why the sudden rush to purchase this ticket.

Perhaps the greatest advantage of any mistake fare is not calling it a mistake.

Not calling the airlines used to work. But airlines now have systems in place that tell them if there is a sudden increase in tickets originating from a particular city and purchased through various websites over a short period of time.

esledo

So it seems that the segments have been cancelled (status HX instead of HK), but the ticket is still there and all four coupons are open for use.

Bonaventure

On What grounds can we fight this?

lorcancoyle

I've booked BA CW ex-UK to Seoul (with all that entails for APD cost) when oil was over $100 a barrel for under £800

I've booked KLM business (no F) to Tokyo ex-UK (APD again) for €1250 or so

Buenos Aires (ex-UK) in CW (no F) for under £1000 when oil was around $70

American to LAX from CDG for a base fare of c. €500, or €1,000 incl. surcharges (did I mention oil was $100 a barrel then?)

€1900 F to SYD is certainly good value compared to those, but...

lorcancoyle

You're perfectly entitled to take a court case against BA if you wish - but it could involve hefty costs on your side, and possibly paying BA's costs if you lose

Not a route I'm planning on going down myself, but YMMV

I'm now waiting for the FT ads to switch from Heathrow Rewards to no win / no fee lawyers!

FFlyerCDG

I really love your "innocence" :-))
The general public, as you say, just has to go to BA website and try to buy an F class ticket and what he will find will be far, very far, from €1.100...
And I'm not sure a judge will follow you when you'll try to explain him that QR C is the same product as BA F !

And be kind enough to let me know the next time you'll find an F longhaul product for €1.100 which is not an error fare... I'll be more than happy to buy a handful of them :-))