Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Mileage Run Deals > Mileage Run Discussion
Reload this Page >

[PREM FARE GONE] Mad-scl biz $280 return

[PREM FARE GONE] Mad-scl biz $280 return

Old Jun 17, 22, 7:03 am
  #466  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denmark
Programs: TK Elite
Posts: 10,011
Originally Posted by megaloman
The ECJ has ruled (I think it was Emirates, and more recently United) that if pax has a connecting ticket departing the EU, whole trip to the final destination falls under the EC261/2004 - so cancellation/denied boarding at GRU would be subject to it too, when connecting from MAD-GRU.
Yes, if LA operated the flight ex. MAD/EU. If flight ex. MAD is not operated by LA, EU Reg. 261/04 doesn't apply for a LA segment outside EU. Good luck in pursuing a claim against LA in this situation.
SK AAR is offline  
Old Jun 17, 22, 7:12 am
  #467  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 1,479
Originally Posted by SK AAR
In theory, IB or LA could let the pax travel on these tickets but downgrade to Economy at check-in against refund of 75% of the actual fare paid for the segment in question (according to EU Reg. 261/04)
Ouch. That'd be pretty insidious
tr3k is offline  
Old Jun 17, 22, 7:13 am
  #468  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: In between BRU, AMS, DUS and LUX...
Programs: AF/KL Plat, BA Gold, TK Silver, IHG Platinum, MR Gold, HH Gold, A-Club Silver, Hertz PC
Posts: 981
Originally Posted by megaloman
The ECJ has ruled (I think it was Emirates, and more recently United) that if pax has a connecting ticket departing the EU, whole trip to the final destination falls under the EC261/2004 - so cancellation/denied boarding at GRU would be subject to it too, when connecting from MAD-GRU.
Correct, I remember that the jurisprudence was following a complaint against CZA Czech Airlines and a missed/delayed onward connection on Etihad. The judges had ruled that if two airlines can agree on things like codesharing, pricing and interlining, they should also respect the obligations and compensation rules such as EC 261/2004 and therefore when the passenger arrived late (At the destination in BKK) due to a late connection, the airline needed to respect the obligations of EC 261/2004. In that case, the ECJ stated that the contractual carrier was CZA, and that any compensation or assistance should be paid for by CZA, but even if the contractual carrier would have been an out-of-EU airline such as Etihad (or LATAM), since the trip departed from the EU, the outcome would have been the same for the passenger.
So here, if there is denied boarding or downgrade in GRU and that the MAD-GRU and GRU-SCL are on the same ticket, EU 261/2004 should kick in per my understanding. That being said, I appreciate that it is easier to write this on a forum in the comfort of my office compared to explaining this concept to a Brazilian LATAM employee during the boarding process of an international flight in Sao Paolo...
On the contrary, I assume that if you are booked on a LA marketed and operated flight SCL-GRU and then GRU-MAD (whoever the operator would be) and get downgraded (or worse, a denied boarding) in SCL, the recourse(s) you have may be very different...

Edit : Here is a link for more details.
wmaciej, megaloman, becks1 and 1 others like this.

Last edited by palmanfr; Jun 17, 22 at 7:24 am
palmanfr is offline  
Old Jun 17, 22, 7:14 am
  #469  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: WAW ✈ LHR ✈ GLA
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, HH Diamond, IHG Spire Ambassador
Posts: 2,457
Originally Posted by SK AAR
Yes, if LA operated the flight ex. MAD/EU. If flight ex. MAD is not operated by LA, EU Reg. 261/04 doesn't apply for a LA segment outside EU. Good luck in pursuing a claim against LA in this situation.
I respectfully disagree. Get familiar with the ECJ rulings regarding EC261/2004 and you'll find out that it has clarified that in case of connecting flights starting from the EU, regulation applies till the final destination.
megaloman is offline  
Old Jun 17, 22, 7:18 am
  #470  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denmark
Programs: TK Elite
Posts: 10,011
But given your example the claim would be against IB, not against LA.

As you state, good luck in trying to get the point through to LATAM staff at GRU by arguing that you have a claim under EU Reg. against IB....
SK AAR is offline  
Old Jun 17, 22, 7:21 am
  #471  
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 250
Wow, dont give them any ideas!

My ticket is still live on both Iberia and LATAM sites for next weekend.
becks1 is offline  
Old Jun 17, 22, 7:21 am
  #472  
Shl
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Programs: BA Gold/ Star Alliance Gold
Posts: 380
Originally Posted by ChocolateFactory
Guys. Please stop spreading myths.
If EU261 applies, it doesn’t matter at all if the booking is cancelled 2 or 200 days before departure.
The 14 day limit is only relevant for additional compensation.
If they cancel, they will say that EU261 doesn’t apply.
The 14-day rule is relevant for the compensation of 600 Euro per pax.
Airline has also to take care of re-imbursement for all costs related to the cancelation (hotels, connection flights etc)
Only thing in court might be the discussion about extraordinary circumstances. However, since this fare was created by the airline itself without any influence from outside, this will probably not be relevant.

Our flights are next week. That's the reason we are quite familiar with the rules.

Please see the exact wording also below.If your flight is cancelled you have the right to choose between reimbursement, re-routing or return.

You are also entitled to assistance at the airport.

If you were informed of the cancellation less than 14 days prior to the scheduled departure date, you have a right to compensation. The airline has the obligation to prove if and when you were personally informed that the flight was cancelled. If this is not the case you can contact your national authority for further assistance.

However, compensation is not due if the carrier can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. The airline has to prove this by providing, for example, extracts from logbooks or incident reports. The air carrier should give this evidence to the relevant national enforcement body as well as to the passengers concerned in line with national provisions on access to documents.

Addition:
For everyone being sceptical if LATAM will pay this - that's the reason why there is a national enforcement body. EU court has decided 2 months ago, that a traveler can bring the airline to court in the departure country (in this case Spain(. This also means that Spanish law is relevant and the national enforcement body in Spain.

Some people mentioned, that EU261 would not count for connections This is wrong. The entire trip is covered as soon as it starts from a European airport or is carried out by a European airline. Relevant is, that all segments are on one ticket. Carrier decision is based on who issued the ticket.

In our case: Ticket issued by LATAM but starts from a European airport. All segments on same ticket -> entire trip is covered by EU261

Last edited by Shl; Jun 17, 22 at 7:30 am
Shl is offline  
Old Jun 17, 22, 7:42 am
  #473  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denmark
Programs: TK Elite
Posts: 10,011
Originally Posted by palmanfr
On the contrary, I assume that if you are booked on a LA marketed and operated flight SCL-GRU and then GRU-MAD (whoever the operator would be) and get downgraded (or worse, a denied boarding) in SCL, the recourse(s) you have may be very different...
In that situation it is very clear that you don't have a claim under EU Reg. The flights are not ex EU and LA is not a community carrier.
SK AAR is offline  
Old Jun 17, 22, 7:45 am
  #474  
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 63
Originally Posted by Shl
The 14-day rule is relevant for the compensation of 600 Euro per pax.
Airline has also to take care of re-imbursement for all costs related to the cancelation (hotels, connection flights etc)
Only thing in court might be the discussion about extraordinary circumstances. However, since this fare was created by the airline itself without any influence from outside, this will probably not be relevant.

Our flights are next week. That's the reason we are quite familiar with the rules.

Please see the exact wording also below.If your flight is cancelled you have the right to choose between reimbursement, re-routing or return.

You are also entitled to assistance at the airport.

If you were informed of the cancellation less than 14 days prior to the scheduled departure date, you have a right to compensation. The airline has the obligation to prove if and when you were personally informed that the flight was cancelled. If this is not the case you can contact your national authority for further assistance.

However, compensation is not due if the carrier can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. The airline has to prove this by providing, for example, extracts from logbooks or incident reports. The air carrier should give this evidence to the relevant national enforcement body as well as to the passengers concerned in line with national provisions on access to documents.

Addition:
For everyone being sceptical if LATAM will pay this - that's the reason why there is a national enforcement body. EU court has decided 2 months ago, that a traveler can bring the airline to court in the departure country (in this case Spain(. This also means that Spanish law is relevant and the national enforcement body in Spain.

Some people mentioned, that EU261 would not count for connections This is wrong. The entire trip is covered as soon as it starts from a European airport or is carried out by a European airline. Relevant is, that all segments are on one ticket. Carrier decision is based on who issued the ticket.

In our case: Ticket issued by LATAM but starts from a European airport. All segments on same ticket -> entire trip is covered by EU261
All correct, BUT: if it was a genuine and honest mistake on their part that you shouldve noticed the airline can cancel the sale without any compensation.
patvd is offline  
Old Jun 17, 22, 7:49 am
  #475  
 
Join Date: Mar 2022
Location: London
Programs: OW
Posts: 29
I would like to just share this from the flash sale.
palmanfr likes this.
Dralexus is offline  
Old Jun 17, 22, 7:51 am
  #476  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: BOS, YVR, ZRH
Programs: *G
Posts: 15,254
Originally Posted by Dralexus
I would like to just share this from the flash sale.
This doesn't mean that much. I routinely see PE or J priced below economy, all depends on inventory, route and dates.
Smiley90 is offline  
Old Jun 17, 22, 7:52 am
  #477  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denmark
Programs: TK Elite
Posts: 10,011
Correct, Applicaplity of EU Reg. requires that there is a valid ticket/agreement. If the carrier argues that there is no binding agreement/contract/ticket because of a fare mistake and pax knew/ought to have known this (and carrier is successful on this point) you can forget about invoking EU Reg. 261/ 04 rights.
ChocolateFactory likes this.
SK AAR is offline  
Old Jun 17, 22, 7:52 am
  #478  
Shl
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Programs: BA Gold/ Star Alliance Gold
Posts: 380
Originally Posted by patvd
All correct, BUT: if it was a genuine and honest mistake on their part that you should’ve noticed the airline can cancel the sale without any compensation.
Absolutely correct. That's why I stated "discussion could be around extraordinary circumstances"
However, there is also EU ruling which states that in such case the buyer has to be notified IMMEDIATELY after such error has been found.
If this is not the case the seller has no right to contest the contract. Also then it would be quite clear that it was not an OBVIOUS mistake as it took very long for the airline to see it. Such then the buyer can not be made responsible to have known about the mistake (without stating it is a mistake)

With regards to EU261 I am not aware of any such case, where extraordinary circumstances can come in place for a question on pricing. Circumstances in EU261 are quite clearly described as ATC, Weather, Terror, Authroitive decisions etc. It might well be that EU261 and what you are describing are totally separate cases.
megaloman and becks1 like this.
Shl is offline  
Old Jun 17, 22, 7:53 am
  #479  
Shl
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Programs: BA Gold/ Star Alliance Gold
Posts: 380
Originally Posted by SK AAR
Correct, Applicaplity of EU Reg. requires that there is a valid ticket/agreement. If the carrier argues that there is no binding agreement/contract/ticket because of a fare mistake and pax knew/ought to have known this (and carrier is successful on this point) you can forget about invoking EU Reg. 261/ 04 rights.
We have a ticket with ticket numbers
Shl is offline  
Old Jun 17, 22, 7:57 am
  #480  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: In between BRU, AMS, DUS and LUX...
Programs: AF/KL Plat, BA Gold, TK Silver, IHG Platinum, MR Gold, HH Gold, A-Club Silver, Hertz PC
Posts: 981
Originally Posted by Shl

In our case: Ticket issued by LATAM but starts from a European airport. All segments on same ticket -> entire trip is covered by EU261
You're right - but only if your return is operated (not sure if needs to be marketed too) by a European carrier (such as IB). If your return flight(s) is/are on LA, not all your trip will be covered by EU 261/2004, but only the part departing the EU (+ connections on the same ticket, even if outside EU). Chilean consumer protection laws would apply for instance on a denied boarding for a LATAM flight SCL-MAD - and I am not sure if this protects you much...
palmanfr is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread