EU261 question
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: CPH, Swedish side of the bridge
Programs: SK*G (EBD)
Posts: 574
EU261 question
This is an odd situation I have never seen before, and would like some advice/info.
A colleague's family was traveling SFO-CDG-ARN on a ticket via a OTA. SFO-CDG was UA, CDG-ARN was SK.
On check-in at SFO their bags were ticketed to ARN but the agent could not print a boarding pass CDG-ARN. At CDG they were denied boarding on the SK flight with the argument that their booking was SFO-CDG, ARN-SFO. This is clearly not true, since the bags were ticketed to ARN. Also, while the family was at CDG I was called to check on the problem. UA / SK clearly had SFO-CDG as the whole outbound flight. LX, however, had the full SFO-CDG-ARN routing on their system (home flight routed via ZRH). That this was an error is also clear since they were rebooked on another flight.
So some airline dropped the ball. Instead of arriving ARN at 16:30 they arrived at 23:50. Which airline should be contacted regarding the compensation, and is it €600 since it was TATL or only €400 for the CDG-ARN leg (which is luckily 1534 kilometers)?
Thanks for your help!
A colleague's family was traveling SFO-CDG-ARN on a ticket via a OTA. SFO-CDG was UA, CDG-ARN was SK.
On check-in at SFO their bags were ticketed to ARN but the agent could not print a boarding pass CDG-ARN. At CDG they were denied boarding on the SK flight with the argument that their booking was SFO-CDG, ARN-SFO. This is clearly not true, since the bags were ticketed to ARN. Also, while the family was at CDG I was called to check on the problem. UA / SK clearly had SFO-CDG as the whole outbound flight. LX, however, had the full SFO-CDG-ARN routing on their system (home flight routed via ZRH). That this was an error is also clear since they were rebooked on another flight.
So some airline dropped the ball. Instead of arriving ARN at 16:30 they arrived at 23:50. Which airline should be contacted regarding the compensation, and is it €600 since it was TATL or only €400 for the CDG-ARN leg (which is luckily 1534 kilometers)?
Thanks for your help!
#2
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada, USA, Europe
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 31,452
I'm a bit confused...
1. Was this all on one ticket? (Is it possible the the OTA tacked together two separate flights? - though this does not answer the LX view)
2. Whose ticket stock was it on?
3. How did they eventually fly into ARN? (Why were they let on the later flight while being denied on the former?)
4. My reading of this (making some assumptions) is that SK denied boarding on the intra-EU leg, so probably €400.
1. Was this all on one ticket? (Is it possible the the OTA tacked together two separate flights? - though this does not answer the LX view)
2. Whose ticket stock was it on?
3. How did they eventually fly into ARN? (Why were they let on the later flight while being denied on the former?)
4. My reading of this (making some assumptions) is that SK denied boarding on the intra-EU leg, so probably €400.
#3
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Tokyo
Programs: JAL Metal Card (OWE), SAS Eurobonus Gold (*G), Marriott Titanium (LTP), Tokyu Hotels Platinum
Posts: 21,090
If there was a problem in the system, I doubt that compensation is due. If this is the case, SK would have no choice but to make the passengers wait until it can be clarified
But it really needs the clarity of what was the specific tickets issued. (The fact that LX could see the whole flight would make me suspect that one ticket was SFO CDG, and another CDG ARN ZRH SFO.)
Also, how was the problems solved.
But it really needs the clarity of what was the specific tickets issued. (The fact that LX could see the whole flight would make me suspect that one ticket was SFO CDG, and another CDG ARN ZRH SFO.)
Also, how was the problems solved.
#4
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: CPH, Swedish side of the bridge
Programs: SK*G (EBD)
Posts: 574
1. Single ticket.
2. UA stock.
3. UA rerouted them CDG-FRA-ARN with LH. Possibly SK FRA-ARN, unsure.
4. Yeah, the TATL flight was fine, it was the connection that didn't work.
Thanks again!
2. UA stock.
3. UA rerouted them CDG-FRA-ARN with LH. Possibly SK FRA-ARN, unsure.
4. Yeah, the TATL flight was fine, it was the connection that didn't work.
Thanks again!
#5
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Tokyo
Programs: JAL Metal Card (OWE), SAS Eurobonus Gold (*G), Marriott Titanium (LTP), Tokyu Hotels Platinum
Posts: 21,090
It sounds a like a strange case.
I guess best course is to claim denied boarding comp with SK, either they will get the comp or a detailed explanation of what happened.
To be honest I lean towards an explanation be upcoming, though no comp But that's just me guessing
I guess best course is to claim denied boarding comp with SK, either they will get the comp or a detailed explanation of what happened.
To be honest I lean towards an explanation be upcoming, though no comp But that's just me guessing
#6
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denmark
Programs: TK Elite
Posts: 11,771
Apparently, the pax had for some unknown reasons no valid ticket for the CDG-ARN leg. Therefore this is not a denied boarding situation; denied boarding requires a valid ticket. Someone screwed up, most likely the OTA or UA when ticket was issued. That is probably also why UA agreed to rebook the pax to ARN. UA is not liable for denied boarding as per EU Reg. 261/04 as UA was not the operating carrier. Maybe UA is liable to comp. under US law but I have no qualified opinion on this.
#7
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Tokyo
Programs: JAL Metal Card (OWE), SAS Eurobonus Gold (*G), Marriott Titanium (LTP), Tokyu Hotels Platinum
Posts: 21,090
Apparently, the pax had for some unknown reasons no valid ticket for the CDG-ARN leg. Therefore this is not a denied boarding situation; denied boarding requires a valid ticket. Someone screwed up, most likely the OTA or UA when ticket was issued. That is probably also why UA agreed to rebook the pax to ARN. UA is not liable for denied boarding as per EU Reg. 261/04 as UA was not the operating carrier. Maybe UA is liable to comp. under US law but I have no qualified opinion on this.
#8
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada, USA, Europe
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 31,452
#9
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: CPH, Swedish side of the bridge
Programs: SK*G (EBD)
Posts: 574
There is only one PNR, so I can't really see how this would be the case. UA gladly routed the bags to ARN, so it must have been in their system at check-in at SFO.
#11
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: MEL CHC
Posts: 20,987
As above, the "ticket via a OTA" is a possible cause.
#12
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: CPH, Swedish side of the bridge
Programs: SK*G (EBD)
Posts: 574
Great question - I don't know, but can try to find out. The really strange part to me is routing the bags to ARN. If there is no valid ticket then that shouldn't have happened. I am really leaning towards IT snafu, since I could see everything in LX system, and there was nothing that looked odd there, even though SK's and LH's systems showed something different.
#13
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: CPH, Swedish side of the bridge
Programs: SK*G (EBD)
Posts: 574
Any theories?