Missed check in and Swiss refuses to rebook
Dec 20, 2018, 1:13 pm
#16
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
On that we can agree. LX sticks to the rules and it expects the same of its customers.
You will always know where you stand with LX. Just look at the contract and the fare rules and the published guidance and you will be absolutely fine.
I have no idea why the OP's parents turned up at the deadline and with not one split second to spare. But, I am absolutely certain that if they had been their one second early, LX would have checked them in and one second late, they would have been denied boarding.
You will always know where you stand with LX. Just look at the contract and the fare rules and the published guidance and you will be absolutely fine.
I have no idea why the OP's parents turned up at the deadline and with not one split second to spare. But, I am absolutely certain that if they had been their one second early, LX would have checked them in and one second late, they would have been denied boarding.
Dec 20, 2018, 1:14 pm
#17
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: ZRH / YUL
Programs: UA, TK, Starwood > Marriott, Hilton, Accor
Posts: 7,295
It should not be surprising that a for-profit business, such as LX, should seek to maximize its revenue while minimizing its cash disbursements, both within the legal framework it is bound by.
The naive notion that a company's management would say "we don't give out money when we don't have to, so let's not collect money when we don't need to" is simply not grounded in capitalist reality.
I really doubt that a US airline or hotel chain would see this any differently. In fact, with consolidation in both hotels and airlines in the US, the remaining mega-providers have gained "leverage" over customers - extract more for delivering less.
The naive notion that a company's management would say "we don't give out money when we don't have to, so let's not collect money when we don't need to" is simply not grounded in capitalist reality.
I really doubt that a US airline or hotel chain would see this any differently. In fact, with consolidation in both hotels and airlines in the US, the remaining mega-providers have gained "leverage" over customers - extract more for delivering less.
Dec 20, 2018, 6:13 pm
#18
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,450
It's one thing to defend LX's policy as merely enforcing the rules. It's quite another to assert that LX's policy is industry standard, because it is not.
Dec 20, 2018, 11:04 pm
#19
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: ZRH / YUL
Programs: UA, TK, Starwood > Marriott, Hilton, Accor
Posts: 7,295
This wasn't a flat tire or any other unforeseen event. The passengers simply chose to show up at JFK with 0 minutes left to spare to the published check-in deadline.
Dec 20, 2018, 11:13 pm
#20
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,450
I've had similar experience on AV when I showed up two hours after my flight departed purely through user error. Rebooked on next flight no issue. Same on DL. We stayed too long in one of the airport restaurants. Arrived at the gate just after they had closed the door. Rebooked next flight no problem.LX is far outside the norm. Of course, this is a country where they charge you to use the "public" restroom in a train station.
Last edited by Kacee; Dec 20, 2018 at 11:21 pm
Dec 21, 2018, 12:07 am
#21
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NYC
Programs: UA
Posts: 444
You might try actually reading the thread. You don't need an excuse. If you contact UA within the specified time period, they will rebook you without charge. OP's parents would have qualified. Experienced such mercy about two years when I got stuck on a conference call in the United Club LAX and missed my flight. UA GA put me on the next flight no problem. I did lose my F seat though I've had similar experience on AV when I showed up two hours after my flight departed purely through user error. Rebooked on next flight no issue. Same on DL. We stayed too long in one of the airport restaurants. Arrived at the gate just after they had closed the door. Rebooked next flight no problem.
LX is far outside the norm. Of course, this is a country where they charge you to use the "public" restroom in a train station.
I've had similar experience on AV when I showed up two hours after my flight departed purely through user error. Rebooked on next flight no issue. Same on DL. We stayed too long in one of the airport restaurants. Arrived at the gate just after they had closed the door. Rebooked next flight no problem.LX is far outside the norm. Of course, this is a country where they charge you to use the "public" restroom in a train station.
The flight tire so called rule is not a worldwide concept — some posts about BA and it is a case by case basis.
Flat Tyre Rule | Cut Off For Meal Loading | Missed Flight
BA Condition of Carriage 3c4 – Is an `Event Beyond Your Control’ an `Act of God'
Dec 21, 2018, 12:52 am
#22
Join Date: Feb 2013
Programs: LH M&M, BA EC, DL SM
Posts: 5,723
When I travel, I usually have to go through FRA (to be avoided), MUC (now my favorite, again) or ZRH. After the new lounges opened at ZRH in E in 2016, I started to route more and more of my trips via ZRH. In 2017 and until mid-2018, I flew via ZRH at least every other week, sometimes several times a week, to the point that all of the bartenders in the SEN whisky bar knew me by name and I knew their work schedule. Then LX really inconvenienced us on a flight with the whole family (all in C) and refused to make it right, where LH would have made a much more generous offer in the same situation. The result: they minimized their „cash disbursements“ in this particular case, but none of my upcoming flights (more than 20 legs already booked for 2019, including a good number of long-hauls in C and F) are routed via ZRH. It is up to you to judge whether it made economic sense to stubbornly stick to the „we do not required to do it by law and so we don‘t“ attitude. After all, although they are not bound by European law, they operate in a European market and people have other choices.
Dec 21, 2018, 1:03 am
#23
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: ZRH / YUL
Programs: UA, TK, Starwood > Marriott, Hilton, Accor
Posts: 7,295
[It is up to you to judge whether it made economic sense to stubbornly stick to the „we do not required to do it by law and so we don‘t“ attitude. After all, although they are not bound by European law, they operate in a European market and people have other choices.
My point simply is that I find the mentions upthread about "morals", "ethics", "fairness" etc. to be naive.
Is this cash-maximizing attitude by LX galling and short-termist? Absolutely. Is it surprising? No. Is it sustainable? We will see - the more consolidated the market, the better the chances they (= LH Group already) get away with it.
Dec 21, 2018, 6:39 am
#24
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: HPN
Programs: not anymore! I'm FREE!
Posts: 3,459
I certainly agree with that, and I encourage customers to vote with their wallets to the extent that they can.
My point simply is that I find the mentions upthread about "morals", "ethics", "fairness" etc. to be naive.
Is this cash-maximizing attitude by LX galling and short-termist? Absolutely. Is it surprising? No. Is it sustainable? We will see - the more consolidated the market, the better the chances they (= LH Group already) get away with it.
My point simply is that I find the mentions upthread about "morals", "ethics", "fairness" etc. to be naive.
Is this cash-maximizing attitude by LX galling and short-termist? Absolutely. Is it surprising? No. Is it sustainable? We will see - the more consolidated the market, the better the chances they (= LH Group already) get away with it.
We can all agree that the OP should have arrived at the airport earlier. Most of us would also agree that LX's behavior towards an elderly couple, who probably are not frequent fliers, is also unacceptable. I doubt that anyone is going to push for a "flat tire law", but who knows what would happen if there were enough stories like the OP's. That is why discussion of fairness is completely relevant.
Dec 21, 2018, 8:14 am
#25
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
EC 261/2004 has created the very environment which LX (as well as is fairly typical of other European carriers) has created, It is binary and a set of hard-line rules in which people who have suffered nothing more than a minor inconvenience are rewarded with a cash bonanza. Some 15 years into the process, the on-time performance of flights covered by the Regulation (all EU carriers plus all non-EU carrier departures from the EU) has not appreciably changed. Thus, it is simply a cost of doing business, But, it does not lead to any variances. Consider that if the couple had been offered a free rebooking to the later service as a courtesy, While the quick cash seems alluring, the Regulation has generated the result you see.
There are fundamental business model differences between the US and European carriers. "Flat tire" and the like are neither abstractions nor acts of "morality, ethics, or fairness." Rather, they are the product of a more fluid booking, change, and handling process.
Standing by, whether through a formal SDC, SDSB, or simply informally-handled process, as well as day-of-travel change fee waivers, are common for US carriers (although the specifics vary). Showing up at the departure airport and asking to take the earlier flight is often out of the question and likely expensive on a European carrier,
All of this results in the fact that more-often than not, the individual who no shows for a UA flight will be replaced by another passenger, perhaps even the passenger whose seat the no show will occupy later. The impact on net revenue is minimal. For LX, this is not likely the case and the seats which one skipped will likely go out empty and if a seat on the next flight is given away for free, there is a greater chance of revenue loss.
There are fundamental business model differences between the US and European carriers. "Flat tire" and the like are neither abstractions nor acts of "morality, ethics, or fairness." Rather, they are the product of a more fluid booking, change, and handling process.
Standing by, whether through a formal SDC, SDSB, or simply informally-handled process, as well as day-of-travel change fee waivers, are common for US carriers (although the specifics vary). Showing up at the departure airport and asking to take the earlier flight is often out of the question and likely expensive on a European carrier,
All of this results in the fact that more-often than not, the individual who no shows for a UA flight will be replaced by another passenger, perhaps even the passenger whose seat the no show will occupy later. The impact on net revenue is minimal. For LX, this is not likely the case and the seats which one skipped will likely go out empty and if a seat on the next flight is given away for free, there is a greater chance of revenue loss.
Dec 21, 2018, 8:55 am
#26
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: HPN
Programs: not anymore! I'm FREE!
Posts: 3,459
EC 261/2004 has created the very environment which LX (as well as is fairly typical of other European carriers) has created, It is binary and a set of hard-line rules in which people who have suffered nothing more than a minor inconvenience are rewarded with a cash bonanza. Some 15 years into the process, the on-time performance of flights covered by the Regulation (all EU carriers plus all non-EU carrier departures from the EU) has not appreciably changed. Thus, it is simply a cost of doing business, But, it does not lead to any variances. Consider that if the couple had been offered a free rebooking to the later service as a courtesy, While the quick cash seems alluring, the Regulation has generated the result you see.
You are explaining the means, not the rationale for the ends. The rationale for having "more fluid" policies to begin with is presumably to accommodate customers, who are human and not machines. There is a profit motive for doing that, sure, but if you leave the individual agent some flexibility to make decisions, they will be based at least a little bit on fairness, independent of any immediate or even long term consideration of profit. Companies can be heartless automata. Individual people are less likely to be.
Dec 24, 2018, 5:49 am
#27
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 6
Sorry, but there are some factual issues here which do not help your parents. I'll be blunt, because sugar-coating won't help them.
They were presumably traveling in Y (they purchased extra leg room). The LX check-in deadline at JFK is T-75 for Y passengers. Thus, even had there been no lone, they would likely have missed check-in and even a very short line meant they were definitely too late. LX recommends arriving 3 hours prior to departure. That is not a requirement, but it is hard to argue about lines and the like when you do not follow the recommendation.
At T-75, LX would have cancelled your parents' reservations. That happens on pretty much all carriers and is likely automated. What happens next is dependent on your parents' fare rules. If these were standard discounted penalty fares and all of this was caught before departure, they are subject to paying a penalty + fare difference to be rebooked. While it would have been nice of LX to have waived the fees or the fare difference or even both, it is entirely discretionary and not typical of LX to have done so.
The $1,600 is likely made up of roughly a $300 fee and a $500 fare difference x 2. You can look at the fare rules and assure yourself that the $300 is correct and also look at their original and new fare bases to figure out whether the fare difference makes up the rest. The numbers your parents were charged are certainly in the ballpark.
While I doubt that this will do any good, they should write (perhaps you can help) a clear & concise letter explaining what happened. But, they need to get the facts much more clear than in your OP. Arriving at the last second as you say they did would have been a problem for an Olympic athlete as much as for an elderly traveler. If the numbers are correct, theirs is a plea for mercy. If the numbers are wrong, then it is a demand for a refund.
Finally, I see the entire Expedia and who is responsible for assisting as a red herring. It doesn't matter and the fact is that when you called, LX helped out.
Not to berate you or your parents, but because this is a public forum, cutting deadlines too close is always problematic. It is even worse when someone is inexperienced and perhaps a little less able to sprint around. Better to take the carrier's suggestions than to show up as check in is closing and hope that there will be no line of any kind.
They were presumably traveling in Y (they purchased extra leg room). The LX check-in deadline at JFK is T-75 for Y passengers. Thus, even had there been no lone, they would likely have missed check-in and even a very short line meant they were definitely too late. LX recommends arriving 3 hours prior to departure. That is not a requirement, but it is hard to argue about lines and the like when you do not follow the recommendation.
At T-75, LX would have cancelled your parents' reservations. That happens on pretty much all carriers and is likely automated. What happens next is dependent on your parents' fare rules. If these were standard discounted penalty fares and all of this was caught before departure, they are subject to paying a penalty + fare difference to be rebooked. While it would have been nice of LX to have waived the fees or the fare difference or even both, it is entirely discretionary and not typical of LX to have done so.
The $1,600 is likely made up of roughly a $300 fee and a $500 fare difference x 2. You can look at the fare rules and assure yourself that the $300 is correct and also look at their original and new fare bases to figure out whether the fare difference makes up the rest. The numbers your parents were charged are certainly in the ballpark.
While I doubt that this will do any good, they should write (perhaps you can help) a clear & concise letter explaining what happened. But, they need to get the facts much more clear than in your OP. Arriving at the last second as you say they did would have been a problem for an Olympic athlete as much as for an elderly traveler. If the numbers are correct, theirs is a plea for mercy. If the numbers are wrong, then it is a demand for a refund.
Finally, I see the entire Expedia and who is responsible for assisting as a red herring. It doesn't matter and the fact is that when you called, LX helped out.
Not to berate you or your parents, but because this is a public forum, cutting deadlines too close is always problematic. It is even worse when someone is inexperienced and perhaps a little less able to sprint around. Better to take the carrier's suggestions than to show up as check in is closing and hope that there will be no line of any kind.
Dec 24, 2018, 5:52 am
#28
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 6
This isn't even a "flat tire". The parents simply arrived at the check-in deadline. Perhaps they missed the fact that JFK is a 75-minute deadline in Y (60 minutes in F/J). But, there is no explanation provided for their tardiness. To be frank, one piece of advice for anyone who is a bit slower or less experienced is to simply allow more time.
Dec 24, 2018, 6:11 am
#29
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA, France
Programs: LH HON*****, AF/KL Gold; HHilton Diamond; Marriott Gold; IHG Platinium; Avis PresClub
Posts: 934
No it is not a flat-tire situation, as traffic jams in New York are very common, especially during rush hour.
Dec 24, 2018, 6:14 am
#30
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 6
It should not be surprising that a for-profit business, such as LX, should seek to maximize its revenue while minimizing its cash disbursements, both within the legal framework it is bound by.
The naive notion that a company's management would say "we don't give out money when we don't have to, so let's not collect money when we don't need to" is simply not grounded in capitalist reality.
I really doubt that a US airline or hotel chain would see this any differently. In fact, with consolidation in both hotels and airlines in the US, the remaining mega-providers have gained "leverage" over customers - extract more for delivering less.
The naive notion that a company's management would say "we don't give out money when we don't have to, so let's not collect money when we don't need to" is simply not grounded in capitalist reality.
I really doubt that a US airline or hotel chain would see this any differently. In fact, with consolidation in both hotels and airlines in the US, the remaining mega-providers have gained "leverage" over customers - extract more for delivering less.