warakorn

There is no denying on my part that TK will deny a EC261/2004 claim.
However, German courts are quite efficient to enforce valid claims. As TK has assets in Germany, enforcement is easy.


Largely, that does not matter.
First of all the Amtsgericht Wedding court (responsible for TXL) would hear the case and decide, whether a valid ticket was there or not from a legal point of view. They can issue an enforceable judgement. A superior court is not needed. Only if one party appeals the judgement, the case would move to the Landgericht Berlin (superior court).

This would be a weak argument for TK. EC261/2004 definitely applies to TXL-IST-KUL. We all agree that TK denies boarding, hence, article 7 and 8 of EC261/2004 is triggered. Who issued the ticket and where the ticket was issued does not matter at all.

For the OP it would be quite easy to prove that the ticket was cancelled with no valid reason (breach of contract). It is TK (Turkish Airlines) who would bring forward the argument that no valid ticket existed. Then it is for TK to prove that no valid existed. The OP can easily produce the e-ticket receipt. TK then has to prove that it cancelled the ticket with a valid reason. TK wont be able to prove that. You argue that the reason lies outside of the EU.
I give you an example:
QR cancels a flight TXL-DOH. QR refuse to pay article 7 compensation to affected pax, because the plane produced a technical fault while being on the ground in DOH. DOH is not part of the EU, hence, QR does not have to pay. Do you think a German court would accept such a line of argumentation - that somehow if the cause of a cancellation/denied boarding lies outside of the EU, the airline does not have to pay its EC261/2004 obligation?


Well, this is your opinion. Is that opinion backed up by any provisions in the terms and conditions of Turkish Airlines?

ISTFlyer

I won’t argue more on this.

If you are %100 sure that the OP could claim compensation with the current situation or board the TK flights with the cancelled ticket, go for it.

I would also like the OP to get compensation and TK to pay his expenses.

This is something completely different, obviously QR should pay the necessary compensation to all affected passengers in this case.

( Disregarding the fact if the OP is has valid documentation or not )

According to TK, the employee in SIN made a fault accepting the OP and he was onboard SIN-IST; if that employee accepted him, this means that TK has no right to leave him into his own faith. The OP might not have money or a valid credit card to purchase another ticket. So, TK does not have the right to terminate the OP’s journey in IST.

IAN-UK

~Wasn't there a very similar case reported in this forum recently? A passenger accepted for travel at his origin, but thrown out of his trip at Istanbul.

The airline has to be responsible for he actions of its agents.





There's been an awful lot of squabbling about the repercussions of this unfortunate case. But can we agree that, on the face of it, TK behaved badly?

warakorn

Well, first of all I recommend the OP to get some written document/screenshot, which shows that the segments TXL-IST-KUL had been cancelled. The content of a phone call can usually not been proven in a court of law.
Anyhow, I would advise OP to write an email (or sth. that is trackable and where OP can prove that that message was received by TK) to demand reinstating the segments TXL-IST-KUL; and advising TK that a failure to reinstate the segments would constitute a denied boarding situation according to EC261/2004.
Moreover, the OP must ask TK for a replacement ticket for TXL-IST-KUL.
I expect that TK wont help the OP and basically ignore the requests.

After that the OP should claim for EUR 600 EC261/2004 compensation plus the cost of a replacement ticket TXL-KUL, which OP had to purchase himself.

TK will deny paying any money - surely.

Then I would go down the road with the help of a German lawyer.

a4phoenix

Just some update: i'm safely back in KUL, aside of this denied boarding issue, i was able to have my family vacation, entering and leaving schengen area from different countries, without any problem.

Wrote a polite complaint email to TK and received reply basically saying, "we checked your documents and you did not have proper documentation, so no compensation".

Don't want to spend more than necessary time with TK so I'll just avoid them all together in the future (don't think I'll miss much).

Thanks again for all of your replies & comments.

aritrixa

Is that a specific TK issues?

As I have 6 trips like OP had for the last 5 years, entering and leaving Schengen area with visa issued by different country than the entry point.
I flew with EY, SQ, QR and EK. None of them ever raised the issue.

I also depart from CGK

ISTFlyer

The OP was traveling on his first trip to Europe with his current visa. Also, he had separate tickets ( Discounted ticket on Norwegian to Paris from Oslo ) which made the situation more suspicious. If he had flown IST-OSL on a SK codeshare and had OSL-CDG on the same ticket, the next day, he wouldn't have any issues.
On second and later trips with the same visa, I personally did not have any issue traveling on any airline including TK.

aritrixa

Noted. Thanks for the reply

In 2017, I flew with EY: CGK-AUH-MXP//DME-AUH-CGK with main destination (longest days spent): one Schengen country -not Italy- and Moscow (another separate visa of course).
But again, no similar issue happened when boarding at AUH to Milan.

At least I learn from this thread when the situation force me to fly with TK to EU, as I travel to HQ every other month.

IAN-UK

This seem such an odd reaction for a Flyertalk contributor, that i'm curious enough to ask the impertinent question... How much out of pocket are you?

a4phoenix

new ticket IST-CDG + TXL-KUL around $900.
the norwegian ticket OSL-CDG was another $150.

& if you don't mind me asking, what would be a normal / not odd reaction?

IAN-UK

fighting to get the money back !!

rossteixeira

Are there any other examples of this happening with TK recently?

SK AAR

You mean having a TK ticket to a Schengen country different from the country that you obtained the Schengen visa with ? - in general a bad idea as it exposes you to denied boarding at origin if the ground staff there take the position that you will primarily stay in different country that the country that you applied for Schengen visa for.