BA What if I fly 3 out of 4 legs?

[jethrobee]

Hi,

I have a quick question, I am over in Holland at the start of the week, and shortly I am going from AMS via LHR to BOS with BA, I live in London, but the return journey is back to AMS via LHR. Is there a major problem if I get off in LHR?

I will only be traveling with hand bags, since it is only a 4 day work trip, that has been pushed on me last minute (hence AMS as the originating airport).

Otherwise, I've got to go back to AMS to come back to LHR the same evening.

Cheers
Jeff

[L'aviateur]

I've been in a similar situation many times, and recently have done it quite a bit where I've got a KLM flight with the last leg AMS-HUY booked with KLM and a AMS-DSA booked with easyjet, and then if all has been on time just jumped straight onto the Easyjet, and similar situations.
There are some past threads on here about how the airline could in theory demand money from you for this, or how it could cause mayhem.

But if I'm honest when your carrying handbaggage, they might make a call out for you if you miss the flight, but they won't delay the flight. And if they did, I apologise for those people who've been delayed getting to HUY on a Friday night!

So if I was you, I'd just take my bags and walk out of the door in LHR, no problems.

[MathFox]

Is there a reason why you didn't buy an "open jaw" ticket in the first place? (Buy AMS-BOS & BOS-LHR back)

[wascrew]

mathfox


im guessing because it was cheaper apologies if it wasnt


there was high profile customer many years ago who used to do similar with concorde tickets that were cheaper from the continent routing through lhr an not fly the last sector (e.g lhr/cdg)


BA eventually pursued him for fraud


so they are fully aware of what goes on

my advice is complete the full trip

[jerboy]

It's fine, just tell the agent you want to fly the BOS-LHR leg only, if they ask why just say your plans have changed. It's really no big deal and they can't force you to get on board an aircraft.

Even if you were checking bags in just say you wanted them checked to LHR only. The old "You've lost my bags before" line will suffice!

However, as stated above, don't make a habit of it. They will catch up with you!!

[Dairyground]

If the booking conditions allow, why not rebook the LHR-AMS leg to some date in the future and use it when you actually want to go there.

One, or even two, change charges may be less than the cost of a one-way ticket.

[L'aviateur]

'wascrew' is that Concorde story an urban myth? I've searched online extensively, and haven't seen anything collborating such a story, please post any links if you know of any.

I see it highly unlikely that an airline would follow up on this, and actually take action to recoup costs. I would happily be taken to court for my actions, would be very interesting to see the argument and outcome.

[radeng]

You could always say that you were feeling unwell while at LHR and were unfit to fly the last leg. No airline wants to be lining up for departure (especially at LHR) and have to return to gate to unload a sick PAX.

[jethrobee]

Main reason is that my return from AMS was scheduled for the Monday when I now need to get to BOS.

My options were :-

1) pay to change the AMS return date, and then book from LHR -> BOS
2) book a return to AMS and jump off the plane at LHR on the way back.

So basically I have booked AMS return because it was cheaper (by over £1000) to do than a change to the existing ticket plus the cost of the flights from Heathrow.

its not something I intend making a habit of, but just seemed crazy, cheaper and less hassle.

[Hartington]

wascrew/l'aviateur I can't specifically confirm the case mentioned but I was involved in one case where a UK agency was booking Concorde from an Eastern European point via London to the US. They even sold a London/East Europe one way and an hotel there to make a package (sort of). The passengers simply got off in London on the way back.

BA spotted it and took action against the agency.

[One Outsider]

Entering into an agreement with no intention of honouring it for monetary gain is also known as fraud.

[caiman27]

I'm sure many people remember the flight-only tickets that were available on the holiday charter flights in the 1970s and 1980s - they always included a voucher for accommodation in someone's garden shed (or similar) as the unwanted and un-needed but required hotel component of the "package".

I suppose this was a fraud also :)

[ExXB]

In their submission to the European Commission IATA set out the reasons why airlines require sequential and complete use of flight coupons.

You can read it here (http://www.iata.org/worldwide/europe/Documents/Govaf_1107ec_passenger_rights.pdf) on their website - in particular beginning on page 12 and their response to Q19 including the attachments. Be warned, it is a lengthy document.

To summarise, and paraphrase. BA has a price for AMS-LHR-BOS-LHR-AMS, they also have a price for AMS-LHR-BOS-LHR which is different (and likely higher due to the functioning of the market). It is not within your rights to substitute one service you have paid for, with another service that you have not paid for. In particular you may not do so without advising them in advance.

Sounds silly, on the face, but IATA's explanation in the attachments make it clear why the airlines are insistent on this point.

[Globaliser]

I see it highly unlikely that an airline would follow up on this, and actually take action to recoup costs.BA has been known to follow up recidivist offenders - although in the one specific example I've seen where someone confessed to being hassled, BA told him to finish flying his booked itineraries and worked with him to get feasible dates sorted out.

I think that the occasional missed sector in a general pattern of fully-flown itineraries is highly unlikely to result in any action. And BA will no doubt have an eye on the revenue involved. There are fewer bargain prices for ex-EU tickets now compared to several years ago, making it much less attractive for London passengers to "misuse" them.

[Jimlad1]

As a one off occurrence, the cost to BA of pursuing the case would be far in excess of any monetary loss they felt they had sustained in this ocurrence. However, I could see them being difficult if it was a regular habit.

[piton]

Not to mention the fact that BA charging 1000 GBP more for having to provide (in effect) less of a service is just wrong!

I'm taking advantage of BA's marketing strategy on my vacation next month. I live on the continent and was originally traveling to London on another carrier for practical reasons. Was quoted fare X for flight to my holiday destination from London. Then things changed (hadn't booked yet) and I decided to travel all four sectors on BA - the quoted fare was X minus 80 pounds!! (And yes I did check the London only fare on that date and it hadn't changed) Felt sorry for the pax BA is overcharging from the UK!

I know this is supposedly to stop me traveling with another European carrier to my destination - but it isn't even served by any of them, only Virgin who were more expensive anyway. Go figure. Somebody in the pricing department is sleeping on the job.

If I had no bags and it was more efficient to get off in London I certainly would. Might not do it if I was traveling the same route every month but as a one off..... BA certainly has other things to worry about and at departure time -10 mins they'll check and say missing one pax, internet check in, no bags, lets go!

just my 2 eurocents worth.....

[ExXB]

Not to mention the fact that BA charging 1000 GBP more for having to provide (in effect) less of a service is just wrong!...

Felt sorry for the pax BA is overcharging from the UK! ...

I know this is supposedly to stop me traveling with another European carrier to my destination ...

Go figure. Somebody in the pricing department is sleeping on the job. ...


In the good old days of IATA fare setting, and heavy government regulation pricing did work as you suggest, with a reasonable difference in relation to the distance from the point of departure. AMS to BOS would be more expensive than LHR to BOS.

However the market doesn't work that way. BA's price from AMS to BOS must be set in relation to other airline's prices in the same market. If they set it at the LHR level, or higher, they would likely get little business out of AMS. No, they need to look at what the non-stop airlines are charging and what the other indirect airlines are charging and put their price where they think they can attract the business. (At a later stage the wizards in payload control (aka yield management) will decide how many seats to make available at the AMS price-point and how many to hold off for future LHR sales; etc.) You can see the price of LHR-BOS is irrelevant to what they can charge for AMS-BOS. The important decision is if they are prepared to carry traffic at that level (and that isn't done by the pricing department).

Are BA over-charging for LHR origin? Well if the customer is prepared to pay that price that suggests that basic economics are working; in particular when cheaper options are available via other airlines and/or via intermediate points.

I don't think anybody wants to see IATA price setting return, just because it's neat and tidy.

[Dryce]

Are BA over-charging for LHR origin? Well if the customer is prepared to pay that price that suggests that basic economics are working; in particular when cheaper options are available via other airlines and/or via intermediate points.


People want direct flights and LHR US is a restricted/controlled market. Barriers to entry are high. So basic economics are indeed working - but in this case not to the benefit of the customer.

[wascrew]

l`aviateur


``'wascrew' is that Concorde story an urban myth?`

definitely not!!

you wont find it by searching


from the horses mouth when i was following up a complaint from the mentioned customer



i dont think it reached litigation more likely a quiet word in the corporate clients` shell like


presume this individual had allowance to offset against personal travel

[ExXB]

People want direct flights and LHR US is a restricted/controlled market. Barriers to entry are high. So basic economics are indeed working - but in this case not to the benefit of the customer.

Couldn't agree more, but the restricted/controlled market is not restricted/controlled by the airlines providing the direct flights. Who nixed the third runway? Here the market is not being allowed to function.

You also need to define 'benefit of the customer'. For example the customers have access to the direct flights they want, at a price they are prepared (albeit grudgingly) to pay. That too is a benefit, but one that is harder to quantify. If price was so important, they would all fly via AMS/BRU/PAR/REK/YTO/YMQ.

[Globaliser]

Not to mention the fact that BA charging 1000 GBP more for having to provide (in effect) less of a service is just wrong!You can only fix this "problem" by abolishing the deregulated air fare market. In that market, air fares are not necessary linked in any way to the length of the journey.

You know, the one that's led to the cheapest economy fares to Hong Kong still being below the cheapest economy fares available in 1976 - in numerical terms, never mind what inflation's done to money in the intervening decades.

[Capetonian]

I see it highly unlikely that an airline would follow up on this, and actually take action to recoup costs. I would happily be taken to court for my actions, would be very interesting to see the argument and outcome.

Try it. You'd lose. Guaranteed.

[Dryce]

Try it. You'd lose. Guaranteed.


Has an airline successfully won in court against a passenger? Against an agent or intermediary maybe because that's all I can recall being mentioned when the discussion about this sort of thing and back-to-backs comes up.

I think you'll find that if it went to court against a passenger the airline would lose. The argument would be that if you fly 3 sectors out of 4 then there is no loss to the airline - no damages or compensation due to the airline - and that the airline was being unreasonable.

That would set a precedent and possibly lead to more questions and tests on ticketing restrictions that the airlines really don't want.

[Globaliser]

The argument would be that if you fly 3 sectors out of 4 then there is no loss to the airline - no damages or compensation due to the airline - and that the airline was being unreasonable.In this type of contractual claim, the question of whether there is any loss to the airline is pretty much irrelevant. The question is what the contract provides, including what the contract provides that you will pay the airline if you do not do what you have promised to do.

A passenger's contract with an airline usually includes some provision that if you use your ticket for different travel from that for which you have bought the ticket, you will pay to the airline the difference in fare. If you fly only AMS-LHR-JFK-LHR, your travel is distinctly different from your travel if you fly AMS-LHR-JFK-LHR-AMS. Amongst other things, in the first situation you end up in a different place from the second situation.

So the question really is whether that provision in the contract is so unreasonable that it falls foul of legislation like the UK's Unfair Contract Terms Act. But if the airline offers a product that flies you AMS-LHR-JFK-LHR-AMS, and a different and more expensive product that flies you AMS-LHR-JKF-LHR, is it so unreasonable for the airline to say that if you want the latter product you should buy it rather than misuse the former product?

A German court has given some ruling about the sequence of coupon use and a choice not to use the last sector of a ticket. Its details appear to be rather impenetrable, but the consequence is that Lufthansa now offers you a choice when you book: either fly all of the ticket coupons in sequence for price A, or for price B have the freedom to pick and choose which coupons you want to fly in which sequence.

Of course, price B is much cheaper than price A. (Only kidding!)

[ExXB]

In the converse I have never heard of a case being won (ultimately) by passengers breaching their contact with airline's having sequential / complete use of coupons provisions. In a few case low courts have agreed with the passenger, but these have always (?) been overturned.

There is a history of airlines winning the cases, but usually when it was the first flight rather than the last (and with the passenger suing the airline after being denied boarding). I would imagine that when airlines do find repeated abuse (my term) they would not resort to the courts, but would find other ways of having the passenger cease and desist. A polite letter to begin with ...

I could almost envision the passenger being met on arrival at Heathrow by a very large 'customer service representative' who would escort the passenger to their connecting flight ... :ouch:

The question is what the contract provides, including what the contract provides that you will pay the airline if you do not do what you have promised to do.BA's Conditions of Carriage say that they will not carry you on subsequent flights, until you have paid any difference. They don't limit this to subsequent flights on the ticket in question, but to any future flights.

[jethrobee]

BA's Conditions of Carriage say that they will not carry you on subsequent flights, until you have paid any difference. They don't limit this to subsequent flights on the ticket in question, but to any future flights.

So, if I don't take the 4th leg BA will refuse to carry me in the future? Guess I wont make my 12 year as a gold exec :)

[L'aviateur]

I've been doing this for years, and know others that do the same. I would like to see an actual case relating to this situation, where the last sector is not completed.

It's also like when I book 4 or 5 fully refunable fares with a certain airline and cancel all but one at the last moment when my itinerary is confirmed. Did wonder whether the airline had any rights in that situation.

[Capot]

Forget the legal horse-manure......

Get off, bags and all, go to the transit desk via a circuitous route, go to the back of the queue, waste time not understanding what you have to do to get your connecting flight to AMS, make sure they won't forget you in a hurry, take names etc, then go off to the loo, find your way back to the right gate, arrive 5 minutes too late in floods of tears if you are female, a raging temper at the incompetence of all concerned if you are male, threaten to sue, storm off.

Immigrate quietly and go home. Write a 5 page letter of complaint at how you were forced to miss your connection, family devastated, huge expenses incurred (careful here, you can't produce evidence), never fly BA again, cutting up Gold Card. Address to Willie Walsh personally.

End of story.

[Shack37]

Immigrate quietly and go home. Write a 5 page letter of complaint at how you were forced to miss your connection, family devastated, huge expenses incurred (careful here, you can't produce evidence), never fly
BA again, cutting up Gold Card. Address to Willie Walsh personally.


Could cost you your Staff Travel:E

[Momo]

The principle of all of this has been tested in court and has stood up over time. I was deeply involved in competition law at the time. The case must be about 15 years old. It concerned British Rail. Their price from London to Edinburgh was lower than the price from London to some place along the line, I am going to say Newcastle. The took someone who bought the Edinburgh ticket but got off at Newcastle to court to recover the difference. British Rail won the case. The reason is that a transport ticket is a contract. The transportation company agrees to take you, and you agree to travel, all the way.

M