Landmark ruling by German court?

[Al Fakhem]

As reported in today's "Der Spiegel" at

http://www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/0,1518,443894,00.html

a German court has ruled in favour of a company that sued for damages when an airline refused the former's employees return flights on tickets with unused outbound coupons.

Based on a clause in its General Terms and Conditions, the airline had cancelled bookings on return flights when the outbound coupons had not been used. The company in question had booked return flight combinations for its employees, but used outbound and return flights from different ticket pairings.

In the test case, the passenger had been refused boarding by the airline as he had not used the outbound ticket of his return ticket and was forced to buy a new one-way ticket to fly home. The airline had argued that the return fare combination was a specially priced fare that could only be availed of if both outboud and inbound flights were flown.

The court ruled that German contractual law allows anyone to avail freely (i.e. wholly or partially or not at all) of a service for which they have fully paid.

[ChrisVJ]

A couple of years ago we booked flights to Europe on Air Canada using Air Miles. They were offering a special from Victoria BC to London. A month before the flight the tickets arrived and we had been re-routedvia Vancouver, which is just down the road from wherewe live, rather tan a ferry ride.

We contacted Air Canada. "No, we can't change the ticket because Air Miles won't allow us to." We contacted Air Miles. "No we can't change the ticket because Air canada wont allow us to" We pointed out that we had tickets so maybe we could justwalk on with other passengers in Vancouver. "No, if you do not board in Victoria (differnt plane too) your ticket will automatically be cancelled." We hammered away at this for three weeks to absolutely no avail.

Four days before our trip the Ferry workers announced they were going on strike the day before we were to leave (8.30 am flight) Air Canada sent a new booking in approx 3 mins. The day after the ferry workers agreed a new contract, no strike. We got on in Vancouver anyway. We got off in Vancouver on the way back too. Never did hear if they missed us on the Van -Vic leg.

When Air Canada arrived late and my son missed his West Jet flight in Calgary, Air Canada just shrugged and said not our problem, but West jet had him on the first flight next morning, gave us a credit even though it was not their problem, and phoned after to make sure we were happy with their service.

Now West Jet have joined the Air Miles system, guess who we like to travel with.

If the principal that a service fully paid for can be used wholly, in part or not at all is also in British Law, then it is likely to by Canadian Law too unless Canadian law has been enacted differently. Be interesting to know.

[cwatters]

It will be interesting to see if this also applies to return tickets that are only valid for short periods. For example Eurotunnel (the train operator betwwen England and France) have just quoted me...

Single £85-95 (depending on time of day)
Overnight return £22-27

So if I want to go for a month it's a lot cheaper to buy two return tickets and only use half of each.

However the T&Cs preclude this...

"For return bookings failure to complete both outward and return journeys invalidates your booking and you will be liable to pay for the journey completed, the difference between the price paid and the relevant single fare applicable at the time your journey was made".

[Lon More]

cwatters The overnight return is probably only available at certain times. The booking computer could also be programed to flag anyone attempting to complete the return leg without using the outward portion.

[411A]

It's all quite simple, folks.

Just use the ticket in the way it was intended to be used, since the fare quoted/agreed to by the respective airline, and paid for by the passenger, seems quite straight-forward to me.
OTOH, many crew like to manipulate the 'system' and thereby create problems for themselves, and others.

In fact, I knew of one Captain who simply had a stash of discounted tickets, and simply changed the destination, at will, at outstations.
This worked (surprisingly) for awhile, but later on, an agent noticed, and the Captain was promptly sacked...and no end of contract bonus either, as he had abridged the conditions of service.

Silly boy.:rolleyes:

[RAT 5]

Why does everyone want to make an easy job difficult? 411A, as usual, stands up for the establishment instead of common sense. For gwad's sake, why is there all this nonsense about how long you spend anywhere, and if it's a weekend, and if you want to transfer the flight. A flight from A-B, the price of a hamburger, the cost of a hotel room, a cup of coffee: it is what it is. How can it be a different price on a Monday than a Tuesday, or a single from a return. When will common sense prevail!!!!? AGH! I thought travel companies were trying to attract pasengers by making it simple, not the opposite.

[411A]

Yes indeed it is, Rat5.

You go to the travel agent or the airline, and buy a ticket.
Well now, guess what, it has 'stipulations'.

Namely, you pay the agreed price, discounted or not (and many are) then travel as agreed.

I ask you...what could be more simple?

If you can't follow simple directions, you get caught.

(Double) silly boy.

These discounted fares have 'restrictions.'

My God, what could be so hard about this?

Unless of course, you are trying to...ah, manipulate the system.

Then, all bets are off, and you get caught.
Double (double) silly boy....:}

[Final 3 Greens]

Its even simpler 411A.

Law takes precedence over terms and conditions.

[TightSlot]

But, doesn't 411A make a reasonable point?

Surely, when you buy a ticket, you enter into a contract with the airline. We expect the airline to honour its' end of the contract (many of the comments in here relate to times when the airline doesn't) and it is reasonable for the airline to expect us to reciprocate.

We may feel it is odd to charge different fares on different days and times, but that is the product and the price, and as consumers, we may choose to buy it or not.

Discuss...:)

[chornedsnorkack]

But, doesn't 411A make a reasonable point?
Surely, when you buy a ticket, you enter into a contract with the airline. We expect the airline to honour its' end of the contract (many of the comments in here relate to times when the airline doesn't) and it is reasonable for the airline to expect us to reciprocate.
We may feel it is odd to charge different fares on different days and times, but that is the product and the price, and as consumers, we may choose to buy it or not.
Discuss...:)

There are unenforceable contract terms, though. And there is a good reason to suspect that airlines have been putting inappropriate terms in their contract. After all, there are many passengers and few airlines on each route - airlines can choose their customers and get replacements for those who do not like fine print, while the passengers cannot do that so freely.

Airline can reasonably charge different fares on different days and times, among other reasons because the demand and supply differ on different days. However, attempting to sell a product AND forbid using part of it for the price of the whole is something that the airlines should not do, and those who do it or have ever done it (almost all) should pay through the nose for it.

[beardy]

Not all airlines stipulate that the outbound leg must be used.

I was delayed 24hrs downroute (broken aircraft.) I missed the outbound leg of the flight that my wife had booked as a surprise birthday present. Without the necessity of special concessions Air France honoured the return leg, allowing me to make my own way to join my wife for my 'surprise' birthday treat.

If the case for 'special rates' for 'particular flights' etc. were so compelling then the case would be as commercially important that the return (as well as the outbound) leg must be flown. Evidently it isn't.

Of similar concern is the difficulties placed by some airlines in the process of buying return tickets from another country, i.e. buying a return ticket from/to Bonn when the purchaser is in the UK.

411A has a point, but IMHO it is myopically made.

[Al Fakhem]

Whilst many countries know the concept of "contractual freedom", the point made by the German court in this case was that demanding from customers to actually avail of the entire service they purchase was unenforceable.

In the hospitality industry, for instance, it would be totally unacceptable if you were to book and pay for a package for two weeks at a beach hotel, interrupt your stay (let's say to go off for a weekend in the capital city), and then have the holiday hotel charge you based on the (higher) price for individual nights stayed.

[rmac]

So the airline can overbook and offload me. However if I buy a seat on their aircraft and then choose not to fill it with my physical bottom, and they in turn generate extra revenue by filling it with someone elses overbooked and almost offloaded bottom, the airline reserves the right not to accept my physical presence on the other leg which I have booked,

Sounds like an explanation from a Kafka novel :ugh:

[Final 3 Greens]

But, doesn't 411A make a reasonable point?
Surely, when you buy a ticket, you enter into a contract with the airline. We expect the airline to honour its' end of the contract (many of the comments in here relate to times when the airline doesn't) and it is reasonable for the airline to expect us to reciprocate.
We may feel it is odd to charge different fares on different days and times, but that is the product and the price, and as consumers, we may choose to buy it or not.
Discuss...:)

You can hire a hitman, but it does not mean that the contract is lawful.

[TightSlot]

You can hire a hitman, but it does not mean that the contract is lawful.

Possibly one of the most eloquent and economical responses I've come across - and given that I'm 2 x Gin & Tonics down after being thrown around the skies for a few hours, I won't even attempt to counter it! :O

and so to bed...