Boarding a plane in between flights?

[IamPAX]

Hello everyone,

We all know that flying can be very expensive. For me it can be worth the trouble to first fly to LON and continue my journey from there, instead of flying directly from AMS.

Suppose i want to fly to KUL from 09 Nov til 27 Dec.

A direct flight using KLM from AMS woud cost 949.60 EUR
An indirect flight using KLM from LHR (then a stop at AMS) would cost 695.40 EUR.
But here is the trick: both flights leaving Amsterdam have the same flightnumber (KL 0809) I.e. it's the same plane.

Any smart traveler would think "Oh well I'll just board the plane at AMS then", right? Wrong! Now have a look at KLM's general conditions of carriage for passengers and baggage. Other airlines have similar conditions.


3. Coupon Order of Use
(a) Carrier will honour Coupons only in sequence from the Place of Departure as shown on the Ticket. The fare that the Passenger paid corresponds to the route stated on the Ticket and the usage of the complete routing shown on the Ticket forms an essential part of the Contract of Carriage. The Contract of Carriage excludes the cancellation of individual parts (Coupons) of the journey. Except as otherwise provided for in the Fare conditions, the Ticket will not be accepted and shall lose all value and validity if the Coupons are not used in the order in which they are issued (for example if the Passenger does not use the first Coupon and embarks at a point which is not the Place of Departure, or embarks at an airport mentioned in the Ticket without having used any of the previous Coupon(s)).

My question for you is: why do airlines have this condition and where does it come from?
I have claimed a seat on the airplane for the entire flight right? I am pretty sure that nobody is going to stop me when I collect my luggage at AMS after the inbound flight has landed, and go home.

Do you think it would hold up in court? (could be contrary to EU-law, travel directive I think).

Kind regards, IamPAX

[Bealzebub]

Obviously you are new to this, but it happens all over the world. The most direct flight often isn't the cheapest. This may be because of promotional offers used to increase traffic on specific routes. It may be because airlines are seeking to promote traffic on alternative routes that do not sell as well. There be bilateral fare agreements to consider. Ticket pricing is a complex, bewildering and often contradictory and illogical art form.

In the example you have given, if you book a flight originates in London and routes through Amsterdam en-route to Kuala Lumpur, then if you are ticketed from London and fail to check-in for the flight there, your entire trip will be cancelled. If you were permitted to join the flight in Amsterdam it would normally be on the basis of an entirely new contract and fare basis.

In many respects you have answered the question yourself. Airlines include these conditions to prevent you booking a fare available from a different origination point and using it to your advantage. You haven't claimed a seat for the entire journey. You have contracted to travel on a particular journey in accordance with the stated terms and conditions and general conditions of carriage.

On the inbound flight, your luggage would normally be checked through to the same destination as yourself (London). If you break the journey the airline is at liberty to charge you the appropriate fare together with any additional charges it may incur as a result of having to offload your luggage.

I am sure as a contract it would hold up in court. If you want to test it let us know how you got on. If you are going to rely upon an "EU travel directive" perhaps you would care to point out the relevant section that you believe supports your contention?

[Espada III]

The OP does ask a fair question though and one which the low-cost airlines, to an extent have answered, although only on single sector routes and and model that appears to have been copied by the rail system in the UK.

When the full service airlines realise that all passengers want is a simple price for a flight from A-B they will start to be in profit again. It is completely illogical to charge less for the OP's chosen route if he starts off in another country.

[Final 3 Greens]

Lufthansa had a ruling against it in a German "Amtsgericht" court in 2007 for refusing to let a consumer use the return portion of the ticket, without the outbound part.

This is a low ranking court and the ruling doesn't set a precedent.

However, I suspect it is just a matter of time until the consumer rights peeps at the EU cotton on to this practice and take some action.

An airline pricing its routes this way is obviously issuing discriminatory pricing to the disadvantage of some and the advantage of others, not exactly behaviour in line with the concept of a 'common market.'

[IamPAX]

Sure,

I think you are entitled to (at least) a refund for the 'unused' part of the flight based on:

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights

See under (5) and in particular Articles 4, 7 and 8.

EUR-Lex - 32004R0261 - EN (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32004R0261:EN:HTML)

[Bealzebub]

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights

When you fail to board a flight at the point of origination you are the party in breach of contract. The airline hasn't denied you boarding. If you are denied boarding because the airline has (for example) oversold the flight, then you can rely on the regulation. Similarly if the flight is cancelled or subject to a long delay, you can rely on the regulation. If on the other hand you purchase a ticket and fail to comply with the contract then it is you who are in breach of contract, and nothing within the sections you have quoted (or indeed any other part of this regulation) would appear to protect you for a contract that doesn't exist.

[IamPAX]

Still the whole procedure sounds a bit strange, I'm just using my common sense here.
When I buy a plane ticket to travel from LHR-AMS-KUL and I board at AMS the airline will not sell my empty seat thus, there is still a seat available. I am not causing any delay.

A consumer tv-program has tested this and (as espected) the tv presenter was denied to board the plane. A representative of the website EUclaim | Startpage (http://www.euclaim.com) said it was a clear case of denied boarding.

Article 1 of the directive describes "denied boarding" as: a refusal to carry passengers on a flight, although they have presented themselves for boarding under the conditions laid down in Article 3(2), except where there are reasonable grounds to deny them boarding, such as reasons of health, safety or security, or inadequate travel documentation

So I think you indeed are entitled a refund, but you don't want a refund later on, that would be serving mustard after the meal. You want to board the friggin plane.

[Capetonian]

This is one of the many oddities of air travel. Revenue Management have many ways of maximising revenue and this is just one of them. The 'logic', twisted as it may be is that high revenue business passengers will pay a premium to travel nonstop from A > B. So the airline operating that route may need to fill lower yield seats with traffic from C > A > B, by offering lower fares. If premium passengers could buy a cheaper ticket and discard the first coupon, as used to be possible in the old days, then bang go your high revenue passengers.

[Bealzebub]

No, you are misunderstanding the contract. You are not buying a ticket LHR-AMS-KUL. You are buying a ticket LHR-KUL. The fact that the routing or indeed the flight operates through AMS does not give you the right to start or finish your journey there. In order to do that, you would have to contract to do that, which would normally cost you more money. You are then paying for the flexibility. Of course if that was the purpose you would simply buy a ticket AMS-KUL-AMS which would probably cost less or a similar amount with no restrictions.

If you purchase an unrestricted fare ticket, then of course you are entitled to a refund for the unused portions. If on the other hand you take advantage of a reduced roundtrip fare, then that reduction would be as a result of the restrictions you have entered into a contract for. If you have purchased a restricted ticket, then you are bound by the restrictions. Even if that were not the case, the airline would be entitled to deduct the cost of providing the transportation you actually undertook. In many cases a roundtrip or indirect route ticket will cost less or little more than the cost of an unrestricted one way ticket, so you would be at a nett loss.

In the case you cite, you have not bought an LHR-AMS unrestricted ticket, which you elect to cancel. You have bought a LHR-KUL ticket, which you are failing to honour the terms of. The airline in its conditions of carriage makes it quite clear that in doing so you forfeit the value and validity of the ticket and all of the coupons contained within it. Even if the terms were deemed invalid, the airline would have the right to apply the fare prevailing at the time of travel for the journey it actually provided, i.e AMS-KUL at the prevailing fare.

The fare that the Passenger paid corresponds to the route stated on the Ticket and the usage of the complete routing shown on the Ticket forms an essential part of the Contract of Carriage. The Contract of Carriage excludes the cancellation of individual parts (Coupons) of the journey

[ExXB]

The one that reads ...

4. Changes Requested by a Passenger
(a) Except as otherwise provided for in the Fare conditions, the Passenger cannot change any aspect of his itinerary (for example the Place of Departure, a Stopover or the Place of Destination as mentioned in the Ticket). In the event that the applicable Fare conditions allow a change of the itinerary the fare will be recalculated and the Passenger will then have the possibility of accepting the new fare or keeping the original Carriage as shown on the Ticket.

Meaning that the airline might allow you to change the origin point (for example by substituting London with Amsterdam as the point of departure) but it does it insists that you pay the fare from Amsterdam.

This isn't EU law, this is contract law. One party cannot (with or without the knowledge of the other party) change a core term without the other parties agreement. They have sold you transportation from London to KUL and you cannot substitute transport from Amsterdam to KUL without their agreement. And you have agreed this provision when you bought the ticket.

Now, what would the consequences be of the ECJ or national supreme court deciding that these provisions are indeed 'unfair', or 'illegal'? Do you really think KLM will continue to offer transport from London at a price lower than what they believe they can sell transport from Amsterdam for? Rather than accept that any 'sneaky' Amsterdam origin passenger can get a fare lower than what KLM is prepared to sell it for - they simply will withdraw from the LON-KUL market. Result - same fare at Amsterdam, less competition at London. I'm not going to stretch it further but it isn't unreasonable to assume that KLM withdrawing from the LON market will result in higher prices from LON itself.

So what about if it is special circumstance that causes a passenger to change his origin point? Well KLM's next paragraph seems to be more than fare (pun intended)
If a Passenger has to change his/her Ticket due to a reason that constitutes Force Majeure, the Passenger must, as soon as possible, inform the Carrier thereof who shall then use reasonable efforts to ensure Carriage to the next Stopover or to the Passenger’s destination, without any change in fare.

So if you can prove your 'special circumstance' you can do it, but you got to tell them - you just can't do it without their knowledge, and agreement.

For your information the UK Office of Fair Trading looked at these rules some years ago and decided that they were not 'unfair'. (To be accurate they did say that the rules in effect at that time were badly written, following which better clearer language was drafted - and this is the language that KLM appears to have put into their own conditions of carriage.)

[TSR2]

How much would a return ticket AMS-LHR-AMS cost to connect with the KLM 695.40 EUR flight to KUL ?

[IamPAX]

OK,

I thought that the Dutch tickets were overpriced because of heavy Dutch aviation taxation.
I looked at the situation like a bus stop, LHR-AMS-KUL being an areal route you can hop on. So KLM only stops at AMS to fully occupy the plane?

EU law could come in to play here if somehow this clause is discriminatory or is blocking the free movement of people or services. In that case EU-law overrules domestic legal provisions, however framed (rule of Costa vs. Enel).

We'll see, can't wait until until some national court decides. I do not feel the urge to be a legal testcase.

[IamPAX]

How much would a return ticket AMS-LHR-AMS cost to connect with the KLM 695.40 EUR flight to KUL ?

An additional 120,70 EUR for that day. Mind you, this is for demo purposes only :} Im just talking about the blackbox of ticket pricing and the (im)possibility to board the plane in between flights.

[Avman]

In the past when KLM still operated MST (Maastricht) - AMS it cost anything up to 1000 Euros more to fly say MST-AMS-USA return (as in any USA destination) or AMS-USA return than to fly BRU-AMS-USA. I would therefore always depart from BRU. I would, however, also purchase a one-way AMS-MST ticket, which was quite cheap in that period. On the return portion I would simply ask to have my bags checked only as far as AMS. This was never denied me. On arrival at AMS, I would collect my bag and then check in for my AMS-MST flight. Net gain was around 900 Euros. I think KLM got wind of this (don't think I was the only one doing this) and later offered much better deals from MST.

[L'aviateur]

So what happens if you travel with hand baggage and check in online, and turn up at the gate for the second flight?

[Final 3 Greens]

So what happens if you travel with hand baggage and check in online, and turn up at the gate for the second flight?

As you didn;t take the first flight, no doubt you would be prevented from boarding, as you did not use the coupons in the correct order.

Having said that, it would be an interesting experiment, forgive me for not volunteering.

[groundbum]

a year or so ago I was going across the channel and when booking ferry tickets there were all kinds of specials etc and it was often cheaper to buy two returns and throw half of each return away. Don't ask why.

But on the websites was a big warning saying if half a return was thrown away thus turning the ticket into effectively a single then the ferry company reserved the right to charge your credit the extra the single would have cost you! And looking on the web the ferry companies regularly did this to people's cards, it wasn't an empty threat.

G

[Capetonian]

Ferry companies do this .......

I know of cases where an airline has done the same, and that others plan to follow suit particularly in cases of repeated 'abuse' by the same passenger. In one case, where the tickets were purchased through a travel agency, the agency received an ADM (agency debit memo) from the airline, for the difference between the 'cheap' reutrn and the full oneway fare, passing the onus of collection to them, which in my view is grossly unfair.

I think this :mad: stinks but such is the reality of the world we live in.

[42psi]

Don't know if this still happens but for many years businesses with an "in house" ticketing person (or a very switched on secretary) would buy batches of Apex/SuperApex tickets.

Only worked if it's the same person flying.

So buying (as an example) a batch of two week return tickets well in advance for someone who wishes to travel out each Monday and back each Friday.

Week 01
Use the outward coupon for Monday from tkt 01.
Use the return coupon for Friday from a previous ticket.

Week 02
Use the outward coupon next Monday from tkt 02.
Use the return coupon For Friday from tkt 01.



In the AMS exmaple given at the start it's simply the airline competing with LHR on the KUL route by giving away seats LHR/AMS to attract passengers.

All long haul carriers do it in one form or another.
You'll usually find the onwards domestic sector is at a "give-away" price compared to simply buying the domestic sector on it's own.

[Scumbag O'Riley]

When you fail to board a flight at the point of origination you are the party in breach of contract.......So if I don't turn up are you saying the airline can get a judge to force me to turn up for the next flight?If on the other hand you purchase a ticket and fail to comply with the contract then it is you who are in breach of contract.....Interesting take. I always thought that my part of the agreement was to pay for the ticket and that's about it. Now I find I am required to get on the damned flight, what damages would you suggest I am liable to pay the airline if I fail to do so? Loss of cash because I might have bought some duty free? Could I counter claim because I didn't eat the pasta dish? Am I contracted to eat the food because I have paid for that too and the airline went to the bother of loading it? Am I to be held down by the CSD and force fed by the purser? Where does it stop?

But less sillyness, an analogy. If I purchased a three course meal in advance and decided not to take the starter do you think it would OK for the restaurant to refuse me the main? Or if I was delayed in traffic and got there too late for the starter it would be OK to refuse me the main?

[Bealzebub]

So if I don't turn up are you saying the airline can get a judge to force me to turn up for the next flight?
No, not unless it in the conditions of carriage, and guess what? It isn't! If you don't turn up you forfeit the fare, unless the terms you agreed to permit otherwise. It is a case of understanding the contract you are entering into, rather than wishing the terms were something other than those agreed.
But less sillyness, an analogy. If I purchased a three course meal in advance and decided not to take the starter do you think it would OK for the restaurant to refuse me the main? Or if I was delayed in traffic and got there too late for the starter it would be OK to refuse me the main?
It doesn't matter what I think, it only matters what contract you have agreed to. If you have paid for a set menu and elect to only eat part of it, I would imagine the only perceived loss would be yours, and the restaurant would be under no obligation to refund you for the uneaten course. Obviously it would be unusual to pay for a three course meal in advance, so presumably you would only do so in accordance with special terms and conditions. Clearly if you were eating there a la carte You would only pay for what you ordered and consumed.

Nobody is suggesting you will be "forced to get on the damn flight" having paid for it, you can please yourself. The crux of this discussion concerns the terms and conditions of a contract for somebody who elects to vary them in contravention of those previously agreed. In other words it is about somebody wanting to take advantage of the price reduction on offer for accepting particular restrictions, and then deciding that those restrictions shouldn't apply in their case, but the price advantage should.

[Scumbag O'Riley]

I think you misunderstand what a contract is.

[Capetonian]

I think you misunderstand what a contract is.

A contract, at least the type discussed here, is bilateral. You may be overlooking that.

[Bealzebub]

A contract is an agreement between two or more persons (individuals, businesses, organizations or government agencies) to do, or to refrain from doing, a particular thing in exchange for something of value. Contracts generally can be written, using formal or informal terms, or entirely verbal. If one side fails to live up to his/her/its part of the bargain, there's a "breach" and certain remedies for solving the differences are available. The terms of the contract - the who, what, where, when, and how of the agreement - define the binding promises of each party to the contract.
I think you misunderstand what a contract is
If you say so? However this discussion is about the terms contained within a contract of carriage. Setting aside your examples of being a human foie gras, I am not entirely clear what point you are trying to make? The original poster was arguing that the terms and conditions contained within his proposed contract, he felt, might be waived on the grounds of "common sense" or an EU travel directive that dealt with common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights.

[Scumbag O'Riley]

A contract, at least the type discussed here, is bilateral. You may be overlooking that. All contracts are 'bilateral'.

Bealzebub said I would be in breach of contract if I failed to turn up for the first sector. Then he said it was up to me whether I turned up. They cannot both be true. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a contract is.

But then it does appear to be a kneejerk reaction of Airline employees to blame the customer :)

I think what Bealzebub was wanting to say was that by not turning up for the first sector the passenger had waived his rights and the airline didn't have to deliver on sector two. In his opinion of course.

[Capetonian]

I'm not an airline employee, although I have been, but I agree with Bealzebub, but then I would, wouldn't I, and of course that makes me wrong, in your view.

It's nothing to do with kneejerk reactions, but if you want a cheap fare it will have restrictions, the points discussed being part of them. If you want a full unrestricted fare it will cost you more, it's really that simple and trying to argue otherwise is pissing into the wind.

[Scumbag O'Riley]

I was referring to bealzebub not you. But what do you think? Do you forgo your rights to the main course of a three course lunch, paid for in advance, because you didn't want the starter?

And what has the price of a deal got to do with your obligations/rights under general contract law? Two people sitting next to each other on a flight with exactly the same fare rules can pay totally different prices. That's how the airline likes it, that's what the airline does, don't start arguing you have more rights because you paid more. The airlines will never go for that, and neither would a judge.

[dtaylor1984]

Bealzebub said I would be in breach of contract if I failed to turn up for the first sector. Then he said it was up to me whether I turned up. They cannot both be true. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a contract is.

Not really - it is up to you if you wish to breach the contract.


I was referring to bealzebub not you. But what do you think? Do you forgo your rights to the main course of a three course lunch, paid for in advance, because you didn't want the starter?


If you had agreed to a contract where for the provision of a fee you would be given a three course meal, provided that you ate all three courses? Yes.


And what has the price of a deal got to do with your obligations/rights under general contract law? Two people sitting next to each other on a flight with exactly the same fare rules can pay totally different prices. That's how the airline likes it, that's what the airline does, don't start arguing you have more rights because you paid more. The airlines will never go for that, and neither would a judge.


You're right. The price has nothing to do with it - the terms and conditions are all that matter. Yet, in general, if you're willing to pay more the airline will offer you more flexible terms.

[L'aviateur]

The only thing slightly similar is that I booked a return flight Manchester to Hong Kong, and then on the return segment needed to goto Nice, so bought an award ticket from Charles de Gaulle to Nice. I checked in for both flights, and since I was travelling hand baggage only, arrived in Charles de Gaulle and got onto my Nice flight instead of my Manchester flight. Unfortunately I dont know the selfish repurcussions for the CDG-MAN flight and its passengers for me failing to turn up, but I reached my destination and never heard anything more. This was in July.

[Final 3 Greens]

It is perhaps worth noting that a lower German court took the same view as Scumbag in a similar matter (of an airline ticket, not a dinner.)

[IamPAX]

It is perhaps worth noting that a lower German court took the same view as Scumbag in a similar matter

Can you post a direct hyperlink to this verdict by the German court F3G? Should be an interesting read.

[Final 3 Greens]

No I can't, sorry.

It was widely discussed on another frequent flyer forum.

However, as it was a low court, it does not set a legal precedent.

[PAXboy]

IamPAXI'm just using my common sense here.Ah, I think I've just spotted the flaw in your argument ... :}

Don't try to compete with airline revenue mgmt, particularly when it has 60+ years of international agreements by govts and companies to maximise their revenue and maintain their market share. :ouch:

[ExXB]

If I purchased a three course meal in advance and decided not to take the starter do you think it would OK for the restaurant to refuse me the main? Or if I was delayed in traffic and got there too late for the starter it would be OK to refuse me the main?

OK, what if you have a look at the three course meal and decide that's what you want, but you much prefer the price being charged for only one course? Do you think the restaurant would let you have the three course meal for the price of only one course? In particular if you try and get this without their knowledge or agreement!

(Pun warning!) Of course not. But why is it then OK to get a non-stop AMS-KUL service for the price of an indirect LHR-AMS-KUL service?

Airlines have a price for just about any service you want to buy. But it isn't your choice what price you pay for it, it is theirs. You agree to it, or you don't. Saying it isn't logical (in your humble opinion) for a longer journey to cost less than a shorter journey doesn't actually matter. In the airline's opinion it makes all the sense in the world.

Every time I see this subject discussed I see one common thread. It is that the consumer wants, without the agreement of the airline, to substitute the price the airline has established for it's service, with the price of another service that airline offers. Consumers don't try the same in a restaurant do they? So why is it a problem when an airline insists on getting its price for its service?

The lower German court may have sided with the passenger, but when it got to the higher court, they agreed with Lufthansa. The contract was for a journey from the point of departure, via agreed stopping points to the destination. The passenger could not substitute a different journey at the price they paid. (apologies in advance, but I don't have a link to this)

If you really want a cheaper ticket for AMS-KUL try an indirect flight via another gateway - I'm sure you will find many choices at a lower price.

[Scumbag O'Riley]

I think you have tweaked my analogy beyond my recognition. As I said earlier, what has the price you pay got to do with your rights/obligations with respect to the contract? The price you pay is set by the airline and you either accept it or not. In return you get to enjoy a seat on one of their planes. The person next to you has likely paid a different price but gets the same seat. Price is irrelevant.

Unless, of course, you are an airline and one of their passengers gets a 'deal', then the airline whines. If the airline gets to charge a extortionate price for a walk up fare then the airline says that's business.

But anyway.

The contract was for a journey from the point of departure, via agreed stopping points to the destination. The passenger could not substitute a different journey at the price they paid.Now that's something we can get our teeth into. Again, price is irrelevant (IMO) one millisecond after the deal has been struck. What is relevant is the first part, what do you buy from an airline?

One side (customer, the consumer) says he pays for a seat on a flight from A-B. He also pays for a seat on a flight from B-C. Those are his to use as he sees fit and if he chooses not to use A-B seat he still has B-C. The price paid is irrelevant, all that matters is that he has paid.

Airline says he has paid from A-C and that is exactly what the airline will do, he must travel via B.

Now, there was a thread recently where consumer paid airline to get from GIB-MIA via LGW. He went via LGW because he had a family and luggage and wanted a smooth through journey. Paid for the ticket at the price the airline asked. Price now, IMO, irrelevant.

Airline cancelled flight GIB-LGW. Airline said passenger was now booked on flight GIB-LHR and flight LGW-MIA. Ok, one might think, the airline says the passenger has paid from GIB-MIA and that is what the airline will do.

BUT

Airline said passenger had to pay his own way, and carry his own luggage, from LHR-LGW. All of a sudden the intermediate stop as ticketed was not part of the contract. Funny that, isn't it.

[HXdave]

anyone else feel the need to say that Scumbag O'Reilly is correct, just to get them to shut the :mad: up? they are obviously one of those people who - no matter what the overwhelming evidence against their argument is - they are always right. everyone else is wrong except them. they must be right because they know everything, and they know best.

BTW Scumbag O'Reilly - are you my wife?

[Scumbag O'Riley]

What on earth has your revealing that your wife is obviously cleverer than you got to do with the subject matter of this thread? ExXB asked me some questions and I responded, civily in my opinion. He raised some excellent points which took the discussion on. You really should keep your head down :)

[bealine]

All of the posters on this topic make very valid aruguments. I like Scumbag O'Reilly's angle of viewpoint, but I don't think the drawing of a parallel with a restaurant menu would pass muster either at an airport or in court. As has already been pointed out, it is misguided to attempt to apply logic to fare rules - it just doesn't work!

You see, restaurants do not have any political pressure applied when setting their tariffs or any international agreements.

In any event, most airline reservation systems are such that failing to show for one sector results in the rest of the traeller's itinerary being automatically cancelled. Certainly in BA's case, no ticket agent would reinstate a booking without recalculating the fare and recharging the new amount - in the present climate, you'd probably end up on a disciplinary if you waived the fare rules!

[Capetonian]

I was thinking along the same lines as HXdave. We all know the saying "none so blind as those who won't see."

SoR clearly chooses to bulldoze anyone else's point of view out of his way. Whether or not the airlines' policies and yield management techniques are 'fair' or 'logical' is arguable, but the answer to the original question posed has been clearly stated several times and in many different ways.

Scumbag, are you French by any chance? They are also never wrong, and when they are wrong, they argue until the cows come home that they aren't.

[Scumbag O'Riley]

Capetonian, You can choose not to read my posts and choose not to contribute. Also there is a chap on Question Time tonight who you might find shares your approach to other nationalities and cultures so make sure you tune in.

Bealine,

Certainly in BA's case, no ticket agent would reinstate a booking without recalculating the fare and recharging the new amount - in the present climate, you'd probably end up on a disciplinary if you waived the fare rules!So I assume you would charge the difference? What if the new fare was less, would you process a refund? Or does it only work one way?

[MathFox]

We should start looking at the legal side of the contract question: "What did the passenger pay for?" My answer is that the passenger paid for "transportation": "seats at specific flights". Nowadays there are specific EU rules for compensation when the airline breaks their part of the contract, because it happened too often that passengers were left in the cold in case of delays and cancellations.

In contract law it is usual that the party in breach of the contract compensates the other party for the damage he causes. As far as I can see, not taking (not checking in) a flight saves the airline fuel, I see no damage for the airline there. When the passenger starts a trip half-way the journey there could be a change in airport fees and taxes for the airline; that's something that could be billed to the passenger.

So far all people defending the airlines have been pointing at the "small print" in the general conditions of the contract. Under EU law it is possible for a judge to void "unreasonable" clauses from the small print. I am not aware of any legal verdicts on this "all segments or nothing" clause, but it certainly can be argued that it could be unfair to the consumer in specific cases. The airline is unilaterally revoking a paid-for service.

[ExXB]

So I assume you would charge the difference? What if the new fare was less, would you process a refund? Or does it only work one way?

From BA's conditions of carriage:

3c4) If you change your transportation without our agreement, your unused flight coupons will not be valid for travel and will have no value and we will not carry youuntil:

we or our authorised agents have re-calculated the revised fare for your actual transportation and
you have paid the difference (if any) between the fare you have already paid and the revised fare which applies to your changed transportation.
If the revised fare is lower than the fare you have already paid, we or our authorised agents will refund you the difference.

We should start looking at the legal side of the contract question: "What did the passenger pay for?
IMHO this is absolutely key. As put to us by the IP the passenger would have paid for transportation from London to KUL (and probably return). What the passenger did not pay for was transportation from Amsterdam to KUL but (according to the IP) that's what they wanted.

However I don't see that the passenger is in breach of his/her contract - what I see is the passenger is attempting to substitute what he paid for with something he didn't pay for. Just like somebody in a shop changing the price tag for a product - and there are other terms for that.

[Capetonian]

Scumbag

Capetonian, You can choose not to read my posts and choose not to contribute. Also there is a chap on Question Time tonight who you might find shares your approach to other nationalities and cultures so make sure you tune in.


Of course I can choose not to read your posts and not to contribute, but this is an open forum, and I choose to read your posts, which are intelligent and well-argued, but I happen to disagree with you. You seem to have a problem with that and would wish to deprive me of that right. That might give you something in common with some politicians who do not believe in free speech. From which I move on to say that I shall indeed be watching Nick Griffin tomorrow (Thursday 2235 UK time) (thank you for the reminder!). I think it is appropriate that he be given a platform for his views, regardless of whether or not people find them palatable.

[MathFox]

However I don't see that the passenger is in breach of his/her contract - what I see is the passenger is attempting to substitute what he paid for with something he didn't pay for. Just like somebody in a shop changing the price tag for a product - and there are other terms for that.
The passenger is requesting to substitute a service of (objectively seen) a lesser value than the service he paid for (and he's doing so in plain sight). Objectively seen: LHR-AMS-KUL is more transportation that AMS-KUL; why do airlines price AMS-KUL higher than LHR-AMS-KUL? (I know it is called "revenue management") it feels like :mad:ing the home-customer. :*

I know these issues are caused by the way the airlines are pricing their tickets. Some pricing differences make mathematical sense, making refundable tickets more expensive for example; others make no sense: making longer flights cheaper or making return tickets cheaper than one way tickets. All of the nonsense may be open for abuse.

[bealine]

Quote:
So I assume you would charge the difference? What if the new fare was less, would you process a refund? Or does it only work one way?
From BA's conditions of carriage:

3c4) If you change your transportation without our agreement, your unused flight coupons will not be valid for travel and will have no value and we will not carry youuntil:

we or our authorised agents have re-calculated the revised fare for your actual transportation and
you have paid the difference (if any) between the fare you have already paid and the revised fare which applies to your changed transportation.
If the revised fare is lower than the fare you have already paid, we or our authorised agents will refund you the difference. It's not all one-sided! It does sometimes happen that the fare for a change of flight is lower than that which was previously paid. Our reservations system automatically calculates the applicable fare and produces reports for the accountants every day. If, for any reason, there is any discrepancy, whether up or down, then you end up on the carpet!

[ExXB]

The passenger is requesting to substitute a service of (objectively seen) a lesser value than the service he paid for (and he's doing so in plain sight). Objectively seen: LHR-AMS-KUL is more transportation that AMS-KUL; why do airlines price AMS-KUL higher than LHR-AMS-KUL? (I know it is called "revenue management") it feels like ing the home-customer.

I know these issues are caused by the way the airlines are pricing their tickets. Some pricing differences make mathematical sense, making refundable tickets more expensive for example; others make no sense: making longer flights cheaper or making return tickets cheaper than one way tickets. All of the nonsense may be open for abuse.I guess it's how objectionable you are, I suppose. But;

Doesn't it make sense that an indirect journey LON-AMS-KUL has to be cheaper than a non-stop journey LHR-KUL? KL wouldn't get any passengers if they charged the same price or more. Their price from London is driven by what their competitors (including a plethora of other indirect carriers) are charging. But if they could charge more than their price from AMS they would.

In AMS, where they offer a non-stop product they too can charge a premium over and above what the indirect carriers are selling in the Dutch market. However they can't go too high, or they won't get any business.

In both markets they try and price their product as high as they possibly can, but without being too high that they don't spill the traffic to other airlines.

The right price for any product or service is the price that the punters are willing to pay.

Your contention that the passenger is requesting anything, is simply not the case. Had a request been made it would have been refused (except in case of force majure) as noted above. No the passenger is trying to obtain something s/he didn't pay for without the knowledge of the seller.

[bealine]

The airlines have messed up the market for themselves through greed, pure and simple.

There always was enough home-grown LON-JFK traffic for BOAC to make a handsome profit. PAN-AM and TWA made enough dough out of Americans visiting Europe. KLM was rather smug about making plenty of Guilders from the Dutch Heeren and Daamen visiting the USA.

The only people who weren't happy were the accountants because they could see some empty seats on each flight. They started offering cheaper fares for people originating elsewhere and feeding into the long-haul flights.

Today, the situation we have is absolutely ridiculous! We (BA) are taking pax who would logically be KLM customers from AMS-LON-JFK at fares of dubious profitability, while KLM are taking our logically BA customers from LON-AMS-JFK at loss-leading fares. Even worse than that, our short-haul flights are full preventing last-minute business travellers (who pay full fares) from being able to buy a seat unless we bump a passenger and pay compensation!

If we all stopped doing it and charged proper fares, we could stop having to worry about interlined baggage making connecting flights. We wouldn't have all the grief with rebooking transfer passengers held up in the maw of BAA's security queues and we would make money.

Transfer traffic, however, is big business and, surprisingly, despite Frequent Flyers on this and the Flyertalk Forum stating that they will never again connect through Heathrow, LHR is the world's number one transfer connecting airport and its acceptance of the Airbus A380 was pivotal to Airbus Industrie's sales success to the world's airlines.

.............and now Dubai is a major hub, Abu Dhabi is developing itseld as a major hub. What does the future hold?