Do IATA look after customers?

[Espada III]

Question in the travel section of the Daily Telegraph yesterday about not taking the first leg of a return flight on EZY and whether the return would be automatically cancelled. The answer given was that as EZY is NOT a member of IATA it doesn't have that rule (as we all know).

Given that full service airlines make you use the tickets in the correct order and if you fail to fly the first leg you have forfeited the whole trip, this makes flying with similar lo-cost airlines far more flexible than (ha ha) "full service" airlines.

Therefore IATA does its passengers a disservice in not permitting a greater flexibility. Recently I had to throw away a whole trip on Air France because I was unable to take the flight. The cost to change was so exorbitant that it was cheaper to book a new trip on a different airline. This is plain stupid.

[Hartington]

IATA is a trade standards organisation, not a passenger oriented organisation.

[ExXB]

If you look closely you will see that Cryanair and Squeezy apply many of the provisions of IATA's Recommended Practice 1724 Conditions of Service. As they both have a one way pricing model there is no need for them to have provisions for sequential and complete use of a ticket.

Other airlines have different models and go far beyond the LCC in providing simple one way or round trip journeys. You can buy a single ticket on an IATA network airline and travel literally to anywhere on the planet on a single ticket, bought in one transaction in your own currency. To protect their pricing model the adopt sequential and complete use provisions.

IATA airlines are not required to apply RP1724, they can literally do as they wish subject only to government oversight wherever this still applies. I note that AF's sequential and complete use provisions are different from IATA's, although they have a similar effect. AF has chosen to have this rule because it suits their needs.

Why does RP1724 still exist, if members can do as they wish? Well, having similar or consistent provisions facilitates interlining and many network airlines want to do so.

[PAXboy]

The International Airline Passengers Association [search for IAPA] is a group that have been going for 50 years and offer various things to their members, who are regular travellers. Whilst they do lobby and inform, I doubt that they have any real leverage. BUT they can help with disputes for their members.

PS as ExXB says, not ideal and only for regulars. I did belong to them for a while myself to use their services. Never had to use them for complaint.

[ExXB]

PaxBoy - there is problem with your link. Although displayed correctly the link includes PPRuNe before IAPA. (Actually hard to describe, but if you click on it you will see what I mean)

True, IAPA could assist with disputes but one should be cautious. Tbey are not a 'not-for-profit'. The cost of membership likely isn't worthwhile for an occasional traveler. If you have an issue with an airline the national DGCA/CAA/etc and/or consumer organisation could be a better route.

[The SSK]

The days are long past when IATA could fine its members for putting one too many cherry tomatoes on the lunch plate.

Incidentally I think you will find that the days of the 'consecutive use of coupons' rule are numbered, in the EU at least. It's being addressed in the upcoming review of the passenger rights legislation.

[ExXB]

True, but you will find that some airlines have already found a solution. Try buying a LX or LH ticket online and you are asked to choose between "I will use coupons completely and in sequence" or "I would like to be able to use coupons in any order". The first gives you a normal fare quote, the second gives you the highest possible fare. But you have made a legally binding choice.

Also, the language in the EC proposal talks only about prohibiting the cancelling of 'return' bookings when the pax no-shows the outbound. It says nothing about being able to check in at an intermediate point after no-showing the first sector.

i.e. if you bought an FRA-AMS-NYC-AMS-FRA ticket the airline would have to board you on the return, even if you no-showed the outbound sectors. However, you still couldn't no-show FRA-AMS and try and board in AMS for the flight to NYC.

I believe airlines experience very few passengers who no show the outbound and attempt to fly the return only. Their issues are with passengers who no-show the return (which they can do little about, unless repeated), or who try and avoid any higher intermediate fare, like in the example above.

[Espada III]

There are all sorts of reasons why people don't like the 'consecutive use of coupons' rule.

In my case, my trip was MAN-CDG-TLV out and the reverse trip back. I was unable to make the outward trip (in the end I flew Jet2) but wanted to make the return journey (so I could have bought a one-way outbound Jet2 ticket). However I was unable to do so and ended up throwing the whole AF ticket away and buying totally new trip with Jet2. Bit of a waste really.

[PAXboy]

Bit of a waste really.Not as far as AF are concerned!

Except that this is very last century thinking and they will slowly learn that folks want to be more flexible these days and will avoid carriers who limit in this way. But it is very much a legacy problem and they need money NOW. Since they have already built the company - they have debt and shareholders on their backs.

[ExXB]

Espada. Did you talk to AF and ask them to hold your return bookings? As I mentioned the network airlines use the sequential and complete rule to protect their pricing. In the case you related I cannot see where they would consider it to be suspicious, particularly if you were calling from the UK.

The IATA wording actually says something like "if you contact us in advance and advise you are unable to use a confirmed reservation due to force majure we will not cancel reservations for subsequent sectors ... (But as mentioned AF doesn't follow the IATA recommendation)

However a Reservations agent may not have been trained to apply sequential use rules with discretion.

If you were refused and since you are going to be asking for a refund of the taxes, why not ask AF to refund the entire amount explaining the circumstances that led to your inability to take the outbound sectors and their unwarranted refusal to allow you to use your confirmed return journey.

[mixture]

Recently I had to throw away a whole trip on Air France because I was unable to take the flight. The cost to change was so exorbitant that it was cheaper to book a new trip on a different airline. This is plain stupid.

There is such a thing as travel insurance.

[Hipennine]

"There is such a thing as travel insurance."

And the premium will include an element to cover the cost of claims being made because of the intransigence associated with such ticketing rules, so a double whammy.