Boarding a plane in between flights?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
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.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A contract, at least the type discussed here, is bilateral. You may be overlooking that.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 70
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Stirling
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 32°55'22"S 151°46'56"E
Age: 39
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is perhaps worth noting that a lower German court took the same view as Scumbag in a similar matter
Paxing All Over The World
IamPAX
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.
I'm just using my common sense here.
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.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I tweak your 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?
(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.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: halifax
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
anyone else feel the need to say that Scumbag O'Reilly is correct, just to get them to shut the 
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?
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?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LGW - Hub of the Universe!
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 70
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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,
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?
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!