Boarding a plane in between flights?
 

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

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?

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.

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.'

EU directive
 

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Did you read the next paragraph?
 

The one that reads ...
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)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.)

IamPax
 

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

ferry companies do this
 

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

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.

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.

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?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?