Lufthansa sues no-show passengers [Hidden City Ticketed]

[SOPOOR]

If the airline could show that it incurred a cost due to the pax not taking the final leg they might have some credibility. If you get off the train at Sydney airport, there's a charge for the use of the station.

that should all be factored into the cost

thats like using my driver example, oh because the customer didnt turn up we still had to have a driver ready on standby

 

[samh004]

If the airline could show that it incurred a cost due to the pax not taking the final leg they might have some credibility. If you get off the train at Sydney airport, there's a charge for the use of the station.

I guess there's the notion of time wasted as the page a passenger that isn't coming... but that rarely eats into much time as there is a buffer built into the time to get various things done, like boarding. Provided there's no bag to off-load, you'd actually be providing a weight saving, so less fuel burn? Though if enough people did it, it would probably require removing some fuel and rebalancing the plane etc... I guess it eventually gets complicated, but for 1 or 2 passengers who know exactly what they're doing, it should really be a saving... and a blessing for the passenger who gets to spread out a little more.

If the flight is oversold and someone doesn't turn up, do they allow someone from the waitlist to take the seat? That's extra revenue?

 

[burmans]

Given this was originally thrown out I think some have given this too much of a chance of success. After all, aren't they essentially trying to charge a fee for a service not provided, we have yet to see any evidence that a court would accept such an argument.

 

[lastrow]

The rip off occurs when the one way ticket is dearer than a return ticket. As an example two friends needed to fly Sydney to New York where they would board a ship for a cruise back to Sydney. Per passenger it was far cheaper to purchase (1) two return tickets and discard the return part than (2) to purchase two single trip tickets. However their travel agent warned them that if they chose option 1 they would stand a good chance of being black listed not only by the airline but by the whole One world Alliance.
Of course the threat worked and they paid nearly twice the cost of the return ticket for their single direction flights.

 

[Beano]

Iastrow bring up an interesting issue. This was, perhaps still is, a fetaure of inter-Euopean city flights; returns were chaeper than one-way. I used this many years ago MAD-NCE with no repercussions so far.

 

[ajw373]

There is precedent. BA is already doing this for pax on cheaper ex-Euro fares. The airline can also close FF accounts with points being forfeited. (The latter being a much easier option.)

BA has TRIED to do this, but only think the gullable have paid up the fare difference.

 

[drsmithy]

That's not really a valid analogy, because airline tickets are not priced based on distance travelled. So any kind of consumption analogy doesn't work.

Whether or not airline tickets are priced based on distance travelled is not really relevant. The "consumption item" is transport from one place to another.

The issue is airline tickets are sold as getting from A to B. The closest analogy would be say buying a train ticket in Sydney and travelling on the line that goes past the airport and expect to be able to get off the train there for the fare you paid because you bought a train ticket that travels through the station (and thus try to avoid the airport station fee).

The fee applies to exiting the station. It's a disingenuous example because those specific stations have specific exit fees. Pick any other three stations except those ones with specific exit fees and it no longer applies.

This won't end well for the consumer and that is my concern. A bit like people complaining about LCC T&C's and wanting more regulation. That will just push up the prices. What may end up happening is airlines starting a register up of banned flyers. Certainly more common in the USA of people being banned on flying with an airline for repeatedly dumping legs to get somewhere cheaper.

It is a struggle to see the relatively tiny number of people who do this - even the "abusers" - having a significant impact on the airline's overall bottom line. I'd be surprised if revenue gained from raising prices to cover those "extra costs" was outweighed by revenue lost from people not flying any more at all due to overall raised prices.

 

[Wanderlust_tim]

...Per passenger it was far cheaper to purchase (1) two return tickets and discard the return part than (2) to purchase two single trip tickets. However their travel agent warned them that if they chose option 1 they would stand a good chance of being black listed not only by the airline but by the whole One world Alliance.
Of course the threat worked and they paid nearly twice the cost of the return ticket for their single direction flights.

I remember i had the exact same experience when i was working in Europe, but with the opposite outcome. I needed a one way flight due to a tight event schedule. Our work travel agent booked a return flight for about 100 Euro as the one way option was almost 500 Euro. Her advice was to just let the return expire and that this was frequently done with this particular airline.

 

[ajw373]

that should all be factored into the cost

Not always. Airport taxes are different for passengers that transit compared to those who are starting/ending their flight in that location.

And this is one of the reasons BA was pushing for the seperate ticket interline rules. Because it was cheaper to fly out of LHR to Dublin or Amsterdam on one ticket, then get a flight to say SYD from DUB/AMS return and then not board the last sector. The way the taxes worked it was around 10GBP in taxes for the LHR-AMS flight, compared with closer to 100GBP for LHR-SYD.

PS the tax is based on a return flight starting at LHR.

So in essence if you fail to board that last flight, BA could be up for 90GBP is duty difference.

 

[ermen]

Not always. Airport taxes are different for passengers that transit compared to those who are starting/ending their flight in that location.

And this is one of the reasons BA was pushing for the seperate ticket interline rules. Because it was cheaper to fly out of LHR to Dublin or Amsterdam on one ticket, then get a flight to say SYD from DUB/AMS return and then not board the last sector. The way the taxes worked it was around 10GBP in taxes for the LHR-AMS flight, compared with closer to 100GBP for LHR-SYD.

PS the tax is based on a return flight starting at LHR.

So in essence if you fail to board that last flight, BA could be up for 90GBP is duty difference.

there wont be any conceivable scenario where BA will be on the hook additional duties if the pax does not taking the last flight.

apd is calculated for the outbound sector - and in any case, apd is already pre-paid by the passengers.

 

[ajw373]

The fee applies to exiting the station. It's a disingenuous example because those specific stations have specific exit fees. Pick any other three stations except those ones with specific exit fees and it no longer applies.

Exit fee's, or more to the point airport taxes are one of the issues at play, so that aspect of the analogy is quite right. Exit at an airport en-route with a higher tax the airline gets stung. Of course more complex than the Sydney airports station, as there can be different taxes for entering/exiting, airside transit and land side transit( stop overs).

 

[SOPOOR]

Not always. Airport taxes are different for passengers that transit compared to those who are starting/ending their flight in that location.

And this is one of the reasons BA was pushing for the seperate ticket interline rules. Because it was cheaper to fly out of LHR to Dublin or Amsterdam on one ticket, then get a flight to say SYD from DUB/AMS return and then not board the last sector. The way the taxes worked it was around 10GBP in taxes for the LHR-AMS flight, compared with closer to 100GBP for LHR-SYD.

PS the tax is based on a return flight starting at LHR.

So in essence if you fail to board that last flight, BA could be up for 90GBP is duty difference.

That is a great point,

but that is no concern of the consumer,
Just like loss leaders at a supermarket, it should be a risk calculated by the seller

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Whether or not airline tickets are priced based on distance travelled is not really relevant. The "consumption item" is transport from one place to another.

This raises an interesting issue, because according to the High Court, the ‘consumption item’ is actually the issuing of a future promise to carry (or words to that effect). Hence GST is payable based on the supply of the ticket, not the actual travel.

Airlines trying to enforce fares is a revenue control issue. It would be extraordinary hard, if not impossible, for an airline to show loss.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

BA has TRIED to do this, but only think the gullable have paid up the fare difference.

They were collecting it through agents, and IIRC, closing the FF accounts (with loss of points) for serial offenders.

 

[woodborer]

Didn't Air North try this on a couple of years ago (not so much suing them, more banning them from the airline)?

 

[Happy Dude]

Airline: Your Honour, we'd like to retrospectively charge the defendant more even though he travelled less than his ticket permitted.
Judge: Really? Seems you should be refunding him.
Airline: Not at all. We charge more for popular routes and this traveller is taking advantage of enticements for less popular routes.
Judge: What do you mean "taking advantage"?
Airline: By flying segments prior to and after the popular routes, cheaper airfares can be sourced on occasions. That is, C-A-B B-A-C is sometimes priced less than a A-B B-A ticket. The offender, who's intention is to fly A-B B-A, simply stops his return journey at A ignoring the final segment to C.
Judge: And this affects you how?
Airline: It reduces our opportunity to charge more for less.

At this point, the gallery laughs and the calls for a royal commission commence.

 

[todd]

Really Lufthansa! Maybe the LH staff are too young to know that fictitious points were part of IATA manual fare construction to reduce the point to point airfare. Back in the 1980s and 90s when fares were calculated in FCUs then NUCs, every airline had a couple of people that knew the IATA Fares Manual back to front and could get very creative, especially with Circle Pacific or RTW fare construction. Back in the paper ticket days it was not uncommon to see two coupons stapled together and endorsed for a direct flight or similar to this case, the first and last coupon being issued open dated.

And yes, fare rules may have changed but they invented the practice and are now crying about it.

Oh and a possible way to miss the last destination could be to book the final sector for 23 hours from arrival. Technically it is a transit but they won't check you or your bags through because you have to leave the airport overnight.

 

[Cruiser Elite]

Airline: Your Honour, we'd like to retrospectively charge the defendant more even though he travelled less than his ticket permitted.
Judge: Really? Seems you should be refunding him.
Airline: Not at all. We charge more for popular routes and this traveller is taking advantage of enticements for less popular routes.
Judge: What do you mean "taking advantage"?
Airline: By flying segments prior to and after the popular routes, cheaper airfares can be sourced on occasions. That is, C-A-B B-A-C is sometimes priced less than a A-B B-A ticket. The offender, who's intention is to fly A-B B-A, simply stops his return journey at A ignoring the final segment to C.
Judge: And this affects you how?
Airline: It reduces our opportunity to charge more for less.

Judge: With all due respect learned Airline this has potential to be a PR disaster for your Airline!
Airline: Not at all your Honour - Joe Public has NO INTEREST in us chasing a minuscule number of passengers who 'game'; the system by paying us money and then not actually using all the services they have paid for - all Joe Public in interested is that our planes turn up on time and fly the specified routes on the day
Judge: And Mr Airline - does your airline ALWAYS satisfy Joe Public?
Airline: No your Honour - sometimes we are late - sometime we cancel flights and don't actually fly at all on that day.
Judge: So Mr Airline - sometimes Joe Public pays you for a service that you do not actually deliver on time or indeed at all on the specified day
Airline: Yes your Honour - but that is irrelevant - Joe Public doesn't count in this matter - we are only dealing with a minuscule number of pax who who do not use the services they have paid for - why is this so difficult for you to understand?

 

[Warks]

I recall a couple of years ago pricing tickets on SYD-YVR and SYD-LAX. Air Canada had some super deal to LAX but YVR was $1000 more. It was only when I looked into it that it was the same flight except it went SYD-YVR-LAX not SYD-LAX-YVR. I was terribly tempted at the time to just fly to YVR and dump the last bit. I needed to go to LAX after but booked SYD-LAX-YVR on VA in the end (Delta for the YVR leg) which ended up about the same as the cheaper flight.

When I was in the UK years ago I'd jump on a bus and ask for a single ticket to X to which the driver would insist on selling me a return as it was 50p cheaper... I think rail tickets were similar.

 

[GermanLawyer]

Hi everyone

great to see, that this case even made it all around the world in the meantime. I am the passengers lawyer here in Germany and would like to give you some background information to better understand this case and the legal frameworkt.

We have a quite detailled legal framwork when it comes to terms & conditions in German law in sec. 305 ff of the German civil code (BGB).

Basically, as a consumer, everything that sounds "strange", is not legally binding.

We had presendet a full array of arguments under german law, of which every single argument would have led to the dismissal of the action. The T&Cs in this points are not transparent enough (as they do not allow to show the expectable chargement), they do also cover cases in which it's not the passengers fault to miss a flight (e.g. delayed prior flight on same ticket, unfit to fly) and, my personal issue with this clause: Charging more for doing less.

In the oral hearing, the first instance judge at the local court of Berlin mentioned that this last point would not be a problem, which is quite surprising to me. We however were succesful due to the lack of transparency of the current T&Cs.

The German Federal Court (BGH) gave a ruling regarding cross-ticketing in a BA case back in 2010: Failing to use one of the segments of the flights entitles an airline to void the rest of the ticket and asking for a payment before letting the passenger fly as Airlines have a legitimate interest to protect their fare systems.

This decision had been mentioned repeatedly by Lufthansa. I do however think that these cases are not comparable:
Giving someone the option to pay to use the rest of a ticket is less than asking someone to pay for nothing.

One thing not really known in non-German-media yet: Even Lufthansa seems to be convinced that their T&Cs will not withstand a legal assessment: After the oral hearing, in which the judge already expressed her legal opinion, Lufthansa tried an abandonment of action.

After an oral hearing, the defendant has to approve this. My client did not approve the abandonment of action as he wanted to settle this case and LH would otherwise have had the chance to sue him again. I am therefore quite surprised that they filed an appeal to the next higher court (district court of Berlin).

As thousands of passengers every day are endangered of being retrocharged for unflown flights, this could even be a suitable case for an appeal that will be handled by the Federal Supreme Court of Germany (BGH).

In the meantime I heard about the European Commission examining the issue of hidden-city-ticketing, this might also solve the problem in the future.