Lufthansa sues no-show passengers [Hidden City Ticketed]

[MEL_Traveller]

Before I start, I am currently preparing for a test that involves critical reasoning, so I am trying to do as much logical arguments as possible, apologies in advance if I went too far....

I agree the chance of this becoming a big PR incident is small, but it's always a risk when you sue a paying customer. Unlike mistake fares where you don't lose out if the Airline cancel the fare beside not being able to fly, contrast that with taking a customer to court where the customer will incur legal fees to defend the charge.

I am not familiar with the German legal system but from what I can read using google translate, the Airline has appealed the verdict from the district court and it is not cheap to defend an action that has been appealed further up and can literally bankrupt people.

Sure, understand. The PR element is not important here because it is aimed at serial offenders. Any retrospective claim for a reprice of fare will only be in circumstances where the passenger intentionaly misses the final flight. This would rule out if the passenger became ill. Even if the passenger became ill and the airline insisted on claiming, a passenger's travel insurance would kick in.

Other than that, the only passengers affected will be those looking to score cheap premium airfares. For economy class passengers the cost of repositioning would likely rule out any major benefits. As it affects premium pax 'gaming' the system, there is little public sympathy, therefore little in terms of PR damage.

'PR' is often cited as a reason why some passengers claim airlines are bound to honour mistake fares. They claim that an airline cancelling mistake fares will face a PR disaster because every other passenger - even those on legitimate fare - will no longer have the certainty that their airfare will be honoured. And will avoid the airline.

This argument has never been successful.

There might be some cases were an airline would need to consider PR... for example the reputation of the airline to start with. If Malaysia Airlines started to sue passengers for cutting short their flights, that may impact negatively on their brand, which is already under serious pressure.

 

[samh004]

Not knowing German, when are we likely to hear the result of the appeal?

 

[Happy Trails]

I'm guessing the legal action is more to do with scaring off future punters, rather than recovering $$$ from those already travelled, in which case the PR aspect works in their favour.

 

[33kft]

'PR' is often cited as a reason why some passengers claim airlines are bound to honour mistake fares. They claim that an airline cancelling mistake fares will face a PR disaster because every other passenger - even those on legitimate fare - will no longer have the certainty that their airfare will be honoured. And will avoid the airline.

This argument is poor, but an alternative argument is that an airline who owns up to its error, and more importantly gives the feeling that the little people won for once can certainly help with affinity, it endears large corporates to people and if the cost delta isn't too big I would think it is a no brainer as a mea culpa PR move, but it's where people book an airline dry on mispriced fares that make it impossible to honour it without both spending operational dollars that you need and setting a dangerous precedent for next time (and there will be a next time).

 

[ermen]

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.)

do u have a link for this?
afaik, ba have not gone down this route to pursue customers directly.. though they did try to shut down / issue debit memos to a well known travel agency for their customers skipping ex-EU flights

 

[The man with no name]

I’ve done this before and absolutely would do again. Stick your T’s. & C’s up your a***. If airlines can play games with us on pricing based on our location why can’t we ?
If I’m in the market for a new BMW and it’s $15K cheaper in Queensland why can’t they buy it there ?

 

[Danger]

To my mind, the fundamental element of hidden city ticket - that it can be cheaper to fly more flights or a greater distance or take my transfers - is a key reason why so-called "error fares" should be difficult for an airline to defend.

Is there any other service industry in the world where the consumer is penalised for consuming less of the service than what was paid for?

 

[SOPOOR]

wait a minute!
so airline offers a certain price and product, customer accepts this price, pays for it
and then doesnt turn up, thus saving the airline more money,
and now the airline is trying to sue

has the world gone mad?

or is this another lets line the pockets of lawyers?

 

[drsmithy]

I disagree on this. If a 'regular passenger' buys a ticket CPH-JFK they are not expecting they have two separate tickets CPH-FRA and FRA-JFK. They search as a single ticket and that's what they are given. Same with a QF flight MEL-LAX... I don't think any member of the public thinks they have two completely separate tickets?

No, but they think they've paid for a trip that goes A-B-C and if they happen to get off at B, why should the airline care (indeed, it should be happy for the lower opex). Similarly, they would expect to be able to miss getting on at A and still be able to fly B-C for the same reason (eg: if they run late and miss the first leg of a trip but realise they can still get to the transfer point before the second leg leaves using another airline - yes, someone has told me this happened to them and were both surprised and aggravated when they tried to check-in for the second leg).

There's an obvious variant of this that more "regular" people will be familiar with, and that is buying a return ticket and for whatever reason not getting on the first flight (plenty of legitimate reasons this might happen, from simply running late to a medical emergency).

A "regular passenger" would not expect this to cancel the return leg. I can say this with some confidence having (a) been such a "regular passenger" (though still having taken dozens of flights) myself many moons ago and getting caught out by it (quite seriously both in terms of inconvenience and $$$ - not only missed a mate's birthday party but it cost me well over a thousand bucks all up to recover from, when that was a lot of money to me) and (b) talked to dozens of people over the years who were either caught out themselves, or who were extremely surprised to think it would be a problem.

A "regular passenger" who discovered (or heard about) hidden city ticketing would just think they were being clever and getting a bargain.

I would be very surprised to see a court rule on the side of the airline, even in this day and age. The rules that it breaks are buried in the ticket conditions that nobody (normal) reads. I would expect it to be treated the same way any other sort of buried-in-the-fine-print-condition is (eg: software EULAs), which would be some sort of reasonable person test. Ie: would a reasonable person who bought a ticket that traversed locations A-B-C expect to be able to get off at B without any consequences, just like they can on trains, buses, taxis, tuk-tuks, or whatever. Answer: of course.

 

[nutwood]

To my mind, the fundamental element of hidden city ticket - that it can be cheaper to fly more flights or a greater distance or take my transfers - is a key reason why so-called "error fares" should be difficult for an airline to defend.

Is there any other service industry in the world where the consumer is penalised for consuming less of the service than what was paid for?

My feeling is that you have expressed the view the courts will take, but it'll be interesting to see. If you book a flight and do a "no show", the airline is quite happy to keep the fare, but if you book a two leg flight and "no show" on the second leg, they want to charge extra? They have a simple remedy available to them; never price the two leg flight lower than the single leg price.
The equivalent would be taking the "steak and a pot" special at the local pub and declining the beer. Can you imagine the publican asking you to either drink the beer or pay extra for the steak?!

 

[JohnK]

Well perhaps if the airlines didn't have such illogical pricing......

It's not really illogical. Airlines price airfares based on the local market conditions.

Can you imagine 2L milk priced the same anywhere in the world? Or expecting an unlimited phone internet package for $20/month anywhere in the world? Or being able to buy a BMW for the same price anywhere in the world?

But then you'd need salaries to be similar anywhere in the world.

 

[drsmithy]

It's not really illogical. Airlines price airfares based on the local market conditions.

Can you imagine 2L milk priced the same anywhere in the world? Or expecting an unlimited phone internet package for $20/month anywhere in the world? Or being able to buy a BMW for the same price anywhere in the world?

But then you'd need salaries to be similar anywhere in the world.

It's more like pricing 2L of milk in the same place, in 1x2L, 2x1L and 4x500ml containers differently. Only the 4x500ml is the cheapest version. Then trying to retrospectively charge you for the 1x2L option if you only use 3 of the 500ml containers and throw the fourth out.

 

[YSSY]

I’ve booked tickets previously with no intention of using the final leg. One of those occasions was due to the connecting flight I wanted being under the MCT so I booked a seperate ticket with just the ‘illegal’ connection and checked in online, no hand carry.

Another occasion I was flying to Barbados via Miami and after landing in Miami received a call telling me to skip the connection and stay in Miami.

There are numerous reasons people might not utilise a leg and it’s unreasonable to be contractually bound to take the flight.

 

[SOPOOR]

so if you book a taxi or a driver, and pre pay it, and you dont show up or say to them , I dont need your service anymore, keep the money

then the driver/company can sue you.....

absolutely ludcirous

 

[MEL_Traveller]

To my mind, the fundamental element of hidden city ticket - that it can be cheaper to fly more flights or a greater distance or take my transfers - is a key reason why so-called "error fares" should be difficult for an airline to defend.

Is there any other service industry in the world where the consumer is penalised for consuming less of the service than what was paid for?

Is there any other service industry that has similar operating model to airlines? If not, hard to draw comparisons.

There is one immediate example, the train to Sydney airport. If i buy a ticket beyond Sydney airport it is $3 or whatever, but if i decide to get off at SYD the fare deducted is $16. Paying more for travelling less.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

There are numerous reasons people might not utilise a leg and it’s unreasonable to be contractually bound to take the flight.

You’re not contractually bound to take the flight. You are contractually bound to pay the applicable fare between two points. If you choose to fly no farther than MIA, no one can force you on to the plane. But they can ask you to pay the applicable fare.

 

[drsmithy]

Is there any other service industry that has similar operating model to airlines? If not, hard to draw comparisons.

You mean transporting people from one place to another ? There’s a few.

There is one immediate example, the train to Sydney airport. If i buy a ticket beyond Sydney airport it is $3 or whatever, but if i decide to get off at SYD the fare deducted is $16. Paying more for travelling less.

That is an extremely disingenuous example. Those specific stations have a special usage fee.

 

[justin23]

It's more like pricing 2L of milk in the same place, in 1x2L, 2x1L and 4x500ml containers differently. Only the 4x500ml is the cheapest version. Then trying to retrospectively charge you for the 1x2L option if you only use 3 of the 500ml containers and throw the fourth out.

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. 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).

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.

That said it also works both ways, I flew CBR-MEL-SYD-WLG in J for the same price as CBR-SYD-WLG. With double status points and the same flights in both directions, that was a free 160 SC's for the same price. Now they could start charging more for these kinds of flights too.

 

[p--and--t]

I think the airlines want their cake and eat it and sell it to someone else.

Want to grab passengers off a competitor while not going to the expense of actually operating the same flight (i.e. direct), run an anti-competitive loss leader, sue a passenger for not using one segment of a ticketed individual four segment journey where the airline saves Opex and in some cases has potentially re-sold the seat to someone else in a last minute upgrade etc!

Can you imagine going to scoopon and buying a bulk deal of 4 el-cheapo massages and neglecting to book one or more of them within the 90day expiration period of the vouchers and being sued for not having 4 massages?

 

[nutwood]

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.