So now the argument has shifted from one about the "fairness" of check-in times (and other terms, which we can argue for forever and a day whether they are clearly stipulated to the customer), plus the validity of airline contracts to the customer upon sale of a fare......to the fairness of the repercussions if the customer does not uphold their end of the contract (e.g. arrives late for check-in, has excess baggage weight, etc. which may lead to loss of fare).
I still think this holds little water. But if you really want to take an airline to court on the grounds that forfeiting your fare is an unfair consequence of your violating the CoC, then by all means go for it. One case of a "win" has been recorded on AFF
here, although it should be known that the premise of that thread was that it was JQ who were
prima facie at fault and not the customer.
I don't know exactly how commercial air transport sales are administered, because buying a ticket to fly can't be compared to other services, like getting your computer repaired or having your car serviced. (It is a bit similar to booking a hotel room). In any case, there must be specific reason why airlines have a range of fares of which some of them have stringent conditions and others not; one such condition is the ability to refund, i.e. typically, the cheapest fares are "non-refundable", whilst the more expensive fares are "refundable" to different extents (some only before a flight, some after a flight, some with administration fees for cancelling and others not). (Similar structures exist for the ability to change a flight.)
Assuming that having such a price structure is legal (and it must be since airlines have been doing this kind of fare structure for a very long time now), then the hopefully intelligent-enough lay person should understand that the price they are paying for a fare includes a set of conditions attached to it, one of them being their ability to claim a refund. The customer should be aware of the varying conditions because they are usually presented with a range of fares to select from (TT is a notable exception); surely these fares don't purely exist because the more expensive fares are only there to sucker people who think paying more is better even though they are getting the same seat for the same flown sector?
On the premise that people understand this, then their acceptance (and subsequent payment) of a particular fare must be their condoning that they accept that the conditions attached to it are fair. This includes the consequences of
not meeting the conditions, which may include loss of fare.
Now, you are going to tell me that any intelligent lay person who goes through that process above, violates the contract in any way (e.g. by turning up at the airport late) is now going to argue post factum that consequences such as loss of fare are now unfair? If ludicrous had a (n+1)th definition, I think we've just written it.
Note that airlines are still entitled to discretion when you fail to uphold your side of the contract (just as much as any merchant who is not at fault for goods you wish to refund (e.g. because you changed your mind, got the wrong size or colour, chose the wrong item or maliciously damaged the item yourself) can
legally either grant the refund, offer an exchange or not allow you to do anything). So hopefully this would mean that any "T-44" (or other appropriate amount) cases are handled appropriately, but keep in mind that you still violated your part of the contract, even if it is one minute. As for when the airline fails to uphold its end of the bargain, e.g. you arrive at check-in before T-45 but aren't actually checked in by the cut-off, cancellation, overbooking, delay, etc., then airlines are bound to fulfill their contract to carry you (obviously, they cannot do this with respect to time, since you can't go back in time...yet) - how this happens is a matter for law and what is practical, both of which I'm unable to comment upon (i.e. I'm not sure what the law says are practical means of dealing with an airline's outstanding obligations when it is at fault
or it fails to deliver a service in its entirety to customer(s)).
Oh, and airlines enforcing the T-45 (or whatever) check-in rule despite late aircraft being unfair? Might be, but it's too complicated to regulate otherwise, e.g. what would happen if a flight is lightly loaded and can actually leave earlier? Would you be happy if the departure time was brought forward and the T-
n rule applied to that? What if you checked an airline's website for departures at home, read that there is an expected delay, factor that into your schedule (because you're allowed to check-in up to T-45 before expected departure), but in the interim the airline manages to make up a good part of the delay (e.g. get another aircraft, incoming aircraft makes up time in the air), then you arrive at the airport "late" because the expected departure time has been brought forward? Having the check-in before departure pinned against expected times will delay any already-late flights
even more than if all pax where checked-in before the scheduled time.
Post-script: just did a dummy booking on the TT website, this notice next to a checkbox appears near the acceptance button on the page where one selects flights:
[CHECK BOX HERE] I/We have read and accept Tiger Airways' conditions of carriage and the above [KEY TERMS WERE PRINTED ABOVE THIS NOTICE] fare restrictions associated with the fare and will advise all other passengers travelling on this reservation. I/We confirm that I/we satisfy Tiger Airways' requirements and understand that if I/we do not, I/we may be refused carriage and will not be entitled to a refund. (Please check box to continue)
Now that
could have been placed after the screening of the show, but I still think it's an ineffective instrument to ensure people truly understand the implications of purchasing a restrictive airfare.
...but have a look at this here from Victorian Consumer Affairs:
