Trying to understand these travellers' unfortunate ticketing/insurance problem

[aspro2]

It was hard to choose the right forum for this one... Saw a letter in the The Age about someone's ticketing/rebooking mess and I can't see how their situation makes sense. So out of simple curiosity, I'm wondering what scenarios could have caused these travellers' problems? (I'm not assuming the travellers are telling lies or deliberately omitting crucial details!)

The letter (shortened/paraphrased by me):

Booked Brisbane-Singapore-Copenhagen-Nice. Because of Cyclone Alfred, no flights out of Brisbane. Subsequently rebooked when the airport reopened five days later, but ended up in Paris, not Copenhagen.

After losing our flight from Copenhagen to Nice, we had to make and pay for a new booking from Paris to Nice (our intended destination). This cost $1486.28 for myself and my wife. If we had not paid for the additional flight from Paris to Nice, we would have lost the whole of the rest of the ticket, which was non-refundable and unused, which would have been far more costly that paying for the additional flight from Paris to Nice.

American Express Platinum Card travel insurance, would not refund the unavoidable additional rebooking cost.

As far as I can see, this is one ticket, so I'm having trouble seeing how the travellers had to pay for the Paris-Nice leg, let alone why that was necessary in order to protect the remaining ticket sectors. Not sure why travel insurance would have refused the costs too, unless the policy was taken out after the cyclone had been predicted.

 

[markis10]

A lack of details does make it hard, it’s possible the revised routing was the only option under a commercial waiver or the leg from Copenhagen was outside the scope of the waiver. They certainly paid top dollar to get to nice.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

It’s not clear who did the rebooking, or how the ticket was constructed. If it was all on the one ticket, they would have ended up in Nice whenever the rebooking took place.

It seems the Copenhagen-Nice might have been a separate ticket, as they said they ‘lost’ that leg.

Regardless, they should be checking their itinerary, because ending up in Nice on their own accord won’t necessarily stop the rest of the ticket being cancelled.

 

[aspro2]

If it was all on the one ticket, they would have ended up in Nice whenever the rebooking took place.

It seems the Copenhagen-Nice might have been a separate ticket, as they said they ‘lost’ that leg.

I think the "lost" reference is to the rerouting SIN-PAR instead of the original SIN-CPH-NCE. It does read as if this is all on one ticket. And yes, my curiosity is exactly why NCE wasn't the rerouted outbound endpoint no matter what.

 

[CaptJCool]

Cause the airline didn’t play NICE?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I think the "lost" reference is to the rerouting SIN-PAR instead of the original SIN-CPH-NCE. It does read as if this is all on one ticket. And yes, my curiosity is exactly why NCE wasn't the rerouted outbound endpoint no matter what.

I thought about that too… but then why wouldn’t they simply say they lost their final flight to Nice? Instead of, specifically, the CPH-NCE flight?

Perhaps with all the rebooking they accepted the flight to Paris, given its closer to Nice, and accepted to make their own way there? Or just assumed travel insurance would pay. (Most common mistake in reading TI complains is that people don’t understand when travel insurance applies, and when it won’t… they make assumptions)

 

[CaptJCool]

Perhaps that’s expecting too much of travel insurance ?
Like is it really designed for Medivacs rather than delays and inconveniences - in the original definition it was to cover the loss of sunk ship or house that burnt down

Rather than the mod cons of private health insurance for example that cover the costs of physio …

After all, it’s about making money based on who carries the risk, the bigger risks with huge financial impact being few and far between. Some stats I saw recently was there was something like 5-6 high cost Medical evacuations in a year

 

[Flyfrequently]

I would have been in contact with TI before booking anything additional but also would have taken the train from Paris to Nice, it's a very scenic journey.
And yes, needs more information as suggested above.

 

[BenP]

I just had a quick google flight search and I couldn't find that route without using the multi city booking and just booking BNE to SIN on Singapore the next leg states it is a separate ticket.
My limited understanding of booking flights is if I've booked from A to B they will get me to me B and not C
So I'm going to assume that they have booked each leg separately and the writer of the letter either left out a key part (why they ended up in Paris) or it was edited out.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I managed to have a look at the letter via a paywall reader. The poster is adamant if they had not bought a separate ticket from Paris to Nice they would have lost the rest of the ticket.

Given they don’t seem to really understand how this works, it’s likely the additional expense was not involuntary, and their expectations on travel insurance were incorrect.

 

[aspro2]

I just had a quick google flight search and I couldn't find that route without using the multi city booking and just booking BNE to SIN on Singapore the next leg states it is a separate ticket.
My limited understanding of booking flights is if I've booked from A to B they will get me to me B and not C
So I'm going to assume that they have booked each leg separately and the writer of the letter either left out a key part (why they ended up in Paris) or it was edited out.

There are many tickets that are more complex than that, mostly constructed via travel agents... I guess that's an experience many people haven't had anymore! I guess my last one like that was in the early 2010s!

 

[aspro2]

I managed to have a look at the letter via a paywall reader. The poster is adamant if they had not bought a separate ticket from Paris to Nice they would have lost the rest of the ticket.

Given they don’t seem to really understand how this works, it’s likely the additional expense was not involuntary, and their expectations on travel insurance were incorrect.

Crucially to interpretation, they don't say they bought a separate ticket (which would make no sense with regard to losing the rest of the existing ticket) - they refer to a "new booking" or "flight", so for me it sounded like they were forced to pay a fee for the rerouting.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Crucially to interpretation, they don't say they bought a separate ticket (which would make no sense with regard to losing the rest of the existing ticket) - they refer to a "new booking" or "flight", so for me it sounded like they were forced to pay a fee for the rerouting.

‘Make and Pay’ sounds like a new ticket to me.

I suspect SQ offered them re-routing to CDG, which they thought ‘great, it’s closer to Nice’. And didn’t think beyond that.

There is no way they could be expected to pay for any rerouting of an existing ticket which listed BNE-NCE.

 

[BenP]

There are many tickets that are more complex than that, mostly constructed via travel agents... I guess that's an experience many people haven't had anymore! I guess my last one like that was in the early 2010s!

I've seen a few on here before and it makes sense to have used a TA

But the key part is missing in the story and I don't think we will ever know and that is why they ended up in Paris in the first place

 

[SeatBackForward]

The letter's been written in way to express frustration by the writer, not in a factual way to explain what happened. Not enough details to form a cohesive argument either way.