Lufthansa sues no-show passengers [Hidden City Ticketed]

[nutwood]

Yes, but if you read the comments section you'll see that this may not be what it seems. While the airline can't cancel your onward segments, they might re-price them fi you still want to fly (which presumably you do).

So miss the first leg and the rest of the ticket might be $500 more expensive (that is, the fare appliacble from the point you now wish to board).

Totally appreciate the point but surely the question is the legality of that position? You've paid for the seat, they've accepted the payment. Whether the airline can prove that it's disadvantaged in any way if you chose not to avail yourself of the seat you have paid for is the interesting question.

 

[JohnK]

No they haven't, because clearly the passenger was not prepared to pay $1000 for the direct flight.

What you're implying is the customer sets the airfare they want to pay and not allowing the airline to set the airfare?

Similar scenario is B-C is $1000 but A-B-C is $700. So you buy A-B-C and don't front up for first leg but expect to fly B-C at a discount?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Totally appreciate the point but surely the question is the legality of that position? You've paid for the seat, they've accepted the payment. Whether the airline can prove that it's disadvantaged in any way if you chose not to avail yourself of the seat you have paid for is the interesting question.

This is a completely different scenario to skipping the last leg.

What the Spanish court has said is that if you miss any one of the sectors but still want to travel on the remaining ones, that the airline can't cancel those segements. But there's nothing, it seems, to prevent the airline re-pricing them if the fare was higher from another starting point.

Preventing an airline cancelling the segments might protect some of the passenger's money. Or, if the fare was the same from say MAD or BCN, the airline wouldn't be able to collect more. But they might be able to charge a fee for re-issuing the ticket.

This would be a question not of whether you've chosen not to avail yourself of a seat you've paid for, but an issue of the applicable fare.

Skipping the last segement and the airline trying to recover is a different scenario.

 

[nutwood]

This is a completely different scenario to skipping the last leg.

What the Spanish court has said is that if you miss any one of the sectors but still want to travel on the remaining ones, that the airline can't cancel those segements. But there's nothing, it seems, to prevent the airline re-pricing them if the fare was higher from another starting point.

Preventing an airline cancelling the segments might protect some of the passenger's money. Or, if the fare was the same from say MAD or BCN, the airline wouldn't be able to collect more. But they might be able to charge a fee for re-issuing the ticket.

This would be a question not of whether you've chosen not to avail yourself of a seat you've paid for, but an issue of the applicable fare.

Skipping the last segement and the airline trying to recover is a different scenario.

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of the Spanish court's ruling. Not saying it's incorrect, as I haven't looked at anything other than the linked article, but there doesn't seem to be anything in there about re-pricing. "Spain’s Supreme Court has now ruled that since you paid for the entire ticket, you should be able to use what you want.". Being able to re-price seems to be contrary to the intent of that statement as it would allow the airline to effectively cancel your ticket by re-pricing at a exorbitant price.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of the Spanish court's ruling. Not saying it's incorrect, as I haven't looked at anything other than the linked article, but there doesn't seem to be anything in there about re-pricing. "Spain’s Supreme Court has now ruled that since you paid for the entire ticket, you should be able to use what you want.". Being able to re-price seems to be contrary to the intent of that statement as it would allow the airline to effectively cancel your ticket by re-pricing at a exorbitant price.

No. The airline can reprice at the existing published fare. They can’t arbitrarily make up something (although qantas does for example by insisting your new fare must be equal or higher than the old one... and the cheap ones are sometimes greyed out unless you call!)

I think the re-pricing bit comes out of the the comment that although they have to abide by it, how they implement it is not specified. There is a subtle difference between cancelling the rest of the ticket with no refund, and cancelling the ticket such that there is some remaining value.

 

[jch]

Last year I found a cheap J ticket with EY from Jakarta to Rome return for about A$2k over Easter. I've got return two SQ bookings from SYD-SIN, then SIN-CGK to connect to the flight from Australia. On the return trip, I chose to take the Dreamliner from AUH-SIN which connects to a Garuda codeshare to Jakarta for around the same price as going direct.

Do you think I will be risking the status credits going to my Velocity account for the FCO-AUH-SIN legs if I "miss" the Garuda code share? It would be nice to have a day of rest in Singapore before my flight back to Sydney and not need to backtrack from Jakarta. No real financial gain for me, just saving time and thought I would get to try a different plane.

BTW the Dreamliner was since switched out but there will be one on the AUH-FCO leg.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Last year I found a cheap J ticket with EY from Jakarta to Rome return for about A$2k over Easter. I've got return two SQ bookings from SYD-SIN, then SIN-CGK to connect to the flight from Australia. On the return trip, I chose to take the Dreamliner from AUH-SIN which connects to a Garuda codeshare to Jakarta for around the same price as going direct.

Do you think I will be risking the status credits going to my Velocity account for the FCO-AUH-SIN legs if I "miss" the Garuda code share? It would be nice to have a day of rest in Singapore before my flight back to Sydney and not need to backtrack from Jakarta. No real financial gain for me, just saving time and thought I would get to try a different plane.

BTW the Dreamliner was since switched out but there will be one on the AUH-FCO leg.

For a 'one off' it's highly unlikely EY is going to go after you.

 

[jch]

For a 'one off' it's highly unlikely EY is going to go after you.

Agree, just wondering if it will compromise the status credits coming through for an incomplete journey.

 

[ozfflyer]

has been a lot written about hidden city fares in USA on various consumer forums, where it seems to occur quite often. Catch is if you book a flight from A to C via B, the routing might change to A to C via D & if you want to actually go to B, you might be out of luck. Then again, if you do it 10 times & only 1 time, the hidden city changes, you're probably much better off dollars wise.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

has been a lot written about hidden city fares in USA on various consumer forums, where it seems to occur quite often. Catch is if you book a flight from A to C via B, the routing might change to A to C via D & if you want to actually go to B, you might be out of luck. Then again, if you do it 10 times & only 1 time, the hidden city changes, you're probably much better off dollars wise.

It's perhaps slightly different in the USA where you can usually get from A-C via many different 'Bs'... LA-NY can be non-stop or via ATL, ORD, DFW or a dozen other transit points. For international flights the long hauls generally transit via the main hub, so not so much of a risk.

 

[yohy?!]

Pretty common in Asia, have done many times with ex-TPE fares.

Easy enough to book the last leg the maximum 23 hours apart so that no issue with short checking bags to HK.

Then just let CX know on leaving airport to cancel check in on the last flight.

The airline doesn't lose.money in this case and may even sell the same seat twice

 

[nutwood]

I recently priced up car hire for a quote. When I came to book, I was surprised to discover the price was $100 higher. Investigation showed that I was booking for a shorter period than I had originally priced, due to pick up and return times. I'd originally priced four days, but was booking three days. Adjustment of times to make it four days and the price came down by $100.
I wonder if they'll charge me an extra $100 when I return the car early?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I recently priced up car hire for a quote. When I came to book, I was surprised to discover the price was $100 higher. Investigation showed that I was booking for a shorter period than I had originally priced, due to pick up and return times. I'd originally priced four days, but was booking three days. Adjustment of times to make it four days and the price came down by $100.
I wonder if they'll charge me an extra $100 when I return the car early?

What does the contract say about early returns or changes to rental period?

 

[ozfflyer]

I recently priced up car hire for a quote. When I came to book, I was surprised to discover the price was $100 higher. Investigation showed that I was booking for a shorter period than I had originally priced, due to pick up and return times. I'd originally priced four days, but was booking three days. Adjustment of times to make it four days and the price came down by $100.
I wonder if they'll charge me an extra $100 when I return the car early?

car rental is often cheaper per day, the more days you rent for. Have discovered a few times, that 7 days is often cheaper than 6 days, similarly with accommodation. It would be terrible PR if they even tried to charge you for bringing it back early, plus they can then go & rent that car earlier.

 

[Happy Dude]

I recently priced up car hire for a quote. When I came to book, I was surprised to discover the price was $100 higher. Investigation showed that I was booking for a shorter period than I had originally priced, due to pick up and return times. I'd originally priced four days, but was booking three days. Adjustment of times to make it four days and the price came down by $100.
I wonder if they'll charge me an extra $100 when I return the car early?

I suspect this is more to do with which days rather than the number of days. In CBR, if I need a car for say, Tuesday to Thursday, it is usually cheaper if I commence the rental on the prior Sunday. That daily rate for rentals starting on the weekend plummets to less than $20/day. The "peak days" may differ by location of course.....

 

[ozfflyer]

I suspect this is more to do with which days rather than the number of days. In CBR, if I need a car for say, Tuesday to Thursday, it is usually cheaper if I commence the rental on the prior Sunday. That daily rate for rentals starting on the weekend plummets to less than $20/day. The "peak days" may differ by location of course.....

PLUS the best rental car rates at least for the USA are RATE OF THE DAY, menaing if you book tomorrow instead of today, the rate may chnage a lot.

Have done a lot of one ways in USA, sometimes dropping off or picking up at tiny depots.

Oftne if book very early can get an SUV for AU$100 for 1 day including 1 way fee. Book much later & the price can double or triple or they simply say unavailable, which I presume means, they have enough cars going one way & the tiny depot where I want to drop off, can't take anymore cars.

 

[There'sOnlyOneJimmy]

Received recently from Kiwi.com:

We have you covered
if an airline tries to sue you
With the recent news that airlines are continuing to sue their own customers, we’re extending our protection. Now, if you book an itinerary with Kiwi.com and an airline unreasonably decides you’re in breach, we’ll reimburse the amount claimed back, your legal costs, or provide assistance. Check out our updated terms and conditions below and find more information here.

Assistance against legal claims

We will provide You with the below-specified assistance in situations when a legal claim is brought against You by the Selected Carrier in relation to Your Booking due to the alleged breach of the Selected Carrier's contractual clauses which are considered as unbalanced, disproportionate and/or abusive. These conditions include, among others, the practices commonly known as "throw-away", "back to back" and "hidden city" ticketing. We believe that these and similar contractual clauses are disproportionate and thus shall not enjoy legal protection.

In case the Selected Carrier brings a lawsuit against You claiming a breach of these contractual clauses, We will:

(1) Reimburse You the costs of Your legal expenses related to such legal proceedings; or

(2) Assist You in the legal proceedings and provide You with the aid of Our legal advisors who are experienced with claims of this nature; or

(3) Reimburse You the amount claimed by the Selected Carrier in relation to the alleged breach of its contractual clauses.

The choice of the appropriate and most suitable method and scope of Our assistance will be done upon Our discretion following a previous consultation with You.

In order to provide You with the above-specified assistance, We need You to contact Us immediately after You are contacted by the Selected Carrier when they claim such a breach. And You must provide Us with all the relevant information and necessary cooperation so that We are able to find the appropriate solution to Your situation both timely and accurately.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Interesting.

The key words are 'In case the Selected Carrier brings a lawsuit against You claiming a breach of these contractual clauses'... an airline could close your FF account (and you lose all your points and status) without needing to take you to court. This is what has happened with BA to discourage the cheap exEU fares (with throw away for the final leg back to Europe).

So it wouldn't protect you against that for example.

If kiwi was the ticketing agent, the airline would go after the agent to recoup the fare difference at first instance.

So this feels a bit like a gimmick to me rather than anything meaningful?

 

[ozfflyer]

Interesting.

The key words are 'In case the Selected Carrier brings a lawsuit against You claiming a breach of these contractual clauses'... an airline could close your FF account (and you lose all your points and status) without needing to take you to court. This is what has happened with BA to discourage the cheap exEU fares (with throw away for the final leg back to Europe).

So it wouldn't protect you against that for example.

If kiwi was the ticketing agent, the airline would go after the agent to recoup the fare difference at first instance.

So this feels a bit like a gimmick to me rather than anything meaningful?

don't be silly, an agent can't be held responsible for what a passenger does.

 

[RooFlyer]

OMAAT on the kiwi.com deal:

WOW: Kiwi.com Will Pay Legal Fees If You Get Sued For Throwaway Ticketing - One Mile at a Time