I found a more detailed article on this case, unfortunately in German only:
https://rsw.beck.de/aktuell/meldung/ag- ... -verlangen

The ticket in question was a round trip Oslo - Frankfurt - North America (not specified where exactly). The passenger followed the itinerary on the outward journey but not on the return journey (he actually took a flight Frankfurt-Berlin, also from Lufthansa, bought separately!).

It seems that Lufthansa was charging this passenger €2100 to compensate for the difference in price between his ticket and the same ticket without the last segment. The court found that the supplement requested was not sufficiently transparent to the consumer (in a broad summary).

And here is the jugement (also in German):
https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/r ... %2065%2F18

It's more a bad news than a good news for consumers, because apparently the court does not question the practice as a whole; only the transparency of the process is a problem here.

It is not just the airline industry that does this. What I see LH trying to protect here is their yield.

The Channel ferries and Eurotunnel do much the same thing between the UK and France - buying two cheap day returns instead a week return is regularly cheaper. Buying two single tickets is also more expensive. In the small print it mentions similar to what LH is doing in that any unused sectors can be billed for but it is something I’ve done for years and never been preside for.

At the end of the day the défendent can claim his travel plans changed, surely there is nowt LH can do about it?

If this practice is widespread, airlines have themselves to blame for it with their pricing policy. They can't blame the passengers for taking advantage of fare discrepencies like this. Connecting flights should never be cheaper than without the connection added on.

MON wrote:

At the end of the day the défendent can claim his travel plans changed, surely there is nowt LH can do about it?

In this case he bought a ticket Frankfurt-Berlin on LH one month ago

VirginFlyer wrote:

It appears the point is being missed by many posting here. The issue is not that the passenger failed to show up for a flight; it is that the passenger allegedly bought a fare which was sold on the condition of it being for a connection, with no intention of taking the connection. A small quote from the article illustrates the situation quite well:

For example, a test booking made by The Independent for travel from Moscow to Paris CDG for September 2019 found a fare of £217. But a ticket using the same flight to the French capital but with an onward connection to Heathrow was only £72, less than one-third of the price.

So it is not simply a case of buying a product which they then don’t use, but rather buying a product at a price which they are not entitled to.

9w748capt wrote:

The other day I went to the bakery and bought two cinnamon rolls but only ate one - I hope they don't sue me!

I know, "terrible analogy" as all the apologists would say - but the airlines have no one but themselves to blame for this nonsense. Reminds me of when Dougie justified nonrefundable tickets by comparing plane tickets to sporting event tickets. Apparently Dougie hasn't heard of stubhub.

Indeed, a better analogy would be going to a bakery which is offering a 2-for-1 deal for participants in a marathon they are sponsoring, and pretending to be a runner so you can get a free bun, when in fact you are not a participant in the marathon at all.

V/F

Next time I will not no-show but being late to the gate and after they refused to board me I will just reject their offer to rebook me....
so technically I have intention and tried to board the second leg but they just don't allow me to do so....
sorry everyone else onboard the airline forced me to do so and delayed your trip.

When you do not take a connecting flight, you will not have flown the trip you purchased but instead will have flown a trip that you did not purchase. It's a bit like paying for a ring with rubies and then turning around and taking a ring with emeralds that was more expensive. Even if the cost to the jeweler to produce each ring was the same, you still took something you did not pay for, and the jeweler has the right to price the rings as they see fit, regardless of how much it cost to produce them. Because you took something you did not pay for, the jeweler would have the right to call the cops on you. Why should things be any different when flying?

Big companies are terrible to people, and airlines are no exception, but a sly few should not have a right to game the system while the majority of us are stuck paying for the transportation we intend to use.

hongkongflyer wrote:

Next time I will not no-show but being late to the gate and after they refused to board me I will just reject their offer to rebook me....
so technically I have intention and tried to board the second leg but they just don't allow me to do so....
sorry everyone else onboard the airline forced me to do so and delayed your trip.

That's probably what is going to happen, and what I will do. Good luck to the airlines in proving that the passenger intentionally showed up at the gate too late. The delay caused by this approach will cost companies dearly. More than the price difference of the tickets....

hongkongflyer wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

It appears the point is being missed by many posting here. The issue is not that the passenger failed to show up for a flight; it is that the passenger allegedly bought a fare which was sold on the condition of it being for a connection, with no intention of taking the connection. A small quote from the article illustrates the situation quite well:

For example, a test booking made by The Independent for travel from Moscow to Paris CDG for September 2019 found a fare of £217. But a ticket using the same flight to the French capital but with an onward connection to Heathrow was only £72, less than one-third of the price.

So it is not simply a case of buying a product which they then don’t use, but rather buying a product at a price which they are not entitled to.

9w748capt wrote:

The other day I went to the bakery and bought two cinnamon rolls but only ate one - I hope they don't sue me!

I know, "terrible analogy" as all the apologists would say - but the airlines have no one but themselves to blame for this nonsense. Reminds me of when Dougie justified nonrefundable tickets by comparing plane tickets to sporting event tickets. Apparently Dougie hasn't heard of stubhub.

Indeed, a better analogy would be going to a bakery which is offering a 2-for-1 deal for participants in a marathon they are sponsoring, and pretending to be a runner so you can get a free bun, when in fact you are not a participant in the marathon at all.

V/F

Next time I will not no-show but being late to the gate and after they refused to board me I will just reject their offer to rebook me....
so technically I have intention and tried to board the second leg but they just don't allow me to do so....
sorry everyone else onboard the airline forced me to do so and delayed your trip.

Excellent idea! This here is called CYA.

usdcaguy wrote:

When you do not take a connecting flight, you will not have flown the trip you purchased but instead will have flown a trip that you did not purchase. It's a bit like paying for a ring with rubies and then turning around and taking a ring with emeralds that was more expensive.

More like buying a matched set of gems, paying for all and leaving a minor gem with the jeweler.

Only contentious option I see open is to not tell about the gift
or inform the jeweler that he can sell that minor gem to some other interested person.

usdcaguy wrote:

When you do not take a connecting flight, you will not have flown the trip you purchased but instead will have flown a trip that you did not purchase. It's a bit like paying for a ring with rubies and then turning around and taking a ring with emeralds that was more expensive. Even if the cost to the jeweler to produce each ring was the same, you still took something you did not pay for, and the jeweler has the right to price the rings as they see fit, regardless of how much it cost to produce them. Because you took something you did not pay for, the jeweler would have the right to call the cops on you. Why should things be any different when flying?

Big companies are terrible to people, and airlines are no exception, but a sly few should not have a right to game the system while the majority of us are stuck paying for the transportation we intend to use.

Why is it considered gaming the system only when it comes to airlines's ridiculous rules. I purchased a product sold by an airline. I use it however I see fit. End of story. The airlines want to have their cakes and eat em too. They need to write such incidences off as the cost of doing business.

As a travel agent I'm well aware of this, and it happens all the time. There are plenty of times I could save clients some money - like last week I had a client fly one way in First class AUH to LHR on EY. The one way ticket was just under €7k. As I thought he may have been coming back to LIS, I priced up AUH LHR LIS. Same EY flight with a connection on TAP in biz class €3k. Less than HALF price. So why don't ticket him to LIS and he gets out in LHR? Well, if the pax no shows on LHR LIS, the airline can send us an ADM (Agency Debit Memo) for the €4k difference. You may get away with it a few times, but it's just not worth the risk to the business. We will actually decline business where people specifically tell us they probably won't fly the last sector.

usdcaguy wrote:

When you do not take a connecting flight, you will not have flown the trip you purchased but instead will have flown a trip that you did not purchase. It's a bit like paying for a ring with rubies and then turning around and taking a ring with emeralds that was more expensive. Even if the cost to the jeweler to produce each ring was the same, you still took something you did not pay for, and the jeweler has the right to price the rings as they see fit, regardless of how much it cost to produce them. Because you took something you did not pay for, the jeweler would have the right to call the cops on you. Why should things be any different when flying?

Big companies are terrible to people, and airlines are no exception, but a sly few should not have a right to game the system while the majority of us are stuck paying for the transportation we intend to use.

This comparison seems to me to be biased. I would rather say that it is as if a jeweller sold a gold ring set with an unsightly gemstone for $500, and the gold ring alone (without the stone) for $1,000 - for example, because he can't sell this particular stone, while his gold rings are in high demand.

If I decide to buy the entire ring for $500, why can't I remove the unsightly gemstone?

The development of a particular tariff structure - the logic of which is understandable - does not necessarily mean that non-compliance with it is illegal. The fact that general conditions govern the tariff in question does not change this, because they may be illegal and therefore invalid. Moreover, several consumer associations in Europe have instituted actions to make these general conditions illegal (as well as the cancellation of the entire ticket in the event of a no-show). From the point of view of transparency and consumer rights, I think that would be a very good thing.

The airlines perspective is this, there are two separate products, A to B and A to C (the second is cheaper). It so happens though that there is a chance that an individual can book A to C and yet manage to get away with the more expensive A to B trip. From the perspective of the airline this is cheating, as the passenger is walking away with a product that is more expensive than what he paid for. Unfortunately for them there's not too much they can do about it. (Especially if the individual has no luggage)

The reason why everyone's having so much trouble of creating an analogy for this is that there's almost no analogy for this sort of thing in any other market in the world. Namely. getting away with availing a more expensive product after having paid for a cheaper one, and without the seller being able to do a damn thing about it.

Even if airlines managed to make it harder to get away with this practice a determined pax could feign sickness or some other excuse to get off at B. How is the airline to judge whether they are telling the truth or not, it could lead to a tricky situation.

This kind of loop hole usually exists with hub and spoke airlines that charge passengers premiums for departing or arriving at the hub. I have a friend who has been booking A-B-C for years and forgoing the A-B trip and only flying B-C (he lives at the airlines hub). The airline allowed it for years, until just now when an audit has led them to cut down on this activity.

Another friend of mine, a while ago, called me up as he wanted some advise as he had booked his parents A-B-C and wanted them off at B where he lived but they had luggage, and the airline refused to check it in only to B. He called me as he knew that I worked for the airline and wanted to know if there was anything I could do to help me out. Unfortunately I couldn't, I believe that the airline refused to release the bags and he had to fly to C along with the bags to collect them .

Yeah... Lufthansa used to be a great airline. Now they are a nickel-and-dime show. To sue your customers? This is ridiculous, they should be shamed of themselves.

And let me guess, if Lufthansa doesn't do their part of the contract (like they didn't for my flights last week), the customer is the one getting screwed, with no recourse for refund/compensation/damages.

Unfair. Non-competitive. Strong-arming contracts from a large entity against the small people.

3rdGen wrote:

The airlines perspective is this, there are two separate products, A to B and A to C (the second is cheaper). It so happens though that there is a chance that an individual can book A to C and yet manage to get away with the more expensive A to B trip. From the perspective of the airline this is cheating, as the passenger is walking away with a product that is more expensive than what he paid for. Unfortunately for them there's not too much they can do about it. (Especially if the individual has no luggage)

Problem is that airlines tend to define product the way which benefits them.
I would define product, for example, as transportation from A to C on a given date and time. Nope, date and time are binding for me, but not for the airline.
I have to pay more to fly before Xmas - but there is no compensation, at least in US, if I am rebooked for the day after xmas, when the fare is lower - well, if airline can explain it is out of control (like they didn't know airfield cannot accept 100 flights within 20 minutes if there is a single cloud in the sky)
This all ends up with one sided set of rules, and I wouldn't feel guilty if I game the system.

Interesting! The ticket was OSL-FRA-SEA and return. 657 € in Business Class (!!!).

When you know that Norwegian offers OSL-LGW-SEA, you can understand why this ticket was much cheaper than a BER-FRA/MUC-SEA (especially since long-haul competition has decreased in Berlin with the bankruptcy of Air Berlin!).

Lufthansa has therefore decided to sell its tickets from Oslo at a bargain to sink Norwegian. All right. If the airline wants to play this little game, then let it take the consequences! Finally, why should the Berlin consumer have to bear the cost of Lufthansa's attempt to bankrupt Norwegian?

Lufthansa....
First they paint their planes in tasteless new scheme and now their common sense is completely kaput?
I hope that pax will get millions from them.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

gunnerman wrote:

Lufthansa is seeking to sue a passenger who did not take the last leg of their ticketed journey. Here is a not uncommon situation. A person wants to fly from A to B but finds a cheaper fare from A to C via the airline's hub at B. So, a ticket from A to C via B is purchased, the passenger gets off the aircraft at B and discards the B to C ticket. This works best with hand luggage only.

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/lufthansa-passenger-tariff-abuse-cheap-flights-lawsuit-tickets-missing-air-france-british-airways-a8773371.html

I must be missing something.
If I get on a bus with a ticket for A to C, but I choose to get off at B, no problem.
If I get on a train from A to C, but choose to get off at B, no problem.
If I get in a taxi and agree a price for A to C, but change my plans mid-journey, no problem (as long as I pay the agreed fare)

I accept there could be a minor issue if the airport was expecting just five pax to deplane at B, and suddenly found itself swamped with 50 unexpected "guests".

And maybe this would be unacceptable if the mid-point was in a different country, and immigration was not available to process the unexpected arrivals.

Are either of these potential issues a) likely?, b) the airlines problem?

Your train analogy is incorrect, at least in the UK. If you buy a train ticket from A to C, you are not entitled to get off at B.

You can spin it whatever you like, there is such thing as common sense. Selling A->B->C cheaper than A->B is INSANE. In a sane world, they should be fined by competition authorities just for that.

AEROFAN wrote:

usdcaguy wrote:

When you do not take a connecting flight, you will not have flown the trip you purchased but instead will have flown a trip that you did not purchase. It's a bit like paying for a ring with rubies and then turning around and taking a ring with emeralds that was more expensive. Even if the cost to the jeweler to produce each ring was the same, you still took something you did not pay for, and the jeweler has the right to price the rings as they see fit, regardless of how much it cost to produce them. Because you took something you did not pay for, the jeweler would have the right to call the cops on you. Why should things be any different when flying?

Big companies are terrible to people, and airlines are no exception, but a sly few should not have a right to game the system while the majority of us are stuck paying for the transportation we intend to use.

Why is it considered gaming the system only when it comes to airlines's ridiculous rules. I purchased a product sold by an airline. I use it however I see fit. End of story. The airlines want to have their cakes and eat em too. They need to write such incidences off as the cost of doing business.

Wrong. You do not get to use an airline or their products any way you see fit. When you purchase an airline ticket you are entering into a contract with the airline. Hidden city ticketing is prohibited in your contract of carriage. Therefore you are in direct breach of the contract you entered into and are subject to all penalties associated. It's actually very simple. If you don't like the rules, then don't buy the ticket.

In the summer of 2017, the Lufthansa group paid me $600 to fly on an airplane. ZRH-SAN on Edelweiss Air by itself made the airfare $1600, but if I started my return trip from Frankfurt, flying FRA-ZRH-SAN, connecting to the very same airplane, it was only $1000. And it was a completely full plane - how much money did LH turn away by not selling those seats to someone who needed it? Well, at least $1200 from us, plus the cost of the other airfare.

There is no logic, rhyme, nor reason for airlines run their fares the way they do. And although the public can get many great deals, sometimes their illogic makes no sense, and that is what we are all ranting and raving about here. It has been way too long since governments have looked at the "oddities" and "quirks" of this system, and the "cleaning-up" of situations like this that need to go the way of the dinosaur.

Some will scream, "you're a communist for suggesting this!!", others will say, "that's just going to make ticket prices rise!!" I understand. However, I disagree - this isn't a revamping of airline economics: it's a change to ensure that ridiculous quirks don't cost consumers money.

twicearound wrote:

If you don't like the rules, then don't buy the ticket.

Or: If you don't like the rules, prove it is illegal. At the moment, this has been done in this case (the appeal remains to be judged).
Personnally, if I were to manage an airline in Europe, I would be hiring engineers at this very moment to rethink my entire fare structure

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

This isn't a revamping of airline economics: it's a change to ensure that ridiculous quirks don't cost consumers money.

3rdGen wrote:

The airlines perspective is this, there are two separate products, A to B and A to C (the second is cheaper). It so happens though that there is a chance that an individual can book A to C and yet manage to get away with the more expensive A to B trip. From the perspective of the airline this is cheating, as the passenger is walking away with a product that is more expensive than what he paid for. Unfortunately for them there's not too much they can do about it. (Especially if the individual has no luggage)

The reason why everyone's having so much trouble of creating an analogy for this is that there's almost no analogy for this sort of thing in any other market in the world. Namely. getting away with availing a more expensive product after having paid for a cheaper one, and without the seller being able to do a damn thing about it.

Even if airlines managed to make it harder to get away with this practice a determined pax could feign sickness or some other excuse to get off at B. How is the airline to judge whether they are telling the truth or not, it could lead to a tricky situation.

This kind of loop hole usually exists with hub and spoke airlines that charge passengers premiums for departing or arriving at the hub. I have a friend who has been booking A-B-C for years and forgoing the A-B trip and only flying B-C (he lives at the airlines hub). The airline allowed it for years, until just now when an audit has led them to cut down on this activity.

Another friend of mine, a while ago, called me up as he wanted some advise as he had booked his parents A-B-C and wanted them off at B where he lived but they had luggage, and the airline refused to check it in only to B. He called me as he knew that I worked for the airline and wanted to know if there was anything I could do to help me out. Unfortunately I couldn't, I believe that the airline refused to release the bags and he had to fly to C along with the bags to collect them .

Just show up late at the second leg and his luggage must had been offload from the plane. Again sorry for everyone else.

This is absolutely fascinating discussion. I can honestly say, that I can understand every argument being made here (I don't agree with LH, but I understand the argument).

There really is no analogy to this outside of transportation so it is hard to think of it in any other way.

With that being said, I just can't get my head around an airline being so "upset" with their customers to being them to sue. I keep coming back to the recent story about Southwest bringing a flight back to the gate to rebook a woman to another city just so that she could be with her son who got in a car accident.

What happened to airlines where they stopped being human and seeing their customers as humans. Is the lost opportunity cost of that seat, so valuable that they need to sue to recoup? And lets not forget that this is opportunity cost, not actual cost. There was no lost of actual money her, just the opportunity to sell something more valuable.

Let that sink in for a moment, LH sold a tick that was less valuable (OSL-FRA-SEA) which took up seats on more valuable flights (OSL-FRA and FRA-SEA) and that was acceptable in an effort to push out competition. Because the consumer was actually wanting to fly BER-FRA-SEA the airline is upset that they lost out on that potential revenue for OSL-FRA and BER-FRA-SEA. They were perfectly ok without that revenue before learning the passengers intentions.

This is where economists loose the general public in this debate. The loss that the airline is claiming is entirely imaginary. It doesn't even present itself until the customer misses the second leg of the flight.

With all that being said, what makes me chuckle about this whole thing, is that the customer actually wanted to go to BER, so they booked a ticket from FRA-BER. Why not book BER-OSL and just use the whole itinerary? That would involve more flights but it would still be cheaper. Perhaps it is my love of aviation that makes the prospect of 3 flights verse 2 exciting.

I think I read somewhere that in the conditions of carriage an airline's obligation is to provide transportation whilst the passenger's only obligation is to pay the fare. There is no obligation to use the whole of a ticket.

workhorse wrote:

You can spin it whatever you like, there is such thing as common sense. Selling A->B->C cheaper than A->B is INSANE. In a sane world, they should be fined by competition authorities just for that.

Airlines have been getting away with this nonsense for too long. Take LHR as an example. From my fare construction days, London's HIP is the highest globally, IRRC. Why should airlines get away with this, just because they say so? I salute anyone who plays the airlines at their games and win.

Another analogy would be:
You buy season pass in the theater, but miss some plays. Does it give a right to the theater to bill you full price for all the plays? I don't think so.

VirginFlyer wrote:

a better analogy would be going to a bakery which is offering a 2-for-1 deal for participants in a marathon they are sponsoring, and pretending to be a runner so you can get a free bun, when in fact you are not a participant in the marathon at all.

V/F

Still wrong. On two counts
You might be getting a 2-for-1 deal, but the purpose is not to get a free bun, because you are not even eating the "free" bun.
Secondly - participating in the marathon is giving something tangible back in return for the deal.
What are LH getting in return? Extra ballast on their a/c?

The situation is so ridiculous I cannot come up with an accurate analogy; there is no such similar nonsense in any other sphere of business.

twicearound wrote:

AEROFAN wrote:

usdcaguy wrote:

When you do not take a connecting flight, you will not have flown the trip you purchased but instead will have flown a trip that you did not purchase. It's a bit like paying for a ring with rubies and then turning around and taking a ring with emeralds that was more expensive. Even if the cost to the jeweler to produce each ring was the same, you still took something you did not pay for, and the jeweler has the right to price the rings as they see fit, regardless of how much it cost to produce them. Because you took something you did not pay for, the jeweler would have the right to call the cops on you. Why should things be any different when flying?

Big companies are terrible to people, and airlines are no exception, but a sly few should not have a right to game the system while the majority of us are stuck paying for the transportation we intend to use.

Why is it considered gaming the system only when it comes to airlines's ridiculous rules. I purchased a product sold by an airline. I use it however I see fit. End of story. The airlines want to have their cakes and eat em too. They need to write such incidences off as the cost of doing business.

Wrong. You do not get to use an airline or their products any way you see fit. When you purchase an airline ticket you are entering into a contract with the airline. Hidden city ticketing is prohibited in your contract of carriage. Therefore you are in direct breach of the contract you entered into and are subject to all penalties associated. It's actually very simple. If you don't like the rules, then don't buy the ticket.

I most certainly do. An airline's responsibility is to get me from point A to B. My responsibility is for me to show up ... or not. Nothing more

AEROFAN wrote:

usdcaguy wrote:

When you do not take a connecting flight, you will not have flown the trip you purchased but instead will have flown a trip that you did not purchase. It's a bit like paying for a ring with rubies and then turning around and taking a ring with emeralds that was more expensive. Even if the cost to the jeweler to produce each ring was the same, you still took something you did not pay for, and the jeweler has the right to price the rings as they see fit, regardless of how much it cost to produce them. Because you took something you did not pay for, the jeweler would have the right to call the cops on you. Why should things be any different when flying?

Big companies are terrible to people, and airlines are no exception, but a sly few should not have a right to game the system while the majority of us are stuck paying for the transportation we intend to use.

Why is it considered gaming the system only when it comes to airlines's ridiculous rules. I purchased a product sold by an airline. I use it however I see fit. End of story. The airlines want to have their cakes and eat em too. They need to write such incidences off as the cost of doing business.

You don't purchase software and use it as you see fit. The second you open the packaging or use it you agree to the EULA license they provided you. You don't own the software, you can't pass it on to friends. You are in-fact purchasing a license to use the software for personal use.

You purchased a seat on the plane from the origination city, you also don't have a right to show up at the connecting city instead and expect to be able to take your last leg as you see it.

Lootess wrote:

You don't purchase software and use it as you see fit. The second you open the packaging or use it you agree to the EULA license they provided you. You don't own the software, you can't pass it on to friends. You are in-fact purchasing a license to use the software for personal use.

Except not, courts have found that some EULA's are illegal. Here discussion is the same, should that part of the contract be legal? By most analogies it seems that it shouldn't be, but the judge will have final say.

hongkongflyer wrote:

3rdGen wrote:

The airlines perspective is this, there are two separate products, A to B and A to C (the second is cheaper). It so happens though that there is a chance that an individual can book A to C and yet manage to get away with the more expensive A to B trip. From the perspective of the airline this is cheating, as the passenger is walking away with a product that is more expensive than what he paid for. Unfortunately for them there's not too much they can do about it. (Especially if the individual has no luggage)

The reason why everyone's having so much trouble of creating an analogy for this is that there's almost no analogy for this sort of thing in any other market in the world. Namely. getting away with availing a more expensive product after having paid for a cheaper one, and without the seller being able to do a damn thing about it.

Even if airlines managed to make it harder to get away with this practice a determined pax could feign sickness or some other excuse to get off at B. How is the airline to judge whether they are telling the truth or not, it could lead to a tricky situation.

This kind of loop hole usually exists with hub and spoke airlines that charge passengers premiums for departing or arriving at the hub. I have a friend who has been booking A-B-C for years and forgoing the A-B trip and only flying B-C (he lives at the airlines hub). The airline allowed it for years, until just now when an audit has led them to cut down on this activity.

Another friend of mine, a while ago, called me up as he wanted some advise as he had booked his parents A-B-C and wanted them off at B where he lived but they had luggage, and the airline refused to check it in only to B. He called me as he knew that I worked for the airline and wanted to know if there was anything I could do to help me out. Unfortunately I couldn't, I believe that the airline refused to release the bags and he had to fly to C along with the bags to collect them .

Just show up late at the second leg and his luggage must had been offload from the plane. Again sorry for everyone else.

Yes excellent point.

I was wondering though if the airline had the ability to deny you your luggage until you reached your final destination. Or else.one could simply plan for the luggage to arrive one week after their jump off at the intermediary stop and after a lot of haggling with the airline I suppose. They couldn't keep your bags forever could they?

3rdGen wrote:

Yes excellent point.

I was wondering though if the airline had the ability to deny you your luggage until you reached your final destination. Or else.one could simply plan for the luggage to arrive one week after their jump off at the intermediary stop and after a lot of haggling with the airline I suppose. They couldn't keep your bags forever could they?

Well, if bags arrived on time to the destination - they can certainly ask if you want to collect them at your final destination or pay for shipping. Failure to pick up bags which were timely delivered to the destination is not airline's problem.

miegapele wrote:

Another analogy would be:
You buy season pass in the theater, but miss some plays. Does it give a right to the theater to bill you full price for all the plays? I don't think so.

This is an excellent analogy and something that I have done. Or season tickets to a sporting event, and not using the ticket.

Theatres and Sports venues aren't allowed to "oversell" their facilities (or at least I have not heard of that).

In fact, the recent tour of the musical Hamilton at our local theatre is a perfect example of this practice. Tickets for the season go on sale first so numerous people purchased season tickets that included Hamilton with the intention of only going to see Hamilton (I don't know what the discount was for a season ticket holder, but there is one). So by purchasing that season pass, and not attending Aladdin the theatre lost out on the "revenue" difference (opportunity cost) from the single show ticket and the season ticket and the "revenue" (opportunity cost) of selling an extra ticket to Aladdin.

3rdGen wrote:

This kind of loop hole usually exists with hub and spoke airlines that charge passengers premiums for departing or arriving at the hub. I have a friend who has been booking A-B-C for years and forgoing the A-B trip and only flying B-C (he lives at the airlines hub). The airline allowed it for years, until just now when an audit has led them to cut down on this activity.

I am astonished that he got away with flying only B-C with an A-B-C ticket. Airlines have for a long time cancelled the whole of the remaining ticket when someone misses a flight, which I regard as one of the more nasty practices of this consumer-unfriendly industry.

casinterest wrote:

jetmatt777 wrote:

9w748capt wrote:

The other day I went to the bakery and bought two cinnamon rolls but only ate one - I hope they don't sue me!

I know, "terrible analogy" as all the apologists would say - but the airlines have no one but themselves to blame for this nonsense. Reminds me of when Dougie justified nonrefundable tickets by comparing plane tickets to sporting event tickets. Apparently Dougie hasn't heard of stubhub.

A more accurate analogy is the bakery only offers the 2-for-1 special for take out orders. As you will not be eating in the store they will not have the cost of washing your dishes, a server serving you at your table, etc. you stand in line at the to-go counter, pay for the 2-for-1 and then take your food and sit down in the dining room. You are using a product you didn’t pay for and took advantage of a cheaper product to get in.

I don't know of any bakery that does this, and that bakery would probably be out of business rather quickly.

Sorry, off topic I know, but in Europe having different prices for take away vs eat-in is fairly common. Or for example, you pay one price for coffee that you either take away (or stand at the counter to drink), and a higher price for coffee that you sit down at a table to drink.

But I do know many people who book airline tickets this way and I can imagine it drives the airlines crazy as those are seats that they cannot sell.

When you book a hotel room you sometimes get a price based on a longer stay. If you check out early you won't get those unused nights back, even if they are able to re-sell the room to another guest at the last minute.

Last year I wanted to fly on the KLM 747. The airline charged 1,500 EUR for a return ticket Amsterdam - San Francisco. From Stockholm the fare was 300 EUR. Between Amsterdam and San Francisco you would fly on the same 747. Ridiculous. As I really wanted to fly on the 747 I booked the trip from Stockholm and added a return ticket Amsterdam - Stockholm for 100 EUR.

I spend 400 EUR to travel AMS-ARN-AMS-SFO-AMS-ARN-AMS instead of 1,500 EUR for AMS-SFO-AMS. Upon return to Amsterdam I thought of skipping the last part of the journey, a completely useless return to Stockholm. But the weather was nice, I wasn't too tired, the onboard catering was tasty and included, so in the end I just did it. More time in the air for much less money.

MartijnNL wrote:

Last year I wanted to fly on the KLM 747. The airline charged 1,500 EUR for a return ticket Amsterdam - San Francisco. From Stockholm the fare was 300 EUR. Between Amsterdam and San Francisco you would fly on the same 747. Ridiculous. As I really wanted to fly on the 747 I booked the trip from Stockholm and added a return ticket Amsterdam - Stockholm for 100 EUR.

I spend 400 EUR to travel AMS-ARN-AMS-SFO-AMS-ARN-AMS instead of 1,500 EUR for AMS-SFO-AMS. Upon return to Amsterdam I thought of skipping the last part of the journey, a completely useless return to Stockholm. But the weather was nice, I wasn't too tired, the onboard catering was tasty and included, so in the end I just did it. More time in the air for much less money.

That is a truly astounding difference in fare. I mean of course yes KL owns the nonstop markets ex-AMS but why would the fare be so much less ex-ARN? Norwegian?

I'm truly impressed that you continued your return journey to ARN and didn't just hop off at AMS and go home. I would have. Unless you have a ton of miles/status with KL and they've been cracking down?

gunnerman wrote:

I am astonished that he got away with flying only B-C with an A-B-C ticket. Airlines have for a long time cancelled the whole of the remaining ticket when someone misses a flight, which I regard as one of the more nasty practices of this consumer-unfriendly industry.

I agree with you. I fact, there is a court case going on about this in the Netherlands whether or not it's legal for the airline to cancel the rest of your trip if you skip one leg. So far it looks like the airlines are going to lose. They are not allowed to cancel the rest of your trip if you skip the first leg, they must accept you for the remaining part of the booking.

By the way, Norwegian has always allowed this. Not that there is much use for it with them since they charge per leg plus a transfer fee, but they won't cancel the second leg of your booking if you skip the first. This is how it should be done in my opinion, this is customer friendly. A lot of airlines can take an example to Norwegian when it comes to this.

gunnerman wrote:

3rdGen wrote:

This kind of loop hole usually exists with hub and spoke airlines that charge passengers premiums for departing or arriving at the hub. I have a friend who has been booking A-B-C for years and forgoing the A-B trip and only flying B-C (he lives at the airlines hub). The airline allowed it for years, until just now when an audit has led them to cut down on this activity.

I am astonished that he got away with flying only B-C with an A-B-C ticket. Airlines have for a long time cancelled the whole of the remaining ticket when someone misses a flight, which I regard as one of the more nasty practices of this consumer-unfriendly industry.

The guy did the first A-B leg. He traveled OSL-FRA-SEA-FRA (-BER with an extra ticket). I guess he also bought a BER-OSL ticket to reach Norway in the begining of his trip.

MartijnNL wrote:

Last year I wanted to fly on the KLM 747. The airline charged 1,500 EUR for a return ticket Amsterdam - San Francisco. From Stockholm the fare was 300 EUR. Between Amsterdam and San Francisco you would fly on the same 747. Ridiculous. As I really wanted to fly on the 747 I booked the trip from Stockholm and added a return ticket Amsterdam - Stockholm for 100 EUR.

I spend 400 EUR to travel AMS-ARN-AMS-SFO-AMS-ARN-AMS instead of 1,500 EUR for AMS-SFO-AMS. Upon return to Amsterdam I thought of skipping the last part of the journey, a completely useless return to Stockholm. But the weather was nice, I wasn't too tired, the onboard catering was tasty and included, so in the end I just did it. More time in the air for much less money.

Amazing! It's exactly the same case here with OSL-SEA. Another example of LH breaking prices to sink Norwegian. Consumers would be wrong not to take advantage of it!

sk736 wrote:

Your train analogy is incorrect, at least in the UK. If you buy a train ticket from A to C, you are not entitled to get off at B.

In The Netherlands you are completely free to get off at any station before you get to your final destination. But it wouldn't save you any money, as train fares are directly related to the distance travelled.

What a crazy practice in the UK! Who is stopping you from getting off at B? Why would you not be entitled to leave the train at B? What happens if you get off at B?

MartijnNL wrote:

sk736 wrote:

Your train analogy is incorrect, at least in the UK. If you buy a train ticket from A to C, you are not entitled to get off at B.

In The Netherlands you are completely free to get off at any station before you get to your final destination. But it wouldn't save you any money, as train fares are directly related to the distance travelled.

What a crazy practice in the UK! Who is stopping you from getting off at B? Why would you not be entitled to leave the train at B? What happens if you get off at B?

Well for the same reason the airlines don't like you doing it....sometimes longer distance tickets can be cheaper than shorter distance tickets. If you get off the train earlier than your ticketed destination (and assuming there is a ticket check and you get caught) you can be charged a penalty fare and/or the difference between the fare you paid and the fare you should have paid.

MartijnNL wrote:

Last year I wanted to fly on the KLM 747. The airline charged 1,500 EUR for a return ticket Amsterdam - San Francisco. From Stockholm the fare was 300 EUR. Between Amsterdam and San Francisco you would fly on the same 747. Ridiculous. As I really wanted to fly on the 747 I booked the trip from Stockholm and added a return ticket Amsterdam - Stockholm for 100 EUR.

I spend 400 EUR to travel AMS-ARN-AMS-SFO-AMS-ARN-AMS instead of 1,500 EUR for AMS-SFO-AMS. Upon return to Amsterdam I thought of skipping the last part of the journey, a completely useless return to Stockholm. But the weather was nice, I wasn't too tired, the onboard catering was tasty and included, so in the end I just did it. More time in the air for much less money.

This means the connections in Stockholm were self-connections, they couldn't possibly have been on the same ticket. No problem of course, I've self-connected a lot as well. The possible disadvantage is that your luggage is not being forwarded. I guess you didn't have any checked luggage on this trip. In that case it was get off at Stockholm, join the boarding line and board the same aircraft again. How did the crew react when you flew straight back with them?

A former colleague of me has once done a similar thing. He lives rather close to Amsterdam and went to Lima, Peru on KLM with his family. Instead of booking the ticket from Amsterdam he booked it from Brussels which was a lot cheaper than from Amsterdam. It included a train ticket Brussels - Amsterdam, but the condition was that you had to check in in Brussels. You couldn't check in in Amsterdam.

What did he do? Of course they didn't all go to Brussels and then back to Amsterdam. He went alone, checked them all in and took the train back to Amsterdam where at the airport his wife and kids were waiting for him. Together they flew to Lima.

When they returned in Amsterdam the ticket granted them a train ride to their final destination which said Brussels. They never took that train, they went straight home.

The airlines could simply avoid these situations if they would just take higher fares for A-B-C then for A to B only !
I also flew DUS-MUC-BOS which was half the fare then only MUC-BOS. This is ridicolous and entices passengers to do exactly what the person in this specific case has done !

Yes,their company rules clearly mention that you have to use all segments of your flight, but as already mentioned,if they would just make a simply and logical fare system this would not happen.

To me...this is the opposite side of the coin to the chronic overbooking performed by every airline.

The airlines don't have any problem regularly screwing over passengers by letting multiple people believe that they have a seat on a flight when they know very well that the seat, more than likely, will be filled by the time they get to the gate.

Employees reveal that they get specific training to lie to passengers.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/air-ca ... -1.5008217

"It's never fun to have to lie to people," said the former customer sales and service agent, who worked at Air Canada's check-in counter at Vancouver International Airport for several months before quitting just over a year ago.

"I had to tell people over and over again that they were gonna get on the plane, when I knew that they might not."

As far as I'm concerned, turnabout it fair play. The airlines plead 'market forces' for irregular ticket prices to a destination but when a passenger finds a loophole, the airlines whine about it.

Tough nut. If a person wishes to disembark at a scheduled landing destination different from the end point, they should be allowed to. Their only responsibilities should be that they only have carryon baggage and they inform the airline.

Fares from Denmark, Norway and Sweden to the United States with a transfer in mainland Europe can be much cheaper than nonstop flights from Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Munich or Zurich. I should take more advantage of it.

Of course total travel time goes up, but you can still start the transatlantic journey well rested and fresh. You don't have to take an early flight from Billund, Copenhagen, Gothenburg, Oslo or Stockholm to Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Munich or Zurich before connecting to the United States.

You can also fly in the day before and start the longhaul flight the following day. When you live near the airport you can even make a short day trip to Scandinavia, sleep in your own bed again, and than head out across the Atlantic. You will save on fare and hotels.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

A former colleague of me has once done a similar thing. He lives rather close to Amsterdam and went to Lima, Peru on KLM with his family. Instead of booking the ticket from Amsterdam he booked it from Brussels which was a lot cheaper than from Amsterdam. It included a train ticket Brussels - Amsterdam, but the condition was that you had to check in in Brussels. You couldn't check in in Amsterdam.

What did he do? Of course they didn't all go to Brussels and then back to Amsterdam. He went alone, checked them all in and took the train back to Amsterdam where at the airport his wife and kids were waiting for him. Together they flew to Lima.

When they returned in Amsterdam the ticket granted them a train ride to their final destination which said Brussels. They never took that train, they went straight home.

I never knew that one person could check in an entire group at a railway station, you certainly cannot do this at an airport. As there's a number of "flights" operated by trains in Europe, perhaps there are some other people doing exactly what your former colleague did.

sk736 wrote:

Well for the same reason the airlines don't like you doing it....sometimes longer distance tickets can be cheaper than shorter distance tickets.

But why would they charge more for a shorter distance? That doesn't make sense.

If they would implement such a system in the Netherlands it wouldn't work. Everyone, and I mean literally everyone, would cheat the system. It would be unholdable. Ticket check? Don't even think about it! Everyone would walk straight by the ticket checkers, nobody would take them serious. They may catch one or two people, but for every passenger they catch a hundred slip through.

That's why we have the system we have where you pay per distance traveled. It's easy and fair and for the most part everyone sticks to it.

In the US you definitely can only do it one-way where you miss your last flight instead of your first one. You have to do all carry on luggage and make sure you board before the overhead bins fill up. A risk in the US that doesn't exist much in Europe (except where LH has service to both hubs) is airlines here have lots of hubs and many are redundant, especially on longer flights and between larger cities. If you're flight is cancelled or delayed, they may re route you through a different hub. Recently I noticed a fare on AA from some Florida destinations to PGV which were slightly more than between Florida and LAS via CLT which has high fares. If CLT was my intentded destination, I would have paid the slightly higher fare to PGV vs. LAS in case of a re route. AA only flies CLT-PGV on American Eagle and no matter what, you have to connect in CLT.