-
I was reading the latest article today on flight cancellations. HfP says:
“Note that there is no legal definition of “at the passenger’s convenience”. During the pandemic, some travellers were taking advantage of this by booking cheap off-peak flights which were virtually certain to be cancelled and then demanding rebooking on peak Christmas and New Year or school holiday dates. The airline is within its rights to decide that your definition of ‘convenient’ is not the same as their definition, with an invitation to sue them if you disagree.”
Seems that Rob and the crew don’t think you have a right to even be rebooked within a year? Would they care to offer what they think is reasonable? A few days, weeks, a month?
I believe the law has clarified this, looking at case law in the UK and also in Germany. Lufthansa have lost umpteen cases in the German Courts.
If you belive UK law has clarified the meaning of ‘at the passenger’s convenience’ then please provide some evidence of this with a link to the relevantjudgments
What German courts decided has/had no relevance to the UK.
Unless there was an ECJ ruling then one national court cannot set a precedent for another nations courts to automatically follow.
“HfP sides with airlines?”
Your thinking is disordered. It’s HfP’s job to report on the position as it is playing out in reality, not as you, they or anyone else might wish it to be in your preferred circumstances. That is called reporting and is not siding with anyone. That’s what they did in the segment you quote. It’s a warning that booking a flight you know will be cancelled is not a guaranteed way of accessing the most expensive Xmas Eve ticket on the cheap – which is perfectly reasonable advice.
“Seems that Rob and the crew don’t think you have a right to even be rebooked within a year?”
There’s absolutely nothing in the segment you quote, or the article in general, that could reasonably lead anyone to this conclusion.
Oh dear, I seem to have stepped on a nerve…
Oh dear, I seem to have stepped on a nerve…
Perhaps, but more importantly we are all awaiting details of the UK case law to which you referred in your original post.
Oh dear, I seem to have stepped on a nerve…
Nope just thing you’ve misinterpreted something and are being corrected.
Oh dear, I seem to have stepped on a nerve…
Perhaps, but more importantly we are all awaiting details of the UK case law to which you referred in your original post.
Can’t you Google it? The cases are all there to be found. Not for me to do your research. Pay for a lawyer…
Telling ppl to do their own research (I thought that phrase was only used in memes lol) generally doesnt strengthen your arguement as much as providing a source to backup your claims does.
You’re the one who mentioned case law.
Saying “google it” is lazy and insulting on your part.
It is for YOU to do the research and to present YOUR evidence for the case YOU want to make.
In fact you already said you knew the cases so why not present them?
From your original post
I believe the law has clarified this, looking at case law in the UK and also in Germany. Lufthansa have lost umpteen cases in the German Courts.
- This reply was modified 55 years, 4 months ago by .
Oh dear, I seem to have stepped on a nerve…
Perhaps, but more importantly we are all awaiting details of the UK case law to which you referred in your original post.
Can’t you Google it? The cases are all there to be found. Not for me to do your research. Pay for a lawyer…
“Google it yourself” usually means, “I read it on Facebook, it was a meme with a short amount of text on it but it had 20,000 likes so it’s true” but I bit and decided to do my own research anyway, turns out I couldn’t find a single example of UK case law to back this claim up. Considering you’d likely have these case law articles in your browser history from reading up on them, it would be much easier (and enlightening to the community) if you’d just share the links you already have
Indeed – I looked into this in some detail recently while deciding which course of action to pursue on challenging ticket validity. Alongside Google I used various specialist legal databases, and am an experienced legal researcher. There was no UK case law.
So I’m more than happy to call BS on someone claiming to have found examples simply by using Google. Especially when that person is reluctant to share any evidence of their claim.
I wonder if by case law Abdul means the comments about MCOL he’s read about on HfP and he’s mistakenly thought they make a legal precedent.
I do not believe there is precedent or clarification on this. Remember it is subject to the ‘availability of seats’ as well as at the passengers convenience.
Given there is a one-year IATA booking horizon on most flights, this clearly limits when this would allow, as seats aren’t ‘available’ beyond this.
I do agree HfP do seem to have taken a side on this – that the airline is ‘within its rights to decide’ on your definition of convenient. This must be totally wrong – it is solely down to the passenger to decide when is ‘convenient’ for them. Where the airline can certainly have a say is the ‘availability of seats’. But the HfP reporting certainly isn’t neutral. Which is odd for a site with points, Rob doesn’t seem to like people playing the system. Booking a flight for November which is cancelled, almost certainly can be moved a month later over new year if there are seats available, entirely within the letter and spirit of that law. Even if the seats are 10x the cost.I do not believe there is precedent or clarification on this. Remember it is subject to the ‘availability of seats’ as well as at the passengers convenience.
Given there is a one-year IATA booking horizon on most flights, this clearly limits when this would allow, as seats aren’t ‘available’ beyond this.
I do agree HfP do seem to have taken a side on this – that the airline is ‘within its rights to decide’ on your definition of convenient. This must be totally wrong – it is solely down to the passenger to decide when is ‘convenient’ for them. Where the airline can certainly have a say is the ‘availability of seats’. But the HfP reporting certainly isn’t neutral. Which is odd for a site with points, Rob doesn’t seem to like people playing the system. Booking a flight for November which is cancelled, almost certainly can be moved a month later over new year if there are seats available, entirely within the letter and spirit of that law. Even if the seats are 10x the cost.Exactly. I suppose it’s just not wanting to bite off the hand and all that.
Still waiting.
I do not believe there is precedent or clarification on this. Remember it is subject to the ‘availability of seats’ as well as at the passengers convenience.
Given there is a one-year IATA booking horizon on most flights, this clearly limits when this would allow, as seats aren’t ‘available’ beyond this.
I do agree HfP do seem to have taken a side on this – that the airline is ‘within its rights to decide’ on your definition of convenient. This must be totally wrong – it is solely down to the passenger to decide when is ‘convenient’ for them. Where the airline can certainly have a say is the ‘availability of seats’. But the HfP reporting certainly isn’t neutral. Which is odd for a site with points, Rob doesn’t seem to like people playing the system. Booking a flight for November which is cancelled, almost certainly can be moved a month later over new year if there are seats available, entirely within the letter and spirit of that law. Even if the seats are 10x the cost.There is no IATA booking horizon in such cases. Indeed, IATA does advise airlines that in case of IRROPs ticket validity should be extended.
I am afraid there is no case law to support this. IATA is not a court nor does it decide legislation.
HfP article actually does advise that you have a legal route. And the reality is that in court it can work both ways and we have seen again and again that is the case.
Exactly. I suppose it’s just not wanting to bite off the hand and all that.
You clearly have no idea about how this site works.
Rob does not work on a “pay per positive articles about XX company” basis.
We are still waiting for you to provide your evidence of all these court judgments you think exist that will blow what Rhys wrote out of the water.
Please put up or shut up otherwise you’re just trolling.
As someone who took advantage of multiple re-routes during the pandemic, and experienced first hand a change of policy from BA, I think the article is accurate. If you are prepared to put up a fight then good luck to you. I did. And it worked. But the airline did not agree with my interpretation of the law, and the article correctly points this out. What I found interesting was I think there was a change in policy at BA and others mid-way through the pandemic — in the early months they would bend over backwards to help. Not in the latter stages, judging by my own experiences, and in particular those many people who booked ‘half price Avios’ and got stiffed when they tried rerouting at a later date following cancellation.
Abdul does have a point though about the impression given. I think ‘within their rights’ was too strong as wording and a little confusing in a legal context. As was pointed out by @points_worrier factually the rights of the passenger are stronger than the airline’s here.
But just an accidental choice of phrase that’s all. And a warning not to take the p. was not out of place.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
