Lufthansa is trying to sue passengers for skiplagging

[sn-remember]

Now this retains my attention ...
On one hand, a Spanish court recently ruled that Iberia passengers could not be punished for skiplagging.
On the other hand, the Berlin-Mitte court just pronounced a more ambiguous sentence .. giving LH sufficient grounds it seems to appeal the decision.
My view is that once a deal is done (I mean paid for) it's done. Whatever happens later regarding the show (or not show) of the passenger should not affect the deal. The airline should not be allowed IMHO to track down a passenger itinary in order to sue him later for an "illicit" no show. It's not their business to do so and it is an offence to the individual's basic rights.
Spanish court +1
And you what's your opinion on skiplagging ?
https://simpleflying.com/lufthansa-is-t ... iplagging/

[sn26567]

The court was right to say that the Lufthansa price calculation lacks transparency. How can a longer itinerary be less expensive or a shorter itinerary more expensive?

[sn-remember]

It's common parctice I believe (otherwise what is skiplagging about ?). But is skiplagging legal, that's the question. If it's legal, there is obviously less point for airlines to offer discounted rates to tag-ons pax since p2p pax can enter that scheme also with a slight twist.
The German judge implies that the customer should know that practice (since he profits from it):(quote) " the court said that it was public knowledge that hidden city ticketing was cheaper, and as such, the defendant cannot claim ignorance.
therefore "the court said the reason Lufthansa is trying to sue the passenger is valid"
Now this statement seems in total contradiction with the previous ruling some months ago in a Spanish court.
And a naive customer (like you André ? )could well believe it's a loophole in the airline ticket offering or a special sale he is entitled to profit from ?
But is it legal (it shouldn't be IMHO) to sue passengers for "no show" cases like this one ? That's the main point in question, and the 2 rulings from 2 different courts in the EU seem contradictory.

[sn26567]

But is it legal (it shouldn't be IMHO) to sue passengers for "no show" cases like this one ? That's the main point in question, and the 2 rulings from 2 different courts in the EU seem contradictory.

Therefore, I would not be surprised if the case goes up to the Court of Justice of the European Union. And maybe the consumer associations will intervene to defend their members confronted with the problem.

[b720]

It is truly an unfriendly airline!
I avoid it whenever I can..

[sn26567]

The case now also appears in the press:

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/ne ... 73371.html

[sn-remember]

If it's legal, there is obviously less point for airlines to offer discounted rates to tag-ons pax since p2p pax can enter that scheme also with a slight twist.

In fact it's more than a "slight twist" since the luggage in the hold will be forwarded to the end destination as the ticket requests. So the skiplagging customer must take care of this .. and travel with a light cabin bag only.
That's already a "price to pay" for this "clever advantage" and clearly not to the taste of every traveler. So this should also be taken into account in the court ruling since the skiplagging passenger is somehow hurt (or limited) by this practice he nonetheless opted for.

[Acid-drop]

The real shame is that skiplagging cant be used for round trip.
A no show on one flight shouldnt cancel the return flight.
If its paid its paid. If you decide to do one leg on a donkey's back its your choice.

[sn-remember]

The real shame is that skiplagging cant be used for round trip.
A no show on one flight shouldnt cancel the return flight.
If its paid its paid. If you decide to do one leg on a donkey's back its your choice.

It's a real shame indeed.
The airline should be sued for doing that, not the passenger !

[b720]

The real shame is that skiplagging cant be used for round trip.
A no show on one flight shouldnt cancel the return flight.
If its paid its paid. If you decide to do one leg on a donkey's back its your choice.

It is actually on the return.. for an example.. on SN one way GVA - BRU - LHR can be much cheaper than one way GVA-BRU
one can books the former and walk out at BRU without flying the BRU - LHR leg .. this way ends up paying much less than the GVA- BRU one way.

[Acid-drop]

Yes one way only.
Has anyone sued an airlines for a cancelation after a no show ?

[MHG]

There is much more to it than visible at first sight - and communicated in most media.

In that particular case it was easy for LH to have proof of the passenger intentionally skipping the last leg.
That passenger had booked a corresponding one-way ticket with LH on a separate booking for FRA-TXL fitting perfectly to the arrival time of his incoming flight at FRA ...
(if he had booked a corresponding flight on U2 for FRA-TXL this court case might not even have happened ...)

Regardless of this I strongly hope that the court will dismiss LH´s attempt.
Simply because it would be a non-justified one-sided advantage for the airlines in general.
It is the same as if I buy a cheaper multipack of softdrinks in a neighbouring country but decide to drink only part of the cans - and would be forced to pay the difference to the higher unit price in my home country ...
This is not what the European common market is about.

... and it´s no excuse just because it´s a practice that´s handled this way already for a long time.
A wrong (illegal ?) practice does not become legal because of "grandfather rights"

[sn26567]

If you want to benefit from the system, here is the website to do so:

https://skiplagged.com/

[AlexC]

Morning Everyone,

I have to admit that this was something I was expecting to happen for years!

The simple view of my flight is paid and its done.. is not really valid.
Airlines like BA, TAP, KLM, LH and many more, sell tickets with PNRs referring to the entire segments.

I recall back in my DUSSELDORF airport times, that people would book Vienna – Dusseldorf – USA and would only show up in Dusseldorf with the reason: “Because it was cheaper” . Totally logical from an economical point of view but ticketing wise, a total mess!
If you buy a ticket VIA Dusseldorf you are not required to pay Security nor Check in fee. These are peanuts for airlines but this kind of segments are mostly done with CODE-SHARE agreements that aren’t – on my personal opinion, a very profitable business to airlines. And why you may ask? Because the reservation is made on CODE SHARED airlines and on NO- SHOWS the ticket has to be paid somehow and I am sure in this case, LH had to pay for it.

With this in mind, I guess it quickly becomes apparent that it is a rather smart move against people trying to get the best out of their money. I would probably try the same as well 
The Law behind it is however much more complicated:

If I buy a ticket, I agree with their general terms and conditions and I compromise to pay a FARE for the use of their TICKET. This includes one, several or more segments to a destination.
It’s a pain in the ARSE but it’s like buying 10x units for the price of 5. and then returning 5 because you changed your mind. Obviously the price calculation was made so you take the 10 units and not 5.

It’s a simple analogy but kind of what goes behind the big Airline Ticketing Stages.

BR Alex

[Acid-drop]

It’s a pain in the ARSE but it’s like buying 10x units for the price of 5. and then returning 5 because you changed your mind. Obviously the price calculation was made so you take the 10 units and not 5.

Not quite
Nobody asked for refund of anyting.
If you throw half of what you buy its your problem.

A done deal is a done deal.

[AlexC]

Maybe I did not used the best analogy

Let’s put it this way - even if I do agree with everyone and would probably try the same to save an extra buck!

I buy a five footer baguette at subw@y and you only want to have a small one that costs 4 euros. However if you take the 5 footer Baguette you only pay 3 euros but you compromise to eat it till the end otherwise there is no agreement.

You buy a five footer pay 3 euros and stop halfway through and say can’t be bothered to eat anything else. Even if you agreed to eat it all .

The thing is.. ticketing and code sharing are unfortunately rather complex that a five footer.

Have a nice weekend

[sn-remember]

'If I buy a ticket, I agree with their general terms and conditions and I compromise to pay a FARE for the use of their TICKET. This includes one, several or more segments to a destination.'(quote from AlexC)
Provided it's legal, that's the whole point of this discussion. Two judges from 2 diffrenet courts in the EU have ruled differently it seems.
My gut feeling is that once a ticket is sold, the company should'nt be allowed to sue the purchaser for a no show. In case of skiplagging, the purchaser takes the reponsability for not having hold luggage delivered at his advanced destination and the seller takes the reponsability for a possible no show on any of the legs involved.
I might (maybe but not sure) understand the airline refusing in this case to register a hold luggage in case the skiplagging customer presents himself at the 2nd leg check-in counter (he is not supposed to do so at this station).
However, as a general rule, the seller should not (IMHO) be given a free hand to spy on the customers' itinary in order to possibly contest him the right of a no show. Such a ruling might induce companies into not selling a 2 legs journey cheaper than 1 of the legs involved. A good thing if you take the customer view (instead of the airline view), i.e. that of the P2P customer who rightfully feel a cash cow financing a dubious ticketing policy. Not to mention the EU fair trade legislation, the European court might obect to this practice too.

[sn-remember]

An exemple ?
In a restaurant you pay let's say 25 euro for a lunch dish at a given restaurant or you pay 20 euro for the same lunch dish at the same restaurant + dinner dish in another restaurant distant from the original one both meals included. The same day.
Important to mention, you pay days in advance. You get 2 independant vouchers in return, one for each meal.
Of course no restaurant owner in his right mind would ever propose such a deal. He has NO means to enforce this very special ruling. People if they want will skip the dinner (whatever the reason). This is a no show case, you don't have to bring in a justification to the seller, fact of the matter you paid already so that should settle the case. The client should not be made the one to provide a service (or honour a prestation) once the deal is concluded. And in case the terms of the contract state otherwise, court rulings should IMHO render them null.

[sn26567]

sn-remember, you should become a judge at the European Court of Justice! Your reasoning is quite correct!

[sn-remember]

Thank you André, I'll think it over