Refunds of cancelled trips paid for by credit card

[Flanker2]

AF was very efficient with me too. I was shocked by how fast I got an agent on the line to resolve my case and I already rebooked a future long haul with them, just based on how great a service they provided.

I had tickets with SN too, a whole bunch of them, all cancelled.
I could have accepted vouchers if they were nice about it, but they were not, so refunds it is.
I did have to force the refunds though.

About "LH should put it in order". SN is LH, so ...
According to Flyertalk posts, some LH customers are still waiting for refunds for cancellations from before the groundings, so from March/April, and same situation as SN with call centers.

They are trying to swindle people into accepting vouchers, or rebookings, based on excuses, but you don't have to accept it.
If they still refuse the refund, go through your CC company. The CC company then asks the airline to justify keeping the charge despite the cancellation, which takes a lot of manpower and is rarely successful, so they won't bother to do it and you will be charged back.

[Shonix]

AF was very efficient with me too. I was shocked by how fast I got an agent on the line to resolve my case and I already rebooked a future long haul with them, just based on how great a service they provided.

I had tickets with SN too, a whole bunch of them, all cancelled.
I could have accepted vouchers if they were nice about it, but they were not, so refunds it is.
I did have to force the refunds though.

About "LH should put it in order". SN is LH, so ...
According to Flyertalk posts, some LH customers are still waiting for refunds for cancellations from before the groundings, so from March/April, and same situation as SN with call centers.

They are trying to swindle people into accepting vouchers, or rebookings, based on excuses, but you don't have to accept it.
If they still refuse the refund, go through your CC company. The CC company then asks the airline to justify keeping the charge despite the cancellation, which takes a lot of manpower and is rarely successful, so they won't bother to do it and you will be charged back.

You mean credit car company right? Interesting tip, I didn’t know that.

[Passenger]

AF was very efficient with me too. I was shocked by how fast I got an agent on the line to resolve my case and I already rebooked a future long haul with them, just based on how great a service they provided.

I had tickets with SN too, a whole bunch of them, all cancelled.
I could have accepted vouchers if they were nice about it, but they were not, so refunds it is.
I did have to force the refunds though.

They are trying to swindle people into accepting vouchers, or rebookings, based on excuses, but you don't have to accept it.
If they still refuse the refund, go through your CC company. The CC company then asks the airline to justify keeping the charge despite the cancellation, which takes a lot of manpower and is rarely successful, so they won't bother to do it and you will be charged back.

This is indeed what Google has told you.
But haven't you wondered why YOU are the first to reveal this? Haven't you wondered why claim firms, Test-Aankoop/Test-Achats and the Economical Inspection haven't advised this yet? Well, they don't do this / don't advise this because chargeback requests for airline tickets are contested by airlines with a simple "client has been refunded via a voucher".
Next step then? Ask Google, Flanker2.

[Flanker2]

AF was very efficient with me too. I was shocked by how fast I got an agent on the line to resolve my case and I already rebooked a future long haul with them, just based on how great a service they provided.

I had tickets with SN too, a whole bunch of them, all cancelled.
I could have accepted vouchers if they were nice about it, but they were not, so refunds it is.
I did have to force the refunds though.

They are trying to swindle people into accepting vouchers, or rebookings, based on excuses, but you don't have to accept it.
If they still refuse the refund, go through your CC company. The CC company then asks the airline to justify keeping the charge despite the cancellation, which takes a lot of manpower and is rarely successful, so they won't bother to do it and you will be charged back.

This is indeed what Google has told you.
But haven't you wondered why YOU are the first to reveal this? Haven't you wondered why claim firms, Test-Aankoop/Test-Achats and the Economical Inspection haven't advised this yet? Well, they don't do this / don't advise this because chargeback requests for airline tickets are contested by airlines with a simple "client has been refunded via a voucher".
Next step then? Ask Google, Flanker2.

A voucher does not equate to a refund and is hence rejected by credit card companies.
Charging back to the same credit card is the only accepted refund method upon opening a claim with your credit card company. If you open a claim, it means that you did not agree to receiving a voucher and EU law is clear about this.
Even if the airline answers "refunded by voucher", it will be ignored by the credit card company or the credit card holder will be asked if he agrees to the refund by this method.

I don't need Google when I already forced my refunds successfully on 100% of my claims, including with Brussels Airlines.
If you can't get you airline on the phone or they won't refund you in money, just open a claim, it is your legal right to be refunded in cash.

I understand that you want to preserve cash for your airline, Passenger.
But this voucher scheme is actually a very bad idea and is killing airlines that are issuing them, because airlines are hoping that most vouchers will expire without being used, but that's not what's happening. The most eager ones to book right now are the voucher holders.
I sense that airlines are cancelling flights that have good amounts of bookings, simply because a too large portion of revenue is paid for by vouchers, resulting in negative cash flow. As I said before, even a full flight on the load sheet or a "profitable flight" does not guarantee positive cash flow when a large portion of the people on that flight are using airline issued IOU's to pay for them.

If you continue like this, people are going to have so many vouchers that you will no longer get any kind of cash flow and a large majority of tickets will be paid in vouchers. What vouchers do is mask your airline's real liquidity and cash flow situation.
Unless people use their vouchers after the Coronavirus situation, you are just delaying and compounding the problem, wasting money on customer service, and losing your customers' confidence.

"Who cares, we need the cash now" you will say, but this crisis will become worse from now, not better, so you need to find a durable solution other than stapling vouchers on the hands that feed you.

The entity I work for has taken the opposite strategy.
They have refunded customer deposits immediately, even if it hurt their cash position. This way, not only did they have the full picture of the problem, but customers, especially the good ones that keep coming back, have more confidence to spend fresh cash, so all current sales are cash flow positive.

[Passenger]

I understand that you want to preserve cash for your airline, Passenger.

Brussels Airlines is not my airline .
I do not work for an airline.
(off topic: I have worked for an airline, but that was a few decades ago (and it wasn't Sabena).

[Passenger]

A voucher does not equate to a refund and is hence rejected by credit card companies. Charging back to the same credit card is the only accepted refund method upon opening a claim with your credit card company. If you open a claim, it means that you did not agree to receiving a voucher and EU law is clear about this. Even if the airline answers "refunded by voucher", it will be ignored by the credit card company or the credit card holder will be asked if he agrees to the refund by this method.

At the contrary. Let me try again, to avoid false hope with other people. When an airline replies on a chargeback request with “refunded by voucher”, the credit card company accepts that answer as bona fide because it is not up to the credit card issuer to judge if such "voucher payment" is or is not legally valid. Sure, the client can disagree and refer to articles 5 and 8 of EU Rule 261/2004. But when the airline stands, the credit card issuer will ask for a court judgement. That is, when the reason given is "non-delivery of goods/services". When the request is "fraud", it's different.

Actually, I heard from someone that there was a court case last Tuesday: a complaint against a combination of a ticket voucher and a package travel voucher. Judge has put the case on the agenda for... February 2021. Exactly why the biggest EU261/2004 claim company refuses claims for vouchers: "by the time it ends up in court, the airline has refunded".

...this voucher scheme is actually a very bad idea and is killing airlines that are issuing them...

At the contrary. Vouchers are averting aviation bankruptcies right now. If airlines would have to refund all cancellations in cash within the time limit of EU261/2004, most of them would go bankrupt. I have read some amounts recently: South African Airways 176M cancellations, Lufthansa 2Bn, TUI (airline and touroperator) 7,5Bn.

...because airlines are hoping that most vouchers will expire without being used...

At the contrary. Vouchers have a certain validity indeed, but once they are overdue, the airlines will refund the amount due. Hence the new trend, by some airlines, to offer more in return when the voucher is used (example +25%), to avoid cash pay out.

[Flanker2]

A voucher does not equate to a refund and is hence rejected by credit card companies. Charging back to the same credit card is the only accepted refund method upon opening a claim with your credit card company. If you open a claim, it means that you did not agree to receiving a voucher and EU law is clear about this. Even if the airline answers "refunded by voucher", it will be ignored by the credit card company or the credit card holder will be asked if he agrees to the refund by this method.

At the contrary. Let me try again, to avoid false hope with other people. When an airline replies on a chargeback request with “refunded by voucher”, the credit card company accepts that answer as bona fide because it is not up to the credit card issuer to judge if such "voucher payment" is or is not legally valid. Sure, the client can disagree and refer to articles 5 and 8 of EU Rule 261/2004. But when the airline stands, the credit card issuer will ask for a court judgement. That is, when the reason given is "non-delivery of goods/services". When the request is "fraud", it's different.

Actually, I heard from someone that there was a court case last Tuesday: a complaint against a combination of a ticket voucher and a package travel voucher. Judge has put the case on the agenda for... February 2021. Exactly why the biggest EU261/2004 claim company refuses claims for vouchers: "by the time it ends up in court, the airline has refunded".

...this voucher scheme is actually a very bad idea and is killing airlines that are issuing them...

At the contrary. Vouchers are averting aviation bankruptcies right now. If airlines would have to refund all cancellations in cash within the time limit of EU261/2004, most of them would go bankrupt. I have read some amounts recently: South African Airways 176M cancellations, Lufthansa 2Bn, TUI (airline and touroperator) 7,5Bn.

...because airlines are hoping that most vouchers will expire without being used...

At the contrary. Vouchers have a certain validity indeed, but once they are overdue, the airlines will refund the amount due. Hence the new trend, by some airlines, to offer more in return when the voucher is used (example +25%), to avoid cash pay out.

None of that is true.

Ignore that, if you're not getting your refund, just open a claim with your credit card company.

It will not be denied and most credit cards offer fraud protection as well.
Because witholding funds or converting into vouchers without permission is fraud, as Passenger pointed out himself in his post in the Coronavirus thread.

Being on the brink of bankruptcy does not give permission to break the law.

Issuing a voucher takes just as much time as making a refund, stop making up excuses for airlines that only have themselves to blame for their situation.

Lufthansa are about to receive their 9 billions, so what's their excuse for not refunding now?

Other airlines are doing this too, politicians are doing very little.
Wait until tsunami's of credit card claims are filed and go bankrupt, or go to a bank and beg for money just as you're supposed to do.

Question to Passenger: what happens to the vouchers if the issuing airline goes bankrupt?

[Passenger]

...if you're not getting your refund, just open a claim with your credit card company. It will not be denied and most credit cards offer fraud protection as well. Because witholding funds or converting into vouchers without permission is fraud, as Passenger pointed out himself in his post in the Coronavirus thread.

I wrote the opposite. Let me give it a last try for this very off topic discussion... There is no legislation about chargeback requests. Therefore, it's up to the credit card issuer to decide how they deal with complaints, what they regard as "non delivery", what they regard as "refunded" and what they regard as "fraud". You disagree with their decision that "refunded via voucher" is a refund? No problem. Feel free to go to court and ask a judgement that "refunded via voucher" is no refund, and thus an infract to articles 5 and 8 of EU261/2004". Actually, most probably the final judge (EU Court of Justice) will rule in your favour. But let me repeat what a big EU261/2004 claim company said: by the time we have such court verdict, airlines are able to refund, and they will refund.

Question to Passenger: what happens to the vouchers if the issuing airline goes bankrupt?

You have to ask that to the Member of the European Parliament you have voted for.

[Flanker2]

...if you're not getting your refund, just open a claim with your credit card company. It will not be denied and most credit cards offer fraud protection as well. Because witholding funds or converting into vouchers without permission is fraud, as Passenger pointed out himself in his post in the Coronavirus thread.

I wrote the opposite. Let me give it a last try for this very off topic discussion... There is no legislation about chargeback requests. Therefore, it's up to the credit card issuer to decide how they deal with complaints, what they regard as "non delivery", what they regard as "refunded" and what they regard as "fraud". You disagree with their decision that "refunded via voucher" is a refund? No problem. Feel free to go to court and ask a judgement that "refunded via voucher" is no refund, and thus an infract to articles 5 and 8 of EU261/2004". Actually, most probably the final judge (EU Court of Justice) will rule in your favour. But let me repeat what a big EU261/2004 claim company said: by the time we have such court verdict, airlines are able to refund, and they will refund.

Question to Passenger: what happens to the vouchers if the issuing airline goes bankrupt?

You have to ask that to the Member of the European Parliament you have voted for.

You don't need to go to court for a refund if your trip is paid by credit card, in most cases.
The merchant has to prove that they delivered the service to the credit card company and otherwise, it becomes a dispute between the credit card company and the airline. The customer will be covered.
Tiny merchants are at the mercy of credit card companies, as they could see their merchant agreements terminated for fraud.
Believe me, I've filed claim responses for merchants and even with all the evidence, even fraudulent customers have been charged back as the CC company takes the funds off your balance forcibly.

Good luck if your trip is paid by debit card though.

As for clearing the backlog, many airlines will be bankrupt before they clear the backlog, as cancellations continue to pile up. Refunds are being paid by new bookings that they don't intend to honor in a true Ponzi scheme. Tuifly was caught red handed while they were doing this.
In addition, as consumer you have the duty to report a claim asap to your credit card company, if you wait too long the coverage will lapse.

[Passenger]

Now that this discussion is split off from the Brussels Airlines topic, it’s possible to discuss it more indepth. But first, let me remind new members to “the Kinshasa incident” because it proofs that you pretend to know what you’re talking about – when actually you don’t. Member tolipanebas reported the ‘dangerous’ crew transfer between Kinshasa airport and the SN crew hotel (the Memling) with you, and you said that no transport was actually needed because you do it on foot as “it’s just two blocks away”. What happened? You had asked Google Maps for “Kinshasa Airport”, and Google then shows NLO (N’Dolo), a 1.600m airport very close to downtown Kinshasa indeed. SN however uses FIH (N’Djili), some 20 kms more inland.

The same thing now happens again. You pretend to know how chargeback requests are handled, but your theory comes from the internet. And worse: you wrongly advise other people how they can get a refund. Sure, a few files will go through – simply because airlines don’t lose time for a chargeback request for €19,90.

I’m not a lawyer but every now and then I have access to some interesting documents. Including, guess what, cc chargeback files. So I have a bit of knowledge there. And I do remember the basic principle from my IATA grade: there is no legislation for chargeback requests, so the cc company decides how requests are handled. If you disagree xwith their final decision, feel free to go to court.

On top, chargeback requests are no tool to settle commercial disputes, and their legal department is no tribunal. When the merchant disputes a request and replies with “payment done (via voucher)”, the ccc will estimate if that is correct. When the answer is not obvious, example when international legislation is involved, there is doubt. Same when the airline replies that IATA advised them that a 90 day period is acceptable for refunds (contrary to the 7 days from EU261/2004).

Because that is how it goes. The customer files a request, and the cc-issuer then sends the merchant a mail "Objection to transaction..." in which they ask for all documents showing that their obligations are fullfilled (I have files from Atos and Six). Unless when it's about chargeback requests with subject "fraud", the cc-issuer estimates merchants as bona fide.

[Passenger]

I am on the line with the Easyjet call center. It took 2 hours 45 minutes for someone to take me off the music. While on hold, I went out for 30 minutes, came home, made dinner and started eating, when suddenly someone answered. I called with with a request to take me off the flight after rebooking me without my consent, to avoid going no-show. So apparently they are going to let me go no show and I have to claim the refund, they're just going to leave a note for the refund people.

On another booking, they gave me a voucher instead of the requested refund. There's nothing they can do about it they said. So there, the only option is to contact your credit card company.

“A rebooking without consent”??? Airlines send schedule changes constantly. When it’s withing their limits, it’s a notification, not a request. When it’s outside their limits, they ask for your approval. When you decline, they propose an alternative or they cancel the flight(s). What you here say, is very weird: an agreed and pre-arranged no show with EasyJet???