Booking Additional Flight Without Cancelling

[6rugrats]

In various European countries, consumer lobbies would like to bring this to court as airlines should not be allowed to refuse to give all or part what you paid for and e.g. in Switzerland a lot of legal opinions say that the airline would be in the losing position. If you order and pay for a set menu in a restaurant, they can not refuse to serve the main course and/or desert because you don't want the soup.

 

However so far airlines have settled before it went to court. I had my own experience in 2011 when I could not fly the first part of a cheap return ticket. I phoned airline to make sure that I could use return ticket and was told NO, as per fare rules. When I insisted to talk to someone in management and mentioned what I had read about the legal opinions and consumer lobbies, they "graciously" allowed me to use the return ticket. I was told they had to "fix" it in their systems so I would not be thrown out. I had no problem at all flying back.

 

BTW airline was Swiss.

 

By the way, airline was Swiss.

 

This is just nonsense. You cannot compare a fixed price meal to an airline ticket.

 

You agree to take your flights in order, and the airline states your ticket will be cancelled if you fail to do so. You get exactly what you pay for.

[CantanaLobo]

... very clearly stated rules and restrictions attached to it. ...

I'll disagree with that. If you don't know where and when in the United online ticketing process to look for the fare rules for the ticket you're about to purchase, you'll never find them. ChoiceAir buries them under a link labeled "Baggage Rules" (or something close to that). They don't make it easy.

 

Reminds me of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy where they come to demolish Earth, the demolition notice which could have been protested was in Alpha Centauri, and now it's far too late to make a fuss.

 

Once you've purchased your United ticket you won't be able to find the fare rules for your ticket on Uniteds site - it's far too late to make a fuss. :)

 

At least the United site does offer you a choice of Lowest, Flexible, and Unrestricted fares (if you use advanced search). That should give folks a hint that 'Lowest' might not be 'Flexible' or 'Unrestricted'. Unfortunately, all they tend see is 'Lowest'.

[Shorex]

I'll disagree with that. If you don't know where and when in the United online ticketing process to look for the fare rules for the ticket you're about to purchase, you'll never find them. ChoiceAir buries them under a link labeled "Baggage Rules" (or something close to that). They don't make it easy.

 

Reminds me of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy where they come to demolish Earth, the demolition notice which could have been protested was in Alpha Centauri, and now it's far too late to make a fuss.

 

Once you've purchased your United ticket you won't be able to find the fare rules for your ticket on Uniteds site - it's far too late to make a fuss. :)

 

At least the United site does offer you a choice of Lowest, Flexible, and Unrestricted fares (if you use advanced search). That should give folks a hint that 'Lowest' might not be 'Flexible' or 'Unrestricted'. Unfortunately, all they tend see is 'Lowest'.

 

I don't fly United, so I went to the United website (not logged in as a United flyer) and did a search for "conditions of carriage" and this is what turned up:

 

Search results

 

Disclaimer: I did not click on and study every link. It's true, very few people actually read this stuff, but it's there without purchasing a ticket. A wise consumer will be aware of what terms and conditions actually affect any anomalies in the itinerary.

 

Choice Air is a completely different animal, with its own set of terms and conditions.

 

When all else fails, the answer is 42.

[odysee]

This is just nonsense. You cannot compare a fixed price meal to an airline ticket.

 

You agree to take your flights in order, and the airline states your ticket will be cancelled if you fail to do so. You get exactly what you pay for.

 

The opinion here (in Switzerland, but also Germany) by legal experts is that a contract not conforming to the law is not binding and can not be enforced even if the counterparty originally signed or accepted it. The local law in question is "unlauterer Wettbewerb" (unfair competition).

 

And since airlines do not let it get to court, it seems that they are not too sure of their position. There have been several cases here that passengers have enforced the right to use the return portion without having been on the first part (see my case where they let me fly back). Even cases written about in newspapers of airlines refunding the substitute ticket bought by passengers who were refused their return flight on original ticket at the gate. At least 2 consumer organizations have an open offer here to pay legal costs if someone sues the airline, however it has never come this far yet, because airlines settle before. Which seems to prove the point of the legal experts.

Unfortunately not too many people are aware of this or are not in the position that they need to use the return part without having flown the first portion. And don't forget that a lot of people here have annual travel insurance which refunds very easily if a trip needs to be rebooked.

 

 

Therefore maybe nonsense where you live, but certainly not here :cool:

If you know someone who can read German, I can send links to several publications.

Edited November 26, 2015 by odysee

[Texas Tillie]

The opinion here (in Switzerland, but also Germany) by legal experts is that a contract not conforming to the law is not binding and can not be enforced even if the counterparty originally signed or accepted it. The local law in question is "unlauterer Wettbewerb" (unfair competition).

 

And since airlines do not let it get to court, it seems that they are not too sure of their position. There have been several cases here that passengers have enforced the right to use the return portion without having been on the first part (see my case where they let me fly back). Even cases written about in newspapers of airlines refunding the substitute ticket bought by passengers who were refused their return flight on original ticket at the gate. At least 2 consumer organizations have an open offer here to pay legal costs if someone sues the airline, however it has never come this far yet, because airlines settle before. Which seems to prove the point of the legal experts.

Unfortunately not too many people are aware of this or are not in the position that they need to use the return part without having flown the first portion. And don't forget that a lot of people here have annual travel insurance which refunds very easily if a trip needs to be rebooked.

 

 

Therefore maybe nonsense where you live, but certainly not here :cool:

If you know someone who can read German, I can send links to several publications.

 

Interesting, but totally irrelevant. This happened in the USA. USA law is the only one relevant to this situation.

[odysee]

Just wanted to show a different aspect. As airlines are more and more globally focussed and adjust their marketing accordingly, it might be interesting to some what happens somewhere else. :confused:

Edited November 26, 2015 by odysee

[waterbug123]

I'll disagree with that. If you don't know where and when in the United online ticketing process to look for the fare rules for the ticket you're about to purchase, you'll never find them. ChoiceAir buries them under a link labeled "Baggage Rules" (or something close to that). They don't make it easy.

 

 

Then let me restate what I said. The rules and restrictions are clearly stated, though you may have to do a little searching to find them. But in my experience, before you click "purchase" there is a statement to the effect of "I understand and agree to....." If you don't read them, buyer beware.

 

As someone else said, Choice Air is a completely different animal. You are basically agreeing to buy something that is not being sold to you by the original vendor, but by a 3rd party. That in itself should warrant the additional reading of rules and restrictions prior to purchase. If one decides to be lazy about it and make false assumptions, well, one shouldn't be surprised to find out about rules later.

[karinad]

I am back to report that I called United about cancelling the first portion of the ticket but keeping the return part. I told them the story and that she can't afford to pay the $200. fee for something that was already paid for. I'm happy to report that they took the first portion off, left the return portion as is and refunding $38.00 in a voucher and no fee charged!

 

Sometimes it pays to call and talk to a person.:)

[Jade13]

I am back to report that I called United about cancelling the first portion of the ticket but keeping the return part. I told them the story and that she can't afford to pay the $200. fee for something that was already paid for. I'm happy to report that they took the first portion off, left the return portion as is and refunding $38.00 in a voucher and no fee charged!

 

 

 

Sometimes it pays to call and talk to a person.:)

 

 

Great! Glad the agent was sympathetic!

[karinad]

Great! Glad the agent was sympathetic!

 

Thank you!

[Hawaiidan]

This is a clear case of agreeing to something you never read...its a legal contract..like a mortgage, a credit card, a marriage .

 

Take the time...before you sign...and make a legal promise. Dont do it again.

 

 

assume nothing.....

[karinad]

This is a clear case of agreeing to something you never read...its a legal contract..like a mortgage, a credit card, a marriage .

 

Take the time...before you sign...and make a legal promise. Dont do it again.

 

 

assume nothing.....

 

Merry Christmas! So glad we got the money back and flight changed without paying the $200. fee!

[Hawaiidan]

Interesting, but totally irrelevant. This happened in the USA. USA law is the only one relevant to this situation.

 

And there have been cases that the Airlines UAL and AA have taken and won.

 

The carriage contract states that any dispute will be under the laws of the United States and any dispute shall be in a US court. in the United States.