Nightmare flight with Romanian airline Tarom

Nappy

Hi guys,

I need your advice. My girlfriend booked a return flight with said airline. She missed the outgoing flight and had to book another but on returning she found she had been removed from the passenger list. The excuse they gave her was that she had missed the outgoing flight and it is standard procedure to remove a passenger from the return flight in this instance. This can't be legal! Does anyone have any knowledge on this. It strikes me as ridiculous!

The only option she had was to book the only seat left on the flight which happened to be business class and cost a fortune. As the flight was leaving in an hour she didn't have time to fight her case so she was willing to pay.

Can anyone tell me is this legal? Surely when someone pays for a return ticket it's there seat booked? Who would I contact about such an issue? Any advice would be much appreciated.

brianwalshcork

This is fairly normal practice, so must be legal, however unfair.

athtrasna

It's absolutely legal and clearly viewable in the terms and conditions of any flight booking on any non point to point airline. Ryanair is a point to point airline so both flights are considered individually if booking a "return" flight. The vast majority of other airlines will cancel a return sector if the outgoing leg is not flown on the original booking.

http://www.tarom.ro/en/travelling-terms-and-conditions/article-3-tickets.html section 4

Carrier will honor flight coupons only in sequence from the place of departure as shown on the ticket. The ticket will not be honored and will lose its validity if all the coupons are not used in the sequence provided in the ticket.
In particular the ticket does not entitle the passenger to commence his journey at any of the specified stopover points if the first coupon for an international flight has not in fact been used for transportation.

Nappy

Thanks for clearing that up. You learn something new everyday. Expensive mistake

Bepolite

Don't roll over that easily. Depending on the cost of the ticket get proper legal advice. This is a exceptionally complicated area of law and not a contract matter simpliciter.

athtrasna

Bepolite wrote: »

Don't roll over that easily. Depending on the cost of the ticket get proper legal advice. This is a exceptionally complicated area of law and not a contract matter simpliciter.

It's in clear English in the booking terms and conditions and an industry standard for non point to point airlines. Legal advice would be a waste of money

keithclancy

Bepolite wrote: »

Don't roll over that easily. Depending on the cost of the ticket get proper legal advice. This is a exceptionally complicated area of law and not a contract matter simpliciter.

No, its pretty simple.
She missed the first leg of the flight as per the terms and conditions she lost the second leg also.

Most airlines are like this except for the low cost carriers.

Expensive mistake.

Bepolite

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what happens here. So the OP receives a refund for the cancelled part of the journey?

Paulw

Bepolite wrote: »

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what happens here. So the OP receives a refund for the cancelled part of the journey?

The OP didn't buy two parts of a journey. The OP bought one journey (return). The OP didn't use the journey, so the seat on the return leg was cancelled.

The flights are generally sold as either one way journeys or return. Ryanair only sell one way journeys. So, if you fly to/from a destination, you, in effect, buy two one way flights. If you fly with return flight airlines (such as Tarom), you buy one journey (which is made up of two flights).

So, in this situation, the OP is not due any refund, since non-use of the first leg of the journey invalidated the return leg.

Bepolite

Paulw wrote: »

The OP didn't buy two parts of a journey. The OP bought one journey (return). The OP didn't use the journey, so the seat on the return leg was cancelled.

The flights are generally sold as either one way journeys or return. Ryanair only sell one way journeys. So, if you fly to/from a destination, you, in effect, buy two one way flights. If you fly with return flight airlines (such as Tarom), you buy one journey (which is made up of two flights).

So, in this situation, the OP is not due any refund, since non-use of the first leg of the journey invalidated the return leg.

Thank you the explanation, I find it very hard to believe that this hasn't been challenged successfully. Do bear in mind just because something is (a) in industry standard, (b) laid down in the terms and conditions (c) even totally within the rights of one party, it's not open to challenge. It would be different if the airline denied boarding and then put the OP on a different flight, that could be regarded as a legitimate way to minimise empty seats, however the OP's situation simply amounts to a rip off in my opinion.

Also initial legal advice is almost always free.

jhegarty

It's one of the few situations that Ryanair offer better service than other airlines.

Bepolite

jhegarty wrote: »

It's one of the few situations that Ryanair offer better service than other airlines.

A bit of a derailment of the thread, but being a regular flyer I actually find Ryanair to do exactly what they say they do, and do it rather well. I've had two Ryanair flights cancelled, paid about €5 for them and got a '€200' flight for them in return, as you can use your cancelled flight to book the same journey last minute. The problems start with Ryanair when one is unprepared for a cancellation/delay with the proper insurance etc., or unwilling to co-operate with their baggage policy.

Paulw

Bepolite wrote: »

Thank you the explanation, I find it very hard to believe that this hasn't been challenged successfully. Do bear in mind just because something is (a) in industry standard, (b) laid down in the terms and conditions (c) even totally within the rights of one party, it's not open to challenge.

Also initial legal advice is almost always free.

While initial advice may be free, and the situation may be challenged, to actually take such a case to court (which would mean a European court, since this airline doesn't have a registered business in Ireland), would be quite expensive indeed.

Also, since the terms and conditions are laid out clearly, and, since it is common industry standard, etc, it would tend to indicate that it may not win in court so the challenge may be fruitless, as well as expensive.

Bepolite

Paulw wrote: »

While initial advice may be free, and the situation may be challenged, to actually take such a case to court (which would mean a European court, since this airline doesn't have a registered business in Ireland), would be quite expensive indeed.

Also, since the terms and conditions are laid out clearly, and, since it is common industry standard, etc, it would tend to indicate that it may not win in court so the challenge may be fruitless, as well as expensive.

The majority of civil cases would never see the inside of a court room. The jurisdictional issue is not resolved in the way you may imagine.

I don't think it's unwise for the OP to seek independent advice, although the cautionary note with regard to cost is a one that should be noted, always. I do, however, have to say it does appear mildly arrogant, unless one is an experienced lawyer in the area, to advise the OP not to seek as many informed opinions as possible.

keithclancy

Bepolite wrote: »

Thank you the explanation, I find it very hard to believe that this hasn't been challenged successfully. Do bear in mind just because something is (a) in industry standard, (b) laid down in the terms and conditions (c) even totally within the rights of one party, it's not open to challenge. It would be different if the airline denied boarding and then put the OP on a different flight, that could be regarded as a legitimate way to minimise empty seats, however the OP's situation simply amounts to a rip off in my opinion.

Also initial legal advice is almost always free.

Well you can just call the Airline and pay the fare difference.

Usually a one way flight is around twice the cost or the same price as a return flight.

The common one is the Open Jaw (Fly out through one airport and back through another)

You can never waste the first leg but you can waste the last one (As long as you don't have check in luggage)

But yeh, its common industry practise.

http://www.businessinsider.com/skip-leg-return-flight-2012-1

athtrasna

Bepolite wrote: »

The majority of civil cases would never see the inside of a court room. The jurisdictional issue is not resolved in the way you may imagine.

I don't think it's unwise for the OP to seek independent advice, although the cautionary note with regard to cost is a one that should be noted, always. I do, however, have to say it does appear mildly arrogant, unless one is an experienced lawyer in the area, to advise the OP not to seek as many informed opinions as possible.

Can I direct you to flyertalk.com - a board for frequent flyers. The knowledge of many of the posters there is unrivalled when it comes to airline terms & conditions. They will back up every respondent bar you has said.

It's plain and simple, the OP's girlfriend breached her contract with the airline by not taking the first flight. This cancelled the contract. You don't need to be a lawyer to make sense of that.

It's not arrogance to explain this, it's intelligence!

Bepolite

I don't doubt its a common industry practice, possibly as common as saying 'yeah it only comes with a year's manufacturers guarantee' it probably has a lot less basis for being challenged. However this issue is clearly tied up in the practise of over booking flights, and I fail to see what loss the airline suffers, beyond the bonus of selling a seat twice.

To me it seems unfair, and there are better ways to protect both parties.

athtrasna wrote: »

It's not arrogance to explain this, it's intelligence!

You're missing the point. It's very nice of people to point out the T&C's. Suggesting to the OP not explore all possible avenues, is arrogant. It's arrogant because to do so assumes you know everything and someone else wouldn't be able to put a different perspective on it.

schemingbohemia

Bepolite wrote: »

I don't doubt its a common industry practice, possibly as common as saying 'yeah it only comes with a year's manufacturers guarantee' it probably has a lot less basis for being challenged. However this issue is clearly tied up in the practise of over booking flights, and I fail to see what loss the airline suffers, beyond the bonus of selling a seat twice.

To me it seems unfair, and there are better ways to protect both parties.



You're missing the point. It's very nice of people to point out the T&C's. Suggesting to the OP not explore all possible avenues, is arrogant. It's arrogant because to do so assumes you know everything and someone else wouldn't be able to put a different perspective on it.

As (from your tone) you're obviously an experienced solicitor why don't you take the case on a no foal no fee basis :rolleyes:

There's a very good reason people aren't suggesting challenging the terms and conditions that were agreed to by the OP's partner when she purchased the ticket - it's because it's a waste of time as she'll lose.

AngryLips

What doesn't make sense is why the airline allowed the passenger to book the new outbound ticket as a separate transaction to the original booking. Most airlines in this situation would direct the passenger to a rebooking service (probably for a fee) that doesn't compromise the return leg. So while it is industry practice to cancel the return leg it is also industry practice to accommodate the passenger who missed the outbound flight in a way that doesn't result in the return flight being cancelled also.

Maybe the issue is with the passenger in not exploring that option with the airline but it just seems somewhat unusual.

athtrasna

AngryLips wrote: »

What doesn't make sense is why the airline allowed the passenger to book the new outbound ticket as a separate transaction to the original booking. Most airlines in this situation would direct the passenger to a rebooking service (probably for a fee) that doesn't compromise the return leg. So while it is industry practice to cancel the return leg it is also industry practice to accommodate the passenger who missed the outbound flight in a way that doesn't result in the return flight being cancelled also.

Maybe the issue is with the passenger in not exploring that option with the airline but it just seems somewhat unusual.

The OP mentioned that his GF "missed" the first flight so it appears that it wasn't a planned re-booking situation. She would have gone down as a "no show" if she didn't notify the airline in advance and that would have cancelled the ticket.

Bepolite

athtrasna wrote: »

The OP mentioned that his GF "missed" the first flight so it appears that it wasn't a planned re-booking situation. She would have gone down as a "no show" if she didn't notify the airline in advance and that would have cancelled the ticket.

Does the customer in this situation get to advise the airline that they still wish to make use of the return leg? Would it be down to the airlines discretion to allow this?

Paulw

AngryLips wrote: »

What doesn't make sense is why the airline allowed the passenger to book the new outbound ticket as a separate transaction to the original booking.

Maybe the issue is with the passenger in not exploring that option with the airline but it just seems somewhat unusual.

Possibly online booking, rather than booking in person, for the first leg. Almost every airline allows one way tickets. I guess the OP booked a one way journey after missing the first flight, and simply assumed they could use the return leg of the flight they missed.

keithclancy

Bepolite wrote: »

Does the customer in this situation get to advise the airline that they still wish to make use of the return leg? Would it be down to the airlines discretion to allow this?

Yes, but then usually you have to pay a fare difference as if you booked a one way flight.

Bepolite

keithclancy wrote: »

Yes, but then usually you have to pay a fare difference as if you booked a one way flight.

Is there any justification that can be used for increased cost? For example, tax breaks etc. for return flights, based on them being for tourists. This is quite an interesting topic, I'm going to do some background digging so just getting a place to start at the moment. Thank you for your answers.

keithclancy

Bepolite wrote: »

Is there any justification that can be used for increased cost? For example, tax breaks etc. for return flights, based on them being for tourists. This is quite an interesting topic, I'm going to do some background digging so just getting a place to start at the moment. Thank you for your answers.

Yes, you have requested to change the service (Return Flight from X to Y)
Now you want a one way flight from Y to X.

Original pricing of one way flight from Y to X is is usually more expensive than a return flight from X to Y.

Hence you must pay the fare difference.

If you need this type of flexibility then you get a flexible ticket which allows changes.

E.G.
http://www.klm.com/travel/nl_en/plan_and_book/ticket_information/ticket_conditions/index.htm

You have to agree to the terms of the ticket before you purchase the tickets.

If you were allowed to change the ticket in this way, then this would be unfair on the passengers who paid for a fully flexible ticket.

Essentially your getting the flight cheap because they paid more.

Bepolite

keithclancy wrote: »

Yes, you have requested to change the service (Return Flight from X to Y)
Now you want a one way flight from Y to X.

Original pricing of one way flight from Y to X is is usually more expensive than a return flight from X to Y.

Hence you must pay the fare difference.

If you need this type of flexibility then you get a flexible ticket which allows changes.

E.G.
http://www.klm.com/travel/nl_en/plan_and_book/ticket_information/ticket_conditions/index.htm

You have to agree to the terms of the ticket before you purchase the tickets.

If you were allowed to change the ticket in this way, then this would be unfair on the passengers who paid for a fully flexible ticket.

Essentially your getting the flight cheap because they paid more.

Thank you for your reply, I have to disagree with the airline's logic however. What the customer is getting is a ticket from X to Y to X and only using the Y to X portion. It's not that the customer has requested any change to the return flight.

There has to be some reason why an airline would provide a cheaper return ticket that a one way. I'll have a dig around, I remember something relating to tax breaks surrounding certain incoming flights to encourage tourism.

An agreement to terms and conditions where the consumer does not get to negotiate the terms on an individual basis are subject to a number of rules to ensure fairness is where I'm going with this. Thanks again for the info.

keithclancy

Bepolite wrote: »

Thank you for your reply, I have to disagree with your the airline's logic however. What the customer is getting is a ticket from X to Y to X and only using the Y to X portion. It's not that the customer has requested any change to the return flight.

There has to be some reason why an airline would provide a cheaper return ticket that a one way. I'll have a dig around, I remember something relating to tax breaks surrounding certain incoming flights to encourage tourism.

An agreement to terms and conditions where the consumer does not get to negotiate the terms on an individual basis are subject to a number of rules to ensure fairness.

Its not my logic, its common knowledge.

Buy whats cheapest depending on the Airline Fare Rules

Bepolite

keithclancy wrote: »

Its not my logic, its common knowledge.

Buy whats cheapest depending on the Airline Fare Rules

Common knowledge doesn't mean one has to agree with the logic behind it, if there even is one. The strike-through was meant to connote that I have picked my words poorly, but then I realised you might pick it up wrongly, which you did, so my apologies for that.

@OP

Some digging so far indicates you would be able to avail of a refund for any taxes, but obviously this isn't going to be a huge amount.

Bepolite

The German Supreme Court has recently ruled in case Xa ZR 5/09, that while airlines have a legitimate interest in protecting their tariff structures, the term providing that the whole ticket is void if a coupon is not used in sequence, is unfair. The court ruled that to protect the rights of the airlines, it would be sufficient if the airline imposed a higher fare for non-sequential-use of the flight coupons. Similar decisions have also been reached in Denmark and Spain. These decisions have no legal value in other countries, nonetheless, it could be argued that EU passengers should be offered the same conditions of carriage without any unjustified discrimination based on their nationality or place of residence.

ECC News June 2011

OP I revert back to my original position, probably worth seeking some independent advice as it does seem there is some wriggle room in relation to this.

The point ref effort vs reward is one that should, of course, be at the forefront of your mind, lest you enter into a bit of a crusade on these things as I tend to do.

EDIT: OP could you clarify if your GF was given any sort of credit for the flight that had been cancelled against the seat booked.

AngryLips

Who knows how Tarom deal with request for tax refund but the OP's girlfriend would be entitled to a refund on the return flight in this case. Effectively, they paid for tax on four flights but only took two.

mdebets

Hopefully, this sort of behaviour by the airlines will soon be a thing of the past, when the proposed changes to the European legislation will be introduced, that'll make it illegal for an airline to deny boarding, just because someone has missed an earlier leg of a route (see http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/mar/13/airline-passenger-rights-eu-boost for more changes that are being proposed)