EN
Aviation

Are no-show clauses incompatible with consumer protection regulation?

logo
Legal news
calendar 9 April 2019
globus Denmark

Air carriers are being criticized for, allegedly, taking advantage of consumers through their use of no-show clauses, but is this actually the case?

Lately, no-show clauses have been met by a large amount of criticism from national consumer groups. The clauses are being criticized for being unfair consumer practice, and a way for carriers to increase profits at the expense of consumers. The question is whether this critique is justified.

What is a no-show clause?

Many carriers have a no-show clause in their general conditions of carriage.

If a passenger, who does not cancel his reservation before the check in deadline, for any reason misses his flight the no-show clause allows the carrier to cancel any onward or return reservations.

Carriers have been criticized for using the clause to gain an unjustified profit since the carrier often will try to re-sell the ticket, if they cancel a passenger’s reservations.

The clause is essential for maintaining low-fare rates

Nevertheless, the no-show clause is essential to ensure lower fares, better connectivity to smaller communities, and reduce wasted capacity and therefore, the carrier’s need for overbooking flights.

The clause is meant as a protection for the carrier against travelers that use hidden city ticketing, i.e. passengers that buy a layover ticket, but only travel on parts of the journey.

For instance: A flight from Copenhagen (CPH) to Beijing (PEK) with a layover in Stockholm (ARL) is often cheaper than a direct flight from Stockholm to Beijing because of the layover. This is because ticket pricing is based on the journey from departure to destination – not on the individual flight segments. Travelers from Copenhagen to Beijing will often be far more interested in buying a direct flight and consequently, to be able to sell layover flights carriers must lower the fares.

If a passenger buys the journey CPH  ARL  PEK, but only travels on the ARL  PEK part of the route it might have consequences for other travelers.

First, it might induce an increased need to overbook certain flights to ensure that the use of the plane’s capacity is maximized. Second, the carrier might abandon the indirect product, which will mean less competition and therefore increased fare prices as well as a reduced travel options for the consumer.

Incompatible with consumer protection regulation?

Regardless of the purpose of the clause some consumer groups are under the impression that the clause has a negative effect on consumer’s rights since the clause is applicable for all travelers even those that do not use hidden city ticketing.

EU consumer protection regulation is very extensive. In Denmark consumer protection is namely regulated in the Marketing Practices Act, implementing Directive 93/13/ECC on Unfair Commercial Practices. The question is whether no-show clauses are incompatible with these regulations.

Whether a clause is compatible with the consumer protection rules must be determined based on the wording of the clause as well as the carrier’s practice when a passenger misses a flight.

It is worth noticing that no-show clauses often are worded in a way that makes a cancellation of the reservation possible, but it is not given that a cancellation will happen. Whether a passenger’s journey will be cancelled will vary depending on the carrier’s practice and the general circumstances for the no-show.

Both German and Spanish courts have ruled that no-show clauses in some cases are incompatible with the member states’ implementation of the Directive on Unfair Commercial Practice. The EU Court of Justice has acknowledged that member states have a large measure of discretion and the directive on Unfair Commercial Practice only set out minimum standards.

Therefore, some member states may have more strict consumer protection regulations than others. Whether a no-show clause is incompatible with EU regulations and national law must be determined on a case-to-case basis.

Contact the carrier to know your rights

Several carriers have stated that they, if contacted by the passenger, will make sure that the ticket is not cancelled, if the reason for the no-show is that the passenger missed the flight by accident. Additionally, some carriers have stated that they will always try to rebook the passenger that has missed his flight.

IUNO’s opinion

IUNO recommends that all carriers review their conditions of carriage and consider if their wording is incompatible with consumer protection regulation. Carriers should also review their practice and see to that they have clear guidelines which ensure that the no-show clause will not have a negative impact on passengers who miss their flight by accident.

By following the above mentioned practice, the clause should not have negative effects on passengers, but one cannot be too careful since the consequences of non-compliance can be very substantial.

Lately, no-show clauses have been met by a large amount of criticism from national consumer groups. The clauses are being criticized for being unfair consumer practice, and a way for carriers to increase profits at the expense of consumers. The question is whether this critique is justified.

What is a no-show clause?

Many carriers have a no-show clause in their general conditions of carriage.

If a passenger, who does not cancel his reservation before the check in deadline, for any reason misses his flight the no-show clause allows the carrier to cancel any onward or return reservations.

Carriers have been criticized for using the clause to gain an unjustified profit since the carrier often will try to re-sell the ticket, if they cancel a passenger’s reservations.

The clause is essential for maintaining low-fare rates

Nevertheless, the no-show clause is essential to ensure lower fares, better connectivity to smaller communities, and reduce wasted capacity and therefore, the carrier’s need for overbooking flights.

The clause is meant as a protection for the carrier against travelers that use hidden city ticketing, i.e. passengers that buy a layover ticket, but only travel on parts of the journey.

For instance: A flight from Copenhagen (CPH) to Beijing (PEK) with a layover in Stockholm (ARL) is often cheaper than a direct flight from Stockholm to Beijing because of the layover. This is because ticket pricing is based on the journey from departure to destination – not on the individual flight segments. Travelers from Copenhagen to Beijing will often be far more interested in buying a direct flight and consequently, to be able to sell layover flights carriers must lower the fares.

If a passenger buys the journey CPH  ARL  PEK, but only travels on the ARL  PEK part of the route it might have consequences for other travelers.

First, it might induce an increased need to overbook certain flights to ensure that the use of the plane’s capacity is maximized. Second, the carrier might abandon the indirect product, which will mean less competition and therefore increased fare prices as well as a reduced travel options for the consumer.

Incompatible with consumer protection regulation?

Regardless of the purpose of the clause some consumer groups are under the impression that the clause has a negative effect on consumer’s rights since the clause is applicable for all travelers even those that do not use hidden city ticketing.

EU consumer protection regulation is very extensive. In Denmark consumer protection is namely regulated in the Marketing Practices Act, implementing Directive 93/13/ECC on Unfair Commercial Practices. The question is whether no-show clauses are incompatible with these regulations.

Whether a clause is compatible with the consumer protection rules must be determined based on the wording of the clause as well as the carrier’s practice when a passenger misses a flight.

It is worth noticing that no-show clauses often are worded in a way that makes a cancellation of the reservation possible, but it is not given that a cancellation will happen. Whether a passenger’s journey will be cancelled will vary depending on the carrier’s practice and the general circumstances for the no-show.

Both German and Spanish courts have ruled that no-show clauses in some cases are incompatible with the member states’ implementation of the Directive on Unfair Commercial Practice. The EU Court of Justice has acknowledged that member states have a large measure of discretion and the directive on Unfair Commercial Practice only set out minimum standards.

Therefore, some member states may have more strict consumer protection regulations than others. Whether a no-show clause is incompatible with EU regulations and national law must be determined on a case-to-case basis.

Contact the carrier to know your rights

Several carriers have stated that they, if contacted by the passenger, will make sure that the ticket is not cancelled, if the reason for the no-show is that the passenger missed the flight by accident. Additionally, some carriers have stated that they will always try to rebook the passenger that has missed his flight.

IUNO’s opinion

IUNO recommends that all carriers review their conditions of carriage and consider if their wording is incompatible with consumer protection regulation. Carriers should also review their practice and see to that they have clear guidelines which ensure that the no-show clause will not have a negative impact on passengers who miss their flight by accident.

By following the above mentioned practice, the clause should not have negative effects on passengers, but one cannot be too careful since the consequences of non-compliance can be very substantial.

Receive our newsletter

Aage

Krogh

Partner

Sofie

Aurora Braut Bache

Managing associate

Similar

logo
Aviation

26 February 2024

Cancelled tickets resulted in denied boarding

logo
Aviation

16 February 2024

Automatic rebooking system recognised as a reasonable precaution

logo
Aviation

25 May 2022

Air carriers are not obligated to refund fees charged by ticket providers

logo
Aviation

4 May 2022

Despite several days' notice, a strike counted as an extraordinary circumstance

logo
Aviation

25 April 2022

Air Carrier not liable: No requirement to rebook to an earlier flight

logo
Aviation

25 August 2021

The team

Aage

Krogh

Partner

Adam

Harding Ryyd Lange

Junior legal assistant

Amalie

Bjerre Hilmand

Legal assistant

Amalie

Sofie Sveen Kvam

Legal assistant

Amanda

Jepsen Bregnhardt

Legal assistant

Andrea

Brix Danielsen

Legal assistant

Anna

Bonander

Senior legal assistant

Anna

Kreutzmann

Senior legal assistant

Anne

Poulsen

Senior legal advisor

Anne

Voigt Kjær

Senior legal assistant

Anton

Winther Hansen

Senior legal assistant

Ashley

Kristine Morton

Legal assistant

Benedicte

Rodian

Junior legal assistant

Bror

Johan Kristensen

Senior legal advisor

Carl-Emil

Schumann Dinesen

Senior legal advisor

Chris

Anders Nielsen

Senior legal advisor

Cille

Fahnø

Senior legal assistant

Clara

Caballero Stephensen

Junior legal assistant

Ellen

Priess-Hansen

Junior legal assistant

Elvira

Feline Basse Schougaard

Legal advisor (on leave)

Ema

Besic-Ahmetagic

Senior legal assistant

Emma

Engvang Hansen

Legal assistant

Emma

Frøslev Larsen

Legal manager

Fransine

Andersson

Senior legal assistant

Frederik

Dybro Mikkelsen

Legal assistant

Frederikke

Kirkegaard Thalund

Junior legal assistant

Frederikke

Østerlund Haarder

Senior legal assistant

Frida

Aas Ahlquist

Junior legal assistant

Frida

Assarson

Legal advisor

Gabrielle

Marie Rokkjær

Legal assistant

Gustav

Vestergaard

Legal assistant

Hanna

Honerød Augestad

Legal assistant

Ida

Ralfkiær Rask

Legal assistant

Isabella

Graae Norsker

Legal assistant

Isabella

Rocio Nielsen

Senior legal assistant

Johanne

Berner Nielsen

Legal assistant

Kaisa

Nova Ordell Guldbrand Thygaard

Legal assistant

Karl Emil

Tang Nielsen

Junior legal assistant

Karoline

Halfdan Petersen

Legal manager

Karoline

Nordved

Junior legal assistant

Kathrine

Arntzen Lauvstad

Legal assistant

Laura

Jørgensen

Senior legal advisor

Liva

Tværmose Høegh

Senior legal assistant (on leave)

Mathias

Bech Linaa

Junior legal assistant

Maya

Cecillia Jørgensen

Senior legal advisor

Mie

Lundberg Larsen

Legal manager

Nikoline

Lanzky Otto

Legal assistant

Rosa

Gilliam-Vigh

Senior legal assistant

Selma

Agopian

Senior EU associate

Selma

Klinker Brodersen

Junior legal assistant

Silje

Moen Knutsen

Legal assistant

Sille

Lyng Mejding

Legal assistant

Simone

Bjergskov Nielsen

Senior legal assistant

Sofija

Cabrilo

Legal assistant

Sophia

Maria Dahl-Jensen

Senior legal advisor

Stine

Bank Olstrøm

Legal assistant