Planning a BA journey? Missing one leg of the journey could mean the whole trip is cancelled. To celebrate her 60th birthday, a passenger used an inheritance to book flights from Glasgow to Mexico City via Heathrow, where her son was to join them. Worried about a tight 90-minute transfer time at Heathrow due to storms, she, her husband, and daughter took a train from Glasgow the night before. However, when they showed their boarding passes at security, they were informed that because three of them had not taken the Glasgow flight, their tickets were now invalid, including the return leg. Her son, whose flight originated in London, was unaffected.
A costly decision
Faced with a desperate decision, they chose to send their student son alone to Mexico and buy new return flights at twice the original price, maxing out their credit cards to spend a further £9,000 on new tickets. They were forced to fly the following day as they were told there was no availability on their original flight, despite the fact that her son traveled with three empty seats behind him. The passenger noted that BA's wordy e-ticket confirmation does not mention the consequences of missing a leg.
Understanding the 'no-show' clause
This is an extreme example of clandestine 'no-show' clauses operated by many airlines. The clause, buried in the conditions of carriage that few passengers study, allows airlines to cancel the remaining tickets for a journey if a passenger misses a leg. The rationale is to prevent passengers from taking advantage of discounted fares on certain routes without intending to complete the full itinerary.
Successive EU courts have ruled that the practice is in potential breach of contract law, and the UK regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), has deemed it 'disproportionate' and inadequately publicised. Its review of airline contract terms in 2019 concluded that tickets should only be invalidated by a no-show if the passenger was clearly trying to game the pricing system, and that those who miss the first leg of a journey for legitimate reasons should have their tickets reinstated.
BA's response
BA told the passenger that all passengers are required to confirm they have read the conditions of carriage when booking. However, the conditions are perplexingly worded and potentially misleading. In simplified terms, they state that if you miss a leg of your journey, whether or not you inform BA, and the route you end up taking would have cost more, you must pay the difference to keep your booking. If it ends up costing less, you will be refunded the difference. What the conditions do not say is that the rest of your tickets will be automatically invalidated if you don't fly on one leg and you will have to buy new ones. When asked, BA referred to its FAQ page, which does baldly state that no-shows lose the whole journey.
Passengers are not asked to confirm they have read the FAQs, and requirements that are not in the conditions of carriage do not form part of a contract. BA argued that since the passenger did not notify it in advance that they were forgoing the Glasgow flight, it was unable to calculate a revised fare, so they had to buy new tickets. BA referred back to the terms and conditions, which state that unannounced no-shows will have the cost of their fare recalculated to reflect the altered route.
BA would not comment on why it told the passenger that the original flight was sold out when their booked seats were unoccupied, or on the CAA's view that automatic no-show cancellations are unfair. The passenger has a good case to put to the complaints handling body, the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR).
