KLM and the Consumers' Association have not reached agreement in talks about removing the no-show provision from the general terms and conditions. That is why the Consumers' Association is going to cross legal swords with the airline.
In December 2018, the Consumers' Association sent a summons letter demanding that KLM remove the clause. In a conversation that followed, the parties did not come closer to each other. The Consumers' Association finds KLM's no-show clause unlawful, because it is 'unreasonably onerous' for consumers. The clause applies to tickets that consist of several components, for example an outward and return flight, a round trip or a flight with a connection. If a passenger does not show up for a part, the ticket is no longer valid for the rest of the journey. If the customer still wants to use the remainder of his flight, for example the return journey, KLM charges a substantial extra contribution. This can amount to a maximum of € 3.000. The Consumers' Association will ask the court to declare this general condition null and void.
Balance is skewed
Bart Combée, director of the Consumer Association, is clear about this: “The balance between what airlines are allowed to do and what consumers should do is completely skewed. Passengers are penalized financially if, for any reason, they were not seated in the plane seat they paid for. The money for the unused flight will not be refunded to the passenger. The airline, on the other hand, can simply resell the unused seat to someone else. That is a very lucrative business model.”
Passenger rights
The Consumers' Association believes that a ban on no-show clauses should be included in European passenger rights law. Combee: “The handling of those passenger rights has been at a standstill for years. That is sour, because now you are forced to take the case to court by airline. Moreover, it has not been said that if you obtain your rights in the Netherlands, the airline will also adjust its conditions for travelers from other countries.”
The Consumers' Association fights together with European sister organizations against the no-show policy of various airlines. In addition to KLM, British Airways, Air France, Swiss Air, Emirates, Qatar Airways, Singapore Airlines and Virgin are also under fire.
Source: Consumer Association
Five years ago I became unwell at Suvarnabhumi airport just before checking in for my return flight with China airlines to Schiphol. From the first aid station at the airport, a nurse called the counter of China airlines to cancel my flight. Transported to the hospital by ambulance and after 3 nights, the attending physician, after my insistence, thought it was responsible to fly to the Netherlands after all. Contacted China-airl., there was still room on the next night flight, so reserved under the conditions that I would hand over a doctor's certificate at check-in in the evening and pay € 200. Could have some understanding for those extra costs, the amount was reimbursed by my insurer, because most likely my canceled place would have remained unoccupied, unless someone had been on the standby list. On the other hand, the seat on the new flight would probably also have remained empty, but that aside. In any case, I think there is a balance in this respect, which is certainly not the case with the behavior of some airlines in the event of a no-show at the start of the journey or an intermediate flight. I can hardly imagine that the Consumers' Association would not win this case. It is incomprehensible that KLM and others allow it to come to court, which can only be explained by the fact that a lot of money is involved. Customer satisfaction seems to be secondary.
A few years ago I missed my flight from BKK to Samui with Bangkok Airways. Later I traveled to Samui by train and ferry. When checking in for the return flight to Bangkok, I was referred to the Bangkok Airways office at the airport, where, to my surprise, I and without asking the airfair of the missed flight was refunded (After deducting, I think, 10 USDollar administration costs). Then I could still check in to BKK. That also works…
Don't understand anyway that people still opt for that society sold to the French, is in. my eyes for years faded glory. However, this negative publicity also serves them well and will certainly not do them any good.
KLM has offered cheap flights to, for example, Thailand via Antwerp CS a few times.
There you have to check in and take the train or KLM bus to Schiphol and then take the normal flight from Schiphol to Bangkok. As far as I can remember, via Antwerp was 150 euros cheaper.
But if you lived close to Schiphol and went directly to Schiphol, it would be a no-show in Antwerp. Gone ticket. On the way back it was no problem.
When asked, KLM stated that it concerned a Belgian offer from a marketing point of view. Intended for the Belgian market. But yes .. it is not protected within the EU.