Airlines refuse to scrap ‘no-show’ clauses for passengers

[joe]

From The Guardian :

Airlines refuse to scrap ‘no-show’ clauses for passengers

BA is among firms that bump passengers off second leg of return trip, despite criticism

www.theguardian.com

"Caroline Normand, the consumer group’s director of advocacy, said: “It’s totally unreasonable for an airline to cancel a passenger’s return flight – often without warning – simply because they’ve missed the first leg of their journey. "

"The airlines that retained the clauses were British Airways, Virgin Atlantic, Emirates, KLM, Air France, Singapore, Qatar and Swiss."

Another thing to be aware of when buying tickets with a return flight.

 

[Cameron]

Some flyers are buying tickets with a "stop" at the destination where they really want to be, because it's cheaper, therefore, they don't continue to the plane's final destination. That's usually the second leg, not the first leg. I wonder if this is one of the reasons, too?

 

[joe]

Some flyers are buying tickets with a "stop" at the destination where they really want to be, because it's cheaper, therefore, they don't continue to the plane's final destination. That's usually the second leg, not the first leg. I wonder if this is one of the reasons, too?

I suppose it is, and in the article it is stated that the "Airlines argue that the clauses prevent people from taking advantage of offers of return flights, which are cheaper than singles."
But I'm sure that the airlines could define more precisely under which conditions they will cancel return tickets. If passengers can show a legitimate reason for not showing up (such as a strike, as mentioned in the article, or any other reason that airlines usually recognize as legitimate grounds for cancellation), there's no reason the airline can't take this into account.