‘Airlines exploit us!’
BACK in 2017, I made TNW
front page news when I
received a R42 000 ADM
from Lufthansa when I
cancelled a flight sector for a
client who advised me during
their journey that they would
not be using that particular
segment. The client wrote
to Lufthansa at the time
to advise them that I had
not been able to control
their decision-making, but
the ADM was not reversed
and my ITC has been under
financial pressure ever since
from the strain of having to
pay this.
Last month, Lufthansa
announced that it would
be appealing against the
European Court’s decision to
drop the case of Lufthansa’s
attempt to sue a passenger
who booked directly with
an airline and abandoned
a sector in order to exploit
fare anomalies. Based
on the high-profile nature
of the case, I feel that
agents are now even more
vulnerable to ADMs, now
that clients are aware that
airlines may pursue them
for ‘skiplagging’ if they book
directly, but not if they book
through a travel agent.
Recently I received
another R13 000 ADM from
Lufthansa due to similar
passenger behaviour which
was completely out of my
control. This client and
his family were returning
to Germany after living in
South Africa for some time.
They purchased a Lufthansa
Johannesburg-Frankfurt
return ticket from me after
they discovered that the
one-way airfare was more
expensive than the return.
The client told me at the
time that they would be
using the return segment
to fly back for a friend’s
wedding but after arriving
in Frankfurt he emailed me
to say that he would not be
flying back for the wedding.
I feel the client used me
to take advantage of a
loophole in Lufthansa’s fare
structure and left me with
no choice but to cancel the
return sector to avoid
receiving an ADM penalty
for the no-show fee.
The point is that the
client’s behaviour is
completely out of the
agent’s control.
Airlines know this, but
think nothing of reaching
into an agent’s bank
account to recover ‘lost’
segment fares. It is
grossly unfair to put the
responsibility for this
on agents who have no
protection against client
behaviour.
Clients are savvy and
have now learnt from the
publicity of the European
case that there could
be consequences for
‘skiplagging’ behaviour if
they book direct, but not if
they book via an agent.
Cancelling return
segments is also
particularly frequent
in SA, with the rise in
emigration.
Over the years many
of my passengers have
booked return tickets only
to find a job in the country
that they were visiting and
not return on the date
booked.
Visa rules often require
clients to purchase a
return ticket in order to
enter a country, which
leaves South African
agents more vulnerable
to this behaviour than in
other markets around the
world.
R55 000 in ADMs from
Lufthansa is enough to
make me want leave
the industry. We remain
vulnerable to ongoing
airline exploitation.
Anonymous ITC agent
Otto de Vries, ceo of
Asata said while agency
associations could not
get involved in direct ADM
disputes, the association
was focusing on the root
causes of ADMs to inform
discussions between the
agent community and
airlines. He said airline
behaviour of this sort was
disappointing. “We view
airline behaviour where
they go after agents in
order to penalise them for
client behaviour, which is
completely outside their
control, as abusive. This
is simply not how you
treat your clients
