Airlines including British Airways and Virgin Atlantic have resisted calls to remove “no-show” clauses, which bump passengers off the second half of a return trip, despite heavy criticism from regulators and calls for a ban.
Consumer body Which? wrote to nine airlines in December, warning they may be breaking consumer laws by keeping clauses that cancel the second leg of a return flight if a passenger misses the first leg of the same booking, forcing some customers to pay hundreds of pounds for replacement flights.
In many cases airlines can sell on the same tickets, doubling their earnings for one seat.
Of the nine airlines, only Flybe told Which? it would change the clauses, although it has not removed them completely. The airlines that retained the clauses were British Airways, Virgin Atlantic, Emirates, Air France, Singapore, Qatar and Swiss.
KLM said it did not cancel the return flight ticket if the first leg was missed. Instead, it charges an extra fixed-rate fee of between €125 (£112) and €3,000 to passengers at the airport.
In one case brought to Which?, a customer was forced to pay more than £600 to British Airways after he and his wife were barred from the second leg of their return trip from London to Pisa. The customer booked an outbound flight with an alternative airline after the first leg with British Airways was cancelled because of an airline strike, and he was only offered a replacement two days later.
Last week, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) added to the pressure on airlines, saying it was concerned by airlines’ failure to remove the no-show clauses.
Which? on Friday called for the “rip-off” no-show clauses to be banned, following the example set in Austria, which banned the practice in April.
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.
“Airlines have been able to cash in with this tactic for too long, leaving people miserable, stranded and hundreds if not thousands of pounds out of pocket.
However, the CAA said in its report that its enforcement powers were limited, meaning government action may be required.
The CAA criticised the airlines for their failure to create simple key terms documents, saying it was unfair for passengers to be forced to comply with terms that are not transparent.
Airlines argue that the clauses prevent people from taking advantage of offers of return flights, which are cheaper than singles.