They have now partially succeeded in their claim against the airline after the Disputes Tribunal was satisfied that the terms and conditions on the ticket and the boarding passes were not sufficiently clear.
However, tribunal referee Shaurya Malaviya said the couple’s late arrival at the airport was a contributing factor.
According to the decision, the problem arose on the couple’s return flight last July from an unnamed destination.
They arrived at the airport at 3pm for the flight scheduled to depart at 4pm, and went straight to the security check, but were told they had to print their boarding passes.
They discovered the check-in counter closed, but a few minutes later two staff members arrived who the applicants said refused to print their boarding passes.
The couple were then told the online check-in facility was not available in the country where they were and all passengers were required to be at the airport before the check-in counter closed.
Because they had not arrived in time, they were unable to fly.
The woman provided information that was contrary to what they had been told.
The tribunal found the ticket said passengers could check in via the airline’s mobile app, or by clicking on a link in the online check-in email sent to them, but the final check-in time applied even if passengers only had carry-on luggage.
The couple called the airline’s customer services and were told they had to rebook their flights.
They rebooked a return flight for the following day and then lodged a claim for $1237.90 from the airline as compensation for two one-way flight tickets that cost $834.90, plus one night’s accommodation and meals at $403.
They claimed they had complied with all travel instructions regarding online check-in and the airline had not clarified why it had not let them board their flight.
The airline’s dispute resolution specialist responded that luggage and check-in kiosks both closed 90 minutes before departure for international travel.
On this occasion, the kiosk was open until 60 minutes before departure and the couple had arrived at the kiosk about 3.20pm, by which time it was too late to print the boarding passes because the boarding gates were about to close.
She highlighted the information on the boarding pass obtained online which said passengers needed to present their passports to an airline representative in the check-in area for validation, while the kiosk was still open.
The airline representative said “a prudent passenger” must know they needed to arrive at the airport well before the check-in closed to ensure all pre-boarding steps could be completed.
Malaviya agreed the couple should have known they needed to arrive earlier than they did.
“I note the purpose of this is to ensure a passenger has sufficient time to complete the check-in and luggage drop formalities.”
In this case, because the woman had checked in online and did not have any luggage to check in, she formed a genuine expectation that she would be able to proceed straight to the boarding gate through security and customs without the need for any check-in formalities.
The tribunal found the airline’s terms and conditions “ambiguous” as it had not clarified what was expected of a passenger in the couple’s situation.
“That is, a passenger who has already checked in online, has a boarding pass and no luggage to check in,” Malaviya said.
In ordering the airline to pay the applicants $700 compensation to partially cover the cost of the return flights, he said it fell upon the airline to display accurate and clear information to passengers so they had clarity around expectations.
He also found that the couple had to accept some liability for their decision to arrive about an hour before departure for an international flight where the recommended time was two to three hours before departure.
He did not order costs for the meals and accommodation.
Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.
