Airline should refund ticket in event of security risk? I'm a physics student and researcher who travels a fair amount to communicate with scientists in my field, and I recently booked a non-refundable ticket through Turkish Airlines to get from Boston to Geneva next week. I was aware that Turkey was not the most stable region, but all travel warnings at that time regarded southeastern Turkey; my flight has a 16 hour layover in Istanbul, which is on the western side of the country. I was told recent events would not be a problem, both by Turkish acquaintances and service representatives of Turkish Airlines. However, that was when I booked the March 25th flight at the beginning of the month. When the bombings in Ankara (central Turkey) occurred last weekend, I called Turkish Airlines to cancel my flight, suspicious that violence was moving westward. After four separate customer service calls, they finally gave me the following breakdown of my non-refundable ticket: $360.00 USD for fuel taxes (non-refundable) $129.00 USD minimum ticket cost (non-refundable) $96.76 USD refundable ticket cost Which adds up to $585.76 USD, only $96 of which is refundable. I complained to their customer service representatives that the circumstances were such that I should not feel compelled to take a flight when there was a reasonable chance I would find myself in serious danger during my travels to Turkey (this was the only reason which would have driven me to cancel my flight). Their response was that they had no evidence of danger in Istanbul or Ataturk airport, and that I would be safe during my 16-hour layover. However, I was suspicious, and felt that this was not exactly a statement the Airline could guarantee. Last night, I called again because the U.S. Consulate in Istanbul issued a travel warning yesterday (March 17), saying that U.S. Government buildings and tourist areas might be targets for acts of terrorism. I called Turkish Airlines again and complained; they redirected me to a Customer Care Relations form which I could fill out to request a full refund. I did so. The airline usually takes 48 hours to respond. This morning, Istanbul was victim to a suicide bombing in a populated tourist area. At least 36 were injured, and five were reported dead. I am concerned that after hours of effort, I will not be able to obtain a full refund, even though there is now evidence of a clear and present danger in Istanbul. Given that I have had to book another last-minute flight through a safer region (Canada to Geneva), I would expect Turkish to at least refund the cost of my ticket, or provide me with a credit for future travel (although I am so concerned with the way they do business that I do not think the latter is acceptable anymore). If they do not provide me with a full refund, my next step will be to go to small claims court. My question is whether there is a court precedent for my situation. Is there any chance I will get my money back in filing a claim? In my view, the situation is like this: suppose you buy a cake from a bakery. You pay up-front for the cake, and are told that the purchase is final. This sounds reasonable, because you trust the business owner to provide you with a product which is, at the very least, safely comestible. However, when you stop by a week later to pick up the cake, the baker tells you that there is a reasonable chance the cake has cyanide in it, and that you would endanger yourself in the act of consumption. The baker then refuses to provide you with a full refund for your purchase. This situation seems unreasonable to me in the exact same way that my current situation does. What are your thoughts? Thanks so much for your help.
As I said in my comments, "It was your choice to ask for a refund because you chose to assess the events as a safety risk to yourself and the airline." The airline did not assess a risk and as a result cancel the flight and issue refunds. The airline did not disregard advisories or laws pertaining to the terrorist acts that took place and result in legal triggers that mandated the airline cancel the flight and give refunds. If a city or country is classified as a war zone - by that country itself or some international body, or by the US State Department - then there are triggers that either suggest or mandate flight closures, through a myriad of laws and jurisdictions. It is solely your perception of the risk to yourself and the airline that you are using as a reason to ask for a refund. You have made a decision on your own and simply don't have a case for a refund. http://www.turkishairlines.com/en-int/travel-information/legal-notice/terms-amp-conditions/cancellation-refund
It is the use of a "menace" which creates the crime, not the nature or validity of the demand. That's not correct. You've inadvertently missed the other element of the offence: that it's an "unwarranted demand". A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief— (a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and (b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/21 For example, I may have reasonable grounds under the Consumer Rights Act to demand a refund for a faulty good. It might be sensible to moderate one's language, e.g. "If I do not receive a satisfactory response from you within 30 days of the date of this letter, I intend to issue proceedings against you in the county court without further notice. This may increase your liability for costs." vs. "If I do not receive the money from you within 30 days of the date of this letter I'll take you to the f***ing cleaners, sunshine." But the language doesn't make the demand unwarranted.
In general, &quot;making a reservation&quot; does not create a contract, except when it is obvious that you have a contractual agreement. That would be the case with an airline reservation, and one clear sign is that you have to pay for the ticket when you make the reservation; or, it you don't, then there is no contract, and they can cancel or change the price. You would look for clear signs of an agreement, such as a &quot;agree to terms&quot; button that you have to click. Paying a deposit is another clear sign. Then you would simply look at the terms of the contract to see what their obligation is, and what yours is. They may have strongly committed to providing service in which case you might have a cause for legal action if they break that commitment, or they might have made no specific promises about service in case of intervening events (such as if the chef has a heart attack, or the power goes out). If we do think of this as a contractual matter, you breached your duty as a customer, to be there by 7:30, so even if there is a contract, they didn't break it. The note that you added renegotiating the arrival time was insufficient – it is outside of the contract, and possibly something that they didn't see (they only look at the names and official time blocks reported by the web page). In lieu of a contract, there could be some statutory obligation, i.e. a specific regulation in Sweden saying &quot;if a restaurant accepts a reservation, they absolutely must hold the space available for the entire reserved time&quot;, which is an unreasonably onerous business practice that no nation requires.
Is UPS allowed to take my money and business without intention to fulfill its side of the transaction? No. The company's belated change of mind constitutes breach of contract, and its subsequent refusal to give you a refund completes the prima facie elements of fraud and/or unjust enrichment. The company's acceptance of your package &amp; money and its subsequent act of sending your package to NC strike the applicability of its clause on Refusal of Service (see the link provided in the other answer). The blanket term of "among other reasons" is hardly enforceable at that point. In particular, the existence of a lawsuit between the recipient and the company further weakens any merits of the company's belated change of mind. That is because, by virtue of that lawsuit, the company currently has to deliver to that same recipient other packages anyway. Thus, the company cannot allege that delivering your package "is unsafe or economically or operationally impracticable". Also, since you are the one who paid for the service, the company cannot withdraw on grounds of "the person or entity responsible for payment is not in good standing".
She could refer this to the Cyrpriot Commissioner for Personal Data Protection, but I would try contacting the company first and telling them to remove her Personal Data from the public website - or delete it completely. If they don't give a satisfactory response, mention the CPDP. This could lead to the data being removed within a few days, while an official complaint is likely to take longer. She may have grounds for legal action which would result in the company being compelled to take down the data (or to close the website), but if your friend is thinking in terms of compensation, what compensation would she seek? If she can demonstrate and quantify financial losses that occurred specifically because of this disclosure there might be a possibility, but I suspect that would be difficult to prove.
Probably The US, like all other nations, has absolute sovereignty over its airspace. There is no clear line between airspace and space but 60,000 feet is clearly in the former. The US, like all other nations except Lichtenstein for some reason, is a signatory to the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation which, among other things, makes it an act of war to use force against a civilian aircraft. Now, acts of war are not, per see, illegal - there are international laws about armed conflict and there are philosophical arguments about just and unjust wars but war itself is a political rather than a legal construct. Article 5 of the convention gives the right to all other states the right to operate civil aircraft within US airspace (and vice-versa) without prior permission (apart from regularly scheduled flights which do require permission) subject to compliance with the convention. Relevantly, unmanned balloons are dealt with in Annex 4 - it states that permission is not needed for light meteorological balloons but is needed for any other balloon which might enter foreign airspace. The Chinese claim that the balloon was “mainly” meteorological but the convention requires it to be “exclusively” meteorological. It also requires it to be “light” meaning having a payload weighing less than 4kg - unless the payload of this ballon was made of unobtainum, it weighed more than 4kg. They also argue that it drifted off course and entered US airspace inadvertently. This would be a legitimate claim if the entry of US airspace was unlikely at the planning and launch stages of the operation. We simply do not have the information to assess this claim. The US claim that this was a surveillance aircraft. If this is so, then the aircraft is not a civil aircraft and the Chicago Convention does not apply which brings us back to pure sovereignty - the US can do what it likes with things in its own airspace. There is a treaty between NATO members and former Warsaw Pact members dating from the 1990s that allow surveillance overflights of each other’s territories. However, there are two problems with this: China was never a signatory, and the US withdrew during the Trump Presidency. So, if this wasn’t a balloon that inadvertently and unexpectedly drifted off course, the US was allowed to shoot it down.
The answer has two parts depending on how you get here. Airline answer: Any such question by a CBP officer is merely a last-chance option to supplement the response you gave on the declaration form. The form asks a series of specific questions which are difficult to misunderstand (if you speak English), you say yes or no, and fill in applicable details. If you remember that you put an apple in your luggage, you can verbally amend the declaration. It is not necessary or practical to recite the statutory, regulatory and case law authority to ask these questions. As I recall, the electronic version asks the same questions. All versions of the form that I have encountered over the decades have included the perjury warning. If you had an alternative experience for you did not fill in a customs declaration form, that would be unusual, and a significant failure by the CBP officer(s). Land-border answer: you are right. In this case (when no customs declaration form is filled out), they rely on every person's obligation to know and comply with the law. You are required to declare the $12,000 cash that you are bringing back, and you cannot plead &quot;I didn't know I had to declare that cash&quot;. You can always make suggestions for service-improvement to the Dept. of Homeland Security.
You are entitled to a refund, since the &quot;hotel&quot; breached their contract with you. You can sue both the booking company and the individual, though identifying and serving legal notice on the individual will be more difficult. The amount in question is well within the scope of small claims court in Norway. The biggest challenge there is that you have to first contact the local police to get a hearing with the local Conciliation board. You might also sue the booking company in your own location (which would be easier), though depending on how you made the booking they might not be liable. On the third hand, the time between the complaint and now is relatively short and does not yet reach the level of being &quot;an unreasonable delay&quot;. As for whether the cost would exceed. You will have to shoulder the burden of the filing fee, which can be added to your award in the case of a judgment in your favor.