With reference to a controversial clause in the conditions of carriage, Austrian Airlines made a trip to an odyssey for two consumers, which ultimately even led to a lawsuit by the Association for Consumer Information on behalf of the Ministry of Social Affairs. Once again it was about a "no-show clause", which is forbidden by law in some European countries.

Austrian Airlines was of the opinion that a return flight could be canceled without replacement if the passengers did not use the outward flight. It goes without saying that substitute transport and compensation in accordance with EU Regulation 261/2004 were then refused. This customer-hostile behavior angered not only the two passengers, but also the Ministry of Social Affairs and the VKI. Since the AUA did not give in a lawsuit was filed.

As soon as the Lufthansa subsidiary has the cargo for the trial date in its hands, the requirement has been fully met. In other words: The AUA paid and thus recognized the financial claim in order to be able to avoid a court hearing.

According to the VKI, the background was as follows: Two consumers had booked flights from Vienna to Split and back with AUA. The passengers had missed the outward flight due to a traffic jam. Then they traveled to Split in a different way. When they got to the airport in Split on the day of the planned return trip, they learned that the AUA had canceled the return flight. The travelers had to book a flight with another airline. The consumers then turned to the VKI for help. First of all, the VKI tried to find a solution out of court. The AUA, however, refused any payment. This was justified by the fact that the return flight was canceled by the AUA due to the non-appearance of the consumer and the AUA conditions of carriage stipulate that a ticket consisting of a return trip is only valid for the order of transport indicated on it (so-called "No- Show clause "). Therefore, the VKI brought a lawsuit against the AUA on behalf of the Ministry of Social Affairs. Immediately before the scheduled court hearing, however, the AUA gave in and paid both the price for the replacement flight ticket for the return journey and the compensation for canceled flights provided for in the Passenger Rights Ordinance.

“We are generally very critical of no-show clauses and have successfully taken action against several airlines in the past. We cannot understand why travelers are penalized for not using a flight that has already been paid for. Especially if travelers were unable to reach the outbound flight due to a traffic jam and make the outward journey at their own expense, it is hard to see why they are not allowed to use the return flight for which they paid. It is a shame that a lawsuit was necessary for the AUA to give in, ”emphasizes Dr. Gelbmann, head of the complaints department at the VKI. "We will continue to keep an eye on problems related to no-show clauses."