The German Federal Court of Justice had to deal with the question of whether tour operators are liable if passengers using the included Rail & Fly services miss the flight because of a train delay. This decided in favor of the travelers.

However, it depends heavily on the form in which the service is offered or sold. The BGH is of the opinion that if this is included and advertised as a kind of "advantage", that it is then part of the package travel contract. The result: The tour operator is liable for train delays.

According to a statement from the Federation of German Consumer Organizations, it was about a case from 2017. Two travelers had booked a package tour including Rail & Fly. Among other things, the brochure contained the following slogan: "Advantage: Train to 2nd class flight including ICE use".

According to information obtained from the plaintiffs at Deutsche Bahn, they should arrive at Düsseldorf Airport at 5:29 a.m. at 9:27 a.m. when departing from their home station. In fact, the plaintiffs didn't reach the airport until 11:35 a.m. At this point the boarding process was already complete. The plaintiffs were turned away and could no longer catch the plane, which took off on time. In a phone call made shortly after the aircraft took off, the defendant offered the plaintiffs the booking of a replacement flight for an additional charge of 2.400 euros. The plaintiffs refused and started their journey home. With the lawsuit, you are seeking reimbursement of the travel price and compensation for lost vacation enjoyment in the amount of 50 percent of the travel price

The BGH has now decided that if the rail transfer to the airport is listed as an “advantage” in the description of a flat-rate flight trip in the travel brochure without reference to an additional fee, this is usually to be understood from the customer's point of view as being a dated The service offered to the travel company, which is included in the stated flat-rate price. For this reason, the BGH regards the claims as given in principle, but refers the matter back to the appellate court, which had rejected the plaintiffs' claims, in particular with regard to the amount of compensation for lost vacation enjoyment.