[oleggromov]

Leaving aside the no-show rule, which doesn't make much sense to me, this situation is a good example of an accountability sink.

The intermediary I booked the tickets with made an obvious mistake and showed the wrong airport code. Maybe the airport opening was meant to happen earlier, and the intermediary had already updated their emails or something like that. They refused to do anything meaningful and did not even acknowledge their mistake.

The fact that I was compensated by the airline that had nothing to do with this mistake is even more astonishing to me, although they were obviously protecting their brand reputation.

[Pamar]

I was not trying to dispute the accountability part. Btw my company was hit by the delayed opening of BER airport. Colleagues had to rebook thousands of tickets because the BER iata code had to be "retconned" to use TXL again... so I am more than happy to sympathetic with your problem, trust me.

[charcircuit]

>Leaving aside the no-show rule, which doesn't make much sense to me

A->B->C can be cheaper than B->C. If people could skip flight A, then people already in B would buy the cheaper A->B->C.

[vishnugupta]

I could probably be convinced of this reason.

But why would they cancel B-A when there’s a no show for A-B? More so when there’s a few days gap between A-B and B-A? The only issue being they were booked as a single itinerary/PNR. I don’t see what cost has got anything to do with it.

[Pamar]

Because they could use the now "vacated" seats for:

- Last minute travellers (who pay significantly higher for this)

- move their own personnel from B to A

- alleviating problems caused by overbooking, canceled flights, delayed flights or any other disruption.