Business travellers often book multi-segment tickets because the through-fare is cheaper than a nonstop leg from the hub airport. Airlines, led by Lufthansa, have long fought the practice of deliberately—or accidentally—skipping the first or an intermediate segment by billing customers the more expensive fare retroactively.
On 4 December 2025 the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ended that practice for German consumers. In case X ZR 110/24, the court held that re-pricing is unlawful when passengers originally intended to fly the whole itinerary but later changed plans for ‘plausible’ reasons such as a meeting cancellation. While carriers remain free to set differential prices, they may not impose hefty surcharges after travel has begun if the change was bona-fide.
![BGH Rules Airlines Cannot Re-Price Tickets When Passengers Skip a Flight Segment]()
Lufthansa has already amended its conditions of carriage, requiring customers to notify the airline “as early as possible” if segments will be skipped and to substantiate their reasons. The burden of proof, the BGH clarified, lies with passengers—but only to show their change of plan was not manipulative. Austria introduced a similar rule earlier; Germany now follows suit.
For mobility managers the ruling removes a costly compliance headache. Employees who miss a feeder leg—because, for instance, they start a trip from Frankfurt instead of Oslo—can no longer face four-figure re-invoicing, provided they act in good faith. Travel-policy teams should update guidance: staff must inform the airline promptly and keep documentation (e-mails, meeting cancellations) to defend against any dispute. TMCs and self-booking tools may also need to add warning prompts so that travellers proactively alert carriers when itineraries change.
Airlines are expected to tighten fare rules to curb intentional ‘throw-away’ ticketing, but legal experts note that any new clauses will be scrutinised under Germany’s consumer-protection standards. Multinationals should therefore monitor contract language in their corporate deals over the coming months.
On 4 December 2025 the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ended that practice for German consumers. In case X ZR 110/24, the court held that re-pricing is unlawful when passengers originally intended to fly the whole itinerary but later changed plans for ‘plausible’ reasons such as a meeting cancellation. While carriers remain free to set differential prices, they may not impose hefty surcharges after travel has begun if the change was bona-fide.
Lufthansa has already amended its conditions of carriage, requiring customers to notify the airline “as early as possible” if segments will be skipped and to substantiate their reasons. The burden of proof, the BGH clarified, lies with passengers—but only to show their change of plan was not manipulative. Austria introduced a similar rule earlier; Germany now follows suit.
For mobility managers the ruling removes a costly compliance headache. Employees who miss a feeder leg—because, for instance, they start a trip from Frankfurt instead of Oslo—can no longer face four-figure re-invoicing, provided they act in good faith. Travel-policy teams should update guidance: staff must inform the airline promptly and keep documentation (e-mails, meeting cancellations) to defend against any dispute. TMCs and self-booking tools may also need to add warning prompts so that travellers proactively alert carriers when itineraries change.
Airlines are expected to tighten fare rules to curb intentional ‘throw-away’ ticketing, but legal experts note that any new clauses will be scrutinised under Germany’s consumer-protection standards. Multinationals should therefore monitor contract language in their corporate deals over the coming months.
