Tourists lose suit against airline over missed flight

A local court has dismissed a lawsuit that six tourists brought against an airline and a travel agency because they missed their flight to Yunnan Province for an eight-day tour, Pudong New Area People's Court said Monday.

In the contracts the six plaintiffs signed with Shanghai Airline Tours International in June 2011, they each acknowledged that they would be responsible for making their own way from Shanghai to Kunming Airport, where they would join the tour group, according to a court press release.

The plaintiffs booked an 11 am flight to Kunming on July 6, 2011. On the day of the flight,  however, they didn't arrive at the airport until 10:32 am, two minutes after the airline had stopped checking in passengers for the flight.

The group had to spend 3,990 yuan ($651.59) each to get a first-class flight to Kunming later the same day.

In May 2012, they each sued China Eastern Airlines for 4,990 yuan in compensation, including 1,000 yuan for mental distress. In the suit, they named Shanghai Airline Tours International as a third party.

In court, the plaintiffs argued that they missed their initial flight because neither the airline nor the travel agency informed them about the boarding time and related information.

The airline also refused to allow them to take the "green channel," which would have shortened their time waiting in line. They also argued that the travel agency bore partial liability because it failed to remind them about showing up at the airport long enough in advance.

In its defense, China Eastern Airlines pointed out that all of the related information was printed on the plaintiffs' tickets. Their contract with the travel agency also reminded them to carefully read the information on their airline tickets.

Shanghai Airline Tours International argued that its staff had also reminded the tourists to arrive at the airport 90 minutes before departure.

The court ruled against the plaintiffs, pointing out that air travel had become so commonplace that the plaintiffs should have known better than to arrive at the airport so close to the time of departure.

The decision affirmed the court's initial ruling in the case.