People or taxi drivers haven’t reacted with the sort of bewilderment mentioned here on the most of my trip within Germany. I think a larger population are somewhat aware of a countryside airport. However, if I encounter something like you guys it would be hard not to chuckle and feel ‘special’ ;-)
Silvaire wrote:
To which one can answer “we find that avoiding those terrible time consuming traffic jams you just mentioned saves us money, and that makes us more competitive. We try to run our business competently, not based on emotion”That is absolutely true, but then you’re fighting against a kind of “only rich people fly private planes” religion. People won’t change their opinion based on just a few valid arguments, even if they secretly know that they’re wrong.
It helps if you’re flying let’s say a 1953 Tri-Pacer that was last recovered in 1967… You can show them a photo, say proudly “that’s my plane – it goes 200 kph right past the Stau” and enjoy their reaction 
I recommend keeping just such a photo on hand 
They didn’t get sued because they flew, they got sued because they omitted to inform their costumers that they charge them for those flights.
Seems quite stupid to not inform them, in the end you do want them to pay the invoice.
Well they did, but you know, in a lawyer way with very small letters…
They should know better then. :)
Dead URL.
Does Sweden require a supplier to disclose to a customer the means of travel to the customer?
Peter wrote:
Dead URL.
There is a long dash in the URL that should be two short dashes. It could be the forum software that changed it.
Does Sweden require a supplier to disclose to a customer the means of travel to the customer?
No, it does not. But if travel is charged separately then the supplier should be clear about travel costs and/or mode of travel. In this case they had not.
This was not a B2B service — the customers were an individuals. Thus the service falls under the Swedish consumer protection laws. In this case several different customers had complained to the Swedish Consumer Agency. The Agency then went to court to force the law firm to be more transparent about the costs of its services.
So it is incorrect to say that they were sued for having high prices. They were sued because they did not inform the customers in advance of prices that were higher than the customer could reasonably expect.
OK. That makes sense. Otherwise I’ve never heard of this in any business scenario.
I fixed the URL by making it into a live link; that deals with any auto formatting issues. Still the site appears to be behind a paywall.
