2024 and 2026.
The gaps recur.

The agency says late receipt of payment caused fares to rise and mentions a collection difficulty involving the payee’s name. These explanations are retained. The record cannot establish exact banking times or authenticate tickets. Dates are those displayed in the export.

The message that evening again describes arrival as “tomorrow”. A text error, an export issue or a changed schedule could explain the discrepancies; the emails do not establish which. I identify a written contradiction without inferring a fictitious flight.

The agency describes the loss of contact, then gives a medical explanation and describes attempts to find a solution. An unexpected event can happen; my criticism concerns its assurances and follow-up, without publishing individual medical information.

A temporary reservation can precede ticket issuance. “Booked” and “paid” therefore describe different states. The documented point is ambiguous communication, not proof that the options did not exist. The eventual supplement requested is about USD 715 (E02).

The agency attributes cancellation to a transfer arriving too late and says the reservation expired two hours before departure. The record cannot determine banking timings. E03 and E50 come from the same email: they concern one payment already included in USD 3,039.

The agency had also proposed extending the stay to 12 May. It later acknowledges I could not stay beyond that. The two days offered here and the five free days offered later are successive proposals; I do not add them together to invent seven compensation days.

The agency cites expenses, urgency, attempts made and delayed payment. “Request fulfilled” may refer to its arrangements rather than the meeting. Those explanations remain visible; I distinguish its description of its work from the outcome I actually received.

These discrepancies appear in the supplied export. Their cause cannot be determined without original headers and travel records. They prove neither a multi-day airport wait, nor a person’s physical presence, nor intentional fabrication.

The agency says it corrected the details as soon as it discovered the error. It says it could not amend the ticket and asked for my help while I was unavailable. No independent report from Eurowings is supplied.

The agency also cites a precautionary reason for the initial withdrawal. My criticism here concerns coordination and how my instructions were presented.

The agency distinguishes reserving the companion from completing the transport. It cites insufficient miles and its manager’s funds. I offered the USD 485 after arrival; no payment of that amount is established.

The request concerns fresh transport after the missed flight, with a new fare to obtain. It must not be confused with the earlier USD 485 offer or counted as money already paid.

The agency considered continuation to require acceptance and funding of its new terms. My willingness to proceed was also conditional. The dispute concerns those terms and who requested cancellation.

On 27 August 2026, the agency explains that it is offering discounts rather than a full refund of the old deposit. It later says the deposit has been used. Those explanations are included; the earlier commitment did not explicitly make transport free.