In between the name calling among US employees on the US board of www.usaviation.com (http://www.usaviation.com) there are some examples of what it means. Seems like someone missed a flight with a $800 nonrefundable fare and is SOL. Another example is a woman who had a medical problem in between flights and was told the rest of your ticket is worthless.

Maybe it will get out to the rest of the flying public that nonrefundable means nonrefundable, no ifs, ands, or buts, despite the unwritten and unspoken? "flat tire" rule.

The only problem is that the majority of the public already thinks "nonrefundable" means "nonrefundable". I know that when I was an uneducated flyer, I always assumed that if you missed yoru flight on cheap fares, that no value was left in the ticket. The airlines have never made it widely known that veen the nonrefundable tickets are refundable of a sort. I don't see the mass upwelling of discontent amongst the general public that your post predicts.

You don't see the potential customer revolt? Just wait until some Little Old Lady misses her flight to go see her grandkids because she thought she was having a heart attack. Just wait 'til she gets a hold of the AARP, who issues a press release and calls a news conference. Yes, most people understand the concept of "non-refundable". It's "Use It Or Lose It", with no way to assign the ticket to someone else and no "waivers or favors" that are a real problem.

Personally, it makes me think twice when I need to buy a ticket. If I'm not 1000% certain that I'll travel, I won't buy it now. I don't have any problem with the whole "cancel before the flight leaves" part. It gives the airline the opportunity to resell the seat. I have a problem with the airline being able to resell the seat that I can't use, but telling me that I cannot simply hold the credit.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by duxfan:
Yes, most people understand the concept of "non-refundable".</font>

Yeah, they understand it to mean what it really means -- you can't get your money back. Not "your ticket is worthless if you trip over an obscure and totally unreasonable rule".

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">It's "Use It Or Lose It", with no way to assign the ticket to someone else and no "waivers or favors" that are a real problem.

Personally, it makes me think twice when I need to buy a ticket. If I'm not 1000% certain that I'll travel, I won't buy it now.</font>

So far so good...

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">I don't have any problem with the whole "cancel before the flight leaves" part. It gives the airline the opportunity to resell the seat.</font>

This reasoning is defective. 1) They already sell more seats than they have. 2) Unless the flight is less than 100% full when it leaves and it was oversold to the point that they stopped selling more seats you have deprived them of nothing.

Furthermore -- the problems citied earlier in the thread were such that the passenger had no reasonable way to notify the airline in advance of the situation. There are a great many valid reasons why someone may not be able to get right on the phone and let the airline know they can't make a flight. And even if you do get right on the phone they require you to know your alternative plans at that moment which is obviously not reasonable if you're calling them from your cell phone while the paramedics are giving you CPR.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">I have a problem with the airline being able to resell the seat that I can't use, but telling me that I cannot simply hold the credit.</font>

I'll consider changing my tune on the matter when they reciprocate with "fly it or buy it, no exceptions" http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by duxfan:
You don't see the potential customer revolt? Just wait until some Little Old Lady misses her flight to go see her grandkids because she thought she was having a heart attack. Just wait 'til she gets a hold of the AARP, who issues a press release and calls a news conference. </font>

This WILL happen. There will be news conferences. There will be a revolt. Congress will get involved. Airlines will be forced to rescind voluntarily before Congress legislates it.

I just wish I knew how long it would take. Unfortunately I don't think it's going to be very quick.

The airlines have managed to successfully deflect potent Congressional challenges (e.g., Pax Bill of Rights) to their modus operandi. I suspect that if Congress dared to pass a law on change fees, the result would be the same...

Good luck with your little "revolt". http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by avek00:
The airlines have managed to successfully deflect potent Congressional challenges (e.g., Pax Bill of Rights) to their modus operandi. I suspect that if Congress dared to pass a law on change fees, the result would be the same...</font>

A smoking gun or two related to congresscritter waivers and favors even while "use it or lose it, no exceptions" is being strictly enforced with Ma & Pa taxpayer might wake them up...

All you need is two well timed camera crews http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Hey, a contract is a contract, if the deal is that the plane leaves at 1:00PM then I better be there. But why Burns me is that it is a double standard.

If I have a problem on the way to the airport and show up an hour late. I lost the money that I paid for the ticket. If I had a cell phone and called ahead to change then maybe I can salvage the ticket and get on a later flight for $100.00 fee.

If the pilot or crewmwmber has a problem on the way to the airport and shows up an hour late, I have to sit and wait and I am not compensated.

And suppose I had a problem and called ahead to change my flight for $100.00 change fee and arrived at the airport to discover that my original flight was delayed and had not departed. Do you think that they would refund my change fee and put me back on the original flight?? I doubt it! I bet they would charge me an additional $100.00 fee to change back!

Or what if I arrive at the gate just minutes before scheduled departure but the door is still open and discover they have given away my seat (that they will not refund my money for even though they have resold the seat). Now what happens, I don't even know but I bet it would cost me money!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by LikeItUpFront:
Hey, a contract is a contract,</font>

Not all contracts are created equal. This one smells a lot like a "shrink wrap" contract.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by LikeItUpFront:
.... If I had a cell phone and called ahead to change then maybe I can salvage the ticket and get on a later flight for $100.00 fee.
...</font>

Remember, $100 would be the least you pay. If you rebook for a later flight that day, you will probably have to pay up to the full walk up fare. Let's not forget that little tidbit... that's why this whole thing is nothing other than a major fare increase.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Arrzee:
Remember, $100 would be the least you pay. If you rebook for a later flight that day, you will probably have to pay up to the full walk up fare. Let's not forget that little tidbit... that's why this whole thing is nothing other than a major fare increase.

</font>

As long as the class you bought your ticket in is available on the flight you're trying to change to, you'll only have to pay $100. Just as an example, I looked at CLT-DCA-CLT leaving today and coming back tomorrow. If I was booked a trip for that and needed to change the flights I was on, I could change to any of the flights on that route each day, they all have availability in every class. Of course, that may not be the best indicator given they current date, but in general you can often find seats all the way down to V available up until the day of departure except for heavy leisure routes (Florida in particular).

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Beckles:
As long as the class you bought your ticket in is available on the flight you're trying to change to, you'll only have to pay $100. Just as an example, I looked at CLT-DCA-CLT leaving today and coming back tomorrow. If I was booked a trip for that and needed to change the flights I was on, I could change to any of the flights on that route each day, they all have availability in every class. Of course, that may not be the best indicator given they current date, but in general you can often find seats all the way down to V available up until the day of departure except for heavy leisure routes (Florida in particular).
</font>

What do you mean by "class"? "K" or "KE14QN3"? As I understand it (and seem to have experienced) if it's just the letter then they also hit you for $$$ ("add/collect") if your particular flavor of the class was cheaper than what you're looking to move to.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by TomBascom:
What do you mean by "class"? "K" or "KE14QN3"? As I understand it (and seem to have experienced) if it's just the letter then they also hit you for $$$ ("add/collect") if your particular flavor of the class was cheaper than what you're looking to move to.</font>

No, there's no add/collect as long as the class (K class for example) is the same. The only time you should pay an add/collect is if your class is not available (not the exact fare basis, such as KE14QN3, but the class, K-class), then you have to buy up to the cheapest available fare and will likely pay an add/collect in addition to the $100 fee (There's actually no fee to buy up to the higher fare on a ticket, just the add/collect, but you're just buying up to the higher fare on the same flight, then you're paying $100 to switch to your desired flight).

There's also a few very low one way nonrefundables out there which if you booked a roundtrip using two low one ways and they have lets say 7 day advance purchase and you are calling in just to change the return flight the day before ( without 7 day notice) then there would also probably be an add/coll and a change fee. ATL-PHL is a good example....low one way fares competitive with FL.

Re contracts -- there's no question about the legality of the contract. You can't sue US Airways if you buy a non-refundable ticket, miss the flight, and have to buy a new ticket.

However, Congress can disallow the airlines from creating such restrictions.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Beckles:
As long as the class you bought your ticket in is available on the flight you're trying to change to, you'll only have to pay $100. Just as an example, I looked at CLT-DCA-CLT leaving today and coming back tomorrow. If I was booked a trip for that and needed to change the flights I was on, I could change to any of the flights on that route each day, they all have availability in every class. Of course, that may not be the best indicator given they current date, but in general you can often find seats all the way down to V available up until the day of departure except for heavy leisure routes (Florida in particular).

</font>


That's how I always understood this to work. However, after looking at quite a few of the new, improved, fare rules, I'm not so sure. It seems that what you're describing applies on anything but the outbound flight. Changes to the outbound flight will result in an add/collect.

====
Fare details for KRZ67NR
NONREFUNDABLE INSTANT PURCH SPECIAL FARE FARE

....
- I. PRIOR TO TICKETED DEPARTURE TIME- CHANGES ARE PERMITTED-USD 100.00 CHANGE FEE APPLIES. A. ANY CHANGE TO OUTBOUND FLT OR CHANGE IN CITY PAIRS REQUIRES REPRICING OF ENTIRE TKT. DIFFERENCE IN FARES PLUS THE CHNG FEE MUST BE PAID. IF THE NEW FARE RESULTS IN A LOWER PRICE THE DIFFERENCE IN FARES LESS THE CHNG FEE WILL BE GIVEN IN A NONREFUNDABLE VOUCHER VALID FOR TRAVEL ON US AIRWAYS. B. CHANGES TO OTHER THAN ORIGINATING FLT ARE PERMITTED WITH PAYMENT OF THE CHNG FEE ONLY IF ORIGINAL BOOKING CODE IS AVAILABLE AND ALL RULES OF THE FARE ARE MET WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ADVANCED PURCHASE PROVISION. ...
=====

Ad collect for fare difference has always applied for changes to the outbound flight.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by syzygy8:
This WILL happen. There will be news conferences. There will be a revolt. Congress will get involved. Airlines will be forced to rescind voluntarily before Congress legislates it.

I just wish I knew how long it would take. Unfortunately I don't think it's going to be very quick.</font>

I doubt it. And honestly, do you really think Congress should be involved in regulating these policies? Doesn't Congress have better things to do? Wouldn't you rather have Congress working on improving airline safety, national security, education,etc? Or is it more important that Congress gets involved changing policies that have little impact on most Americans? (Most Americans aren't frequent fliers and when they do fly, they show up on-time).

Reminds me of the revolt that Travel Agents promised after airlines cut commissions. TA's promised a boycott of airlines and a massive campaign to lobby Congress....look how far that went.

If you don't like US's (or any other airlines) policy, don't fly them....it's really that easy.

OK so if I am going to miss an outbound flight because of an unavoidable problem or trouble on the way to the airport. I should:

1. Call before the flight departs and inquire about getting on a later flight. If I get ticketed on the later flight by only paying $100.00 cnahge fee then go ahead and ticket it.

2. If they want to charge the $100.00 plus a fare difference, can I surrender $100.00 and ask instead to standby for a later flight?? (based on a comfortable level of available of seats on later flight) What if all later flights fill up or get cancelled and I have paid $100.00 to standby?

3. Or should I just get to the airport As quickly as I can and plead my case that I missed my flight because of circumstances beyond my control and hope for the best?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by LikeItUpFront:
...

3. Or should I just get to the airport As quickly as I can and plead my case that I missed my flight because of circumstances beyond my control and hope for the best?</font>

That's what I would do if I know I'll make it to the airport within two hours after my flight. Supposedly, the "flat tire rule" still exists but only the ATO agents will offer you that choice; not phone reservations. If they don't, I'll deal with what I have to do then -which, for me, most likely would involve buying a walk-up one way on WN or FL, depending on where I'm stranded in.



[This message has been edited by Arrzee (edited 09-11-2002).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Arrzee:


====
Fare details for KRZ67NR
NONREFUNDABLE INSTANT PURCH SPECIAL FARE FARE

.... B. CHANGES TO OTHER THAN ORIGINATING FLT ARE PERMITTED WITH PAYMENT OF THE CHNG FEE ONLY IF ORIGINAL BOOKING CODE IS AVAILABLE AND ALL RULES OF THE FARE ARE MET WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ADVANCED PURCHASE PROVISION. ...
=====

</font>

That last sentence is important....Change fee only if original booking code is available AND ALL RULES OF THE FARE ARE MET WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ADVANCE PURCHASE. On the KRZ67NR which is valid SAT/SUN only...one will always pay an additional collection if changing the return flight to a weekday. It also has a Max Stay of 8 days, but no saturday night minimum stay. The above rule is called GAF or guaranteed airfare. GAF can only apply on the return flight.




[This message has been edited by BWI2MCO97 (edited 09-11-2002).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Arrzee:
That's what I would do if I know I'll make it to the airport within two hours after my flight. Supposedly, the "flat tire rule" still exists but only the ATO agents will offer you that choice; not phone reservations.
[This message has been edited by Arrzee (edited 09-11-2002).]</font>

So is the strategy to call in when you are going to miss the flight because you are stuck in traffic on the 14th St Bridge due to a traffic accident so it will be in the record that you tried; or is it to arrive breathlessly at the counter with grease stains on your hand from changing the flat tire w/o calling.

I think the nuances are getting complicated. Is it agreed that you have to call in with your new flight information already known to change for $100 and you cannot call to say I am not showing up and then rebooking later with your new trip? I have seen references to both, with the former winning on quantity of interpretations.

I vote that BWI2MCO97 give a tutorial so we can figure out all the rules.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by LikeItUpFront:
2. If they want to charge the $100.00 plus a fare difference, can I surrender $100.00 and ask instead to standby for a later flight?? (based on a comfortable level of available of seats on later flight) What if all later flights fill up or get cancelled and I have paid $100.00 to standby?
</font>

Regardless of availability, this doesn't work on USAirways until 01/01/03. USAirways prohibits standby on non-refundable tickets bought on or after 8/27/02 for travel from 8/27/02 through 12/31/02.

My understanding of the flat-tire rule is that as long as you show up at the airport within two hours of your originally scheduled flight you will be accomodated with no additional fees on the next available flight. Of course, if you're dealing with a situation like the Sunday after Spring Break trying to come home from Florida, I'm not sure where'd that leave you. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by biggs:
...
I think the nuances are getting complicated. Is it agreed that you have to call in with your new flight information already known to change for $100 and you cannot call to say I am not showing up and then rebooking later with your new trip? I have seen references to both, with the former winning on quantity of interpretations.
</font>

That's precisely what they want you to think... don't bother with all these nuances, just buy a refundable ticket. Never mind the fact that it costs upwards of 5 times more. Yeah, right!

My employer pays me a good salary because, presumably, I can use my brain and decide how to spend their funds wisely. I think I'll put up with the nuances, learn them or use my corporate travel manager to sorth them out for me... saves my company a buck, which in turns keeps my in business.

BTW, here's how one of the new nuances work: if you call to cancel a flight before departure, you pay $100 and rebook then. Either that, or forfeit the ticket. A "credit" to be used within a year, is no longer kept in the system (unless you fly Southwest).

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by BWI2MCO97:
...

On the KRZ67NR which is valid SAT/SUN only...one will always pay an additional collection if changing the return flight to a weekday.
...

[B]</font>

And what would that additional collection be? The difference to another K-fare which is valid on weekdays; or the difference to a Y-fare?

Thanks for the clarification, BWI2MCO97.

[This message has been edited by Arrzee (edited 09-11-2002).]

Based on the expample using the KRZ67NR most of the time it jumps right to the lowest unrestricted fare, but not always.

[This message has been edited by BWI2MCO97 (edited 09-11-2002).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ConnFlyer:
I doubt it. And honestly, do you really think Congress should be involved in regulating these policies? Doesn't Congress have better things to do? Wouldn't you rather have Congress working on improving airline safety, national security, education,etc? Or is it more important that Congress gets involved changing policies that have little impact on most Americans? (Most Americans aren't frequent fliers and when they do fly, they show up on-time).</font>

Collusion, restraint of trade, and deceptive marketing all seem to be at work here. There is a quite legitimate role for the government.

At the very least the airlines should be required to provide full disclosure of the monetary impact of these rules. The airlines should be required to quote to the customer exactly how much it will cost them to rebook on the next flight if they miss the return flight.

The rules are deliberately arcane and designed to confuse and deceive. The issue isn't what happens to most people most of the time -- it's what happens when you slip up. The airlines know that business travelers see that. They think that because we see it we're going to buy more expensive tickets. That's why they did it. All this BS about "most people fly as scheduled" and how they're going to somehow magically save money or something by making that a rule is a smoke screen.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Reminds me of the revolt that Travel Agents promised after airlines cut commissions. TA's promised a boycott of airlines and a massive campaign to lobby Congress....look how far that went.</font>

Travel agents motives were just a tad different...

Believe me...the Gov't is keeping an eye and ear on what we say in reservations. That's why in res we have to identify the specific US Airways Express operator...Allegheny, Piedmont etc. There are huge fines if it is not mentioned when quoting the schedules. The company only requires that when we advise the fare rules it must be said that " changes to your ticket will result in a $100 change fee plus any difference in the airfare based on the changes made. In addition any changes must be made prior to the flight otherwise you ticket has no value." This is just an example of the verbiage I use and may differ for each rep. If I am talking to a little old lady or someone who I get a sense won't understand than I go into details.

BWI -- I know you do that. I just don't think that it's enough. If these are going to be the rules then full disclosure -- in dollar terms is appropriate.

Personally I think the real solution is to scrap the rules and restrictions and rethink the whole mess. They'd save a ton of money throughout the company. And boost revenue too.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ConnFlyer:
I doubt it. And honestly, do you really think Congress should be involved in regulating these policies? Doesn't Congress have better things to do? Wouldn't you rather have Congress working on improving airline safety, national security, education,etc? Or is it more important that Congress gets involved changing policies that have little impact on most Americans? (Most Americans aren't frequent fliers and when they do fly, they show up on-time).

Reminds me of the revolt that Travel Agents promised after airlines cut commissions. TA's promised a boycott of airlines and a massive campaign to lobby Congress....look how far that went.

If you don't like US's (or any other airlines) policy, don't fly them....it's really that easy.</font>

I stand by what I said. And yes, I do believe Congress should be involved in this. They have the time to debate whether the praying mantis should be the national insect, or some such nonsense, so I think they'll be spending their time better on the new pricing policies which will, I assure you, slam into the pocketbooks of middle class families.

You're right...most Americans show up on time. Most of the time. But over time, there will be more and more stories of people losing hundreds/thousands of dollars because of these rules.

Next to fascists or cowardly terrorists killing us, there's not much that riles Congress more than middle class taxpayers getting taken to the cleaners, which is exactly what is going to happen.

Sure, I don't have to fly US. In fact, I'm not dedicated to them any more at all. I've got flights on other airlines coming up that would not have happened a year or two ago. They've lost my loyalty. For the moment, I'm looking at NW. I'm actually looking at DL Shuttle because they still allow some free of charge standby changes.

The family of four going to Disney doesn't know diddly about what is going on and is not smart enough to make that change. They're not smart enough to read the fare rules. Hell, even I can't understand them and I fly 80 segments a year. They will understand when their wallet gets lighter and they're not going to consider that a "little impact."

The TA boycott has no comparison. What you do need to think about is that Congress did act when enough people got pissed off about having to sit on a plane for several hours at a time on the taxiway for delayed flights. Now that the major airlines are going to hitting up the Disney-bound for outrageous sums of money, I assure you Congress will make inquiries. Not today, not tomorrow, not next month, maybe even not next year. But in time, though, they will. Particularly once it's their son/daughter's family trip that gets into trouble.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by biggs:
Another example is a woman who had a medical problem in between flights and was told the rest of your ticket is worthless.
</font>

I was thinking about this example earlier today (I don't know why ...) and the thing with this example is, this ticket would have been cancelled anyway even before the new rules. If you don't show up for a connection, US has always cancelled the remainder of your ticket and it was worthless.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Arrzee:
A "credit" to be used within a year, is no longer kept in the system (unless you fly Southwest).</font>I think America West will still let you pay a $100 fee and cancel a nonrefundable ticket and have a credit with them for one year.

C'mon guys! Congressional intervention? Do you live in a cave? The Congress is in the Major airlines hip pocket! Tom Daschle's wife is one of the industries most powerful lobbyists. The dust wasn't even settled at the WTC when the majors walked away with a check for 5 Billion Cash!!!! A more powerful force than Congress will bring the majors to their knees in a far more cost effective manner than Government regulation. SWA, Spirit, ATA, and others continue to offer competitive fares with fewer ticket restrictions and expand their route systems. The majors arrogance will be met with mass defections after the holiday season. The howling of Congress will force them to retreat from their positions as Granny & Grandpa get screwed repeatedly. The free market will speak long & loud voting with its wallets! Think about the changes we as FF'ers have made in response to market conditions. We don't need the stinking government to correct this! An outraged public will be far more effective. Declining or non existant profits and growing discounters will do far more than the feds to alter the industry

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Beckles:
I was thinking about this example earlier today (I don't know why ...)</font>

That was your subconcious telling you that this really is much worse than you think it is and that you should take a stronger stance opposing the matter.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">... and the thing with this example is, this ticket would have been cancelled anyway even before the new rules. If you don't show up for a connection, US has always cancelled the remainder of your ticket and it was worthless.</font>

Yes, they've always canceled the remainder of an itinerary imediately after a no-show on any segment.

No, that didn't make the ticket worthless. It simply became an unused ticket. You called, told them what flight & when, they pulled it up and you rescheduled. If needed you paid the fare difference and change fee. Very simple, excellent customer service event, understandable by all. Back before they started getting greedy with change fees they were even reasonable about waiving them for extenuating circumstances or if you were doing something like buying up to a more expensive fare.


[This message has been edited by TomBascom (edited 09-14-2002).]

Curious--has anyone seen a family or actually anyone else getting screwed into paying an exorbitant amount of money because of this policy anytime over the few weeks?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by TomBascom:
Yes, they've always canceled the remainder of an itinerary imediately after a no-show on any segment.

No, that didn't make the ticket worthless. It simply became an unused ticket. You called, told them what flight & when, they pulled it up and you rescheduled. If needed you paid the fare difference and change fee. Very simple, excellent customer service event, understandable by all. Back before they started getting greedy with change fees they were even reasonable about waiving them for extenuating circumstances or if you were doing something like buying up to a more expensive fare.
</font>

I don't believe that's correct. If you checked in to go somewhere that had two segments and then only took the first segment, most, if not all, airlines cancel the remainder of the trip and the ticket is worthless. Like I said, even before the new rules, if someone was flying from NYC to MIA via CLT, and they checked in for NYC-CLT-MIA, then missed the CLT-MIA portion of the trip, the ticket would be worthless. The example has nothing to do with the new rules.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by johnsmith:
Curious--has anyone seen a family or actually anyone else getting screwed into paying an exorbitant amount of money because of this policy anytime over the few weeks?</font>

I saw a guy in PIT lose it with a gate agent 2 weeks ago. Apparently he flew in from SYR an his Granny was flying in from BUF. They were supposed to connect in PIT and go on to MCO. Apparently she missed her flight and was being "held up" in BUF for a walk up fee. The agent was telling the grandson that if he waited for her to arrive and missed his MCO flight he would have to pay for the later flight. It was ugly, I had to scurry on my way so I did not witness the outcome.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by foodguy:
I saw a guy in PIT lose it with a gate agent 2 weeks ago. Apparently he flew in from SYR an his Granny was flying in from BUF. They were supposed to connect in PIT and go on to MCO. Apparently she missed her flight and was being "held up" in BUF for a walk up fee. The agent was telling the grandson that if he waited for her to arrive and missed his MCO flight he would have to pay for the later flight. It was ugly, I had to scurry on my way so I did not witness the outcome.</font>

1) Unless Granny was more than two hours late she was covered by the flat tire rule.

2) I'd be surprised that these folks had tickets that were purchased after the change was implemented (8/27/02).

3) MCO is a very popular destination and often oversold. Given points 1 and 2, it sounds more like an availability issue than a "use it or lose it" issue. Often full Y seats are still available (of A fares, full Y and get FC) even if the flight is oversold (cheaper to bump someone than not sell a full Y fare), which must be what they were offering Granny.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Beckles:
I don't believe that's correct. If you checked in to go somewhere that had two segments and then only took the first segment, most, if not all, airlines cancel the remainder of the trip and the ticket is worthless. Like I said, even before the new rules, if someone was flying from NYC to MIA via CLT, and they checked in for NYC-CLT-MIA, then missed the CLT-MIA portion of the trip, the ticket would be worthless. The example has nothing to do with the new rules.</font>

That would be a "hidden city" or a "stopover" -- if you called a day or two later you would have some explaining to do.

Note: I've never done that. Years ago, on another airline when I was young and naive (I didn't even have any idea what "upgrade certs" were for -- I figured they were some kind of a scam to get me to pay more money...), my travel agent did arrange some back to back ticketing. I think that was prior to the cartel catching on to it and making up rules forbidding it.

Missing the originating flight or the 1st return segment did not trigger loss of value prior to 8/27. Nor would standing by for a later flight in the middle of a trip. I know -- I had opportunities to experience each of those scenarios.

Even in the hidden city scenario I kind of doubt that they actually zeroed out the ticket value. They seem to not be able to automatically detect and act on these particular violations of the rules. Either that or they've been strangely unwilling to act against individual transgressors.

Keep in mind that one of their big justifications for all of this is to crack down on these rules violations. The way they talk you get the idea that they've been powerless to do anything about it. I think that they have been relying on a manual process of detecting violations when people call in -- that's why so many people (apparently) get away with it by simply not drawing attention to the fact that they did it.

The number of unused segments that eventually roll over and get collected as a result might be one of the reasons they don't expect anyone to be upset about this -- they think that most people are expecting to throw them away (or are unaware of their value -- but if they're acting on the unawareness thought then they haven't an ethical leg to stand on). I suspect that the reality is that only people who were violating the rules feel that way. But that there must be a lot of those people if this is worth pursuing. And that just tells me that the rules ought to be tossed out. There's no profit in turning your customers against you.

Yeesh Beckles, one compliment from the VP of Pest Control and you've turned into the airline's #1 apologist. Did you get an extra special "Fritz" goldfile too? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

One of the big problems here is the lousy job that U has done explaining the changes to its own people. And the poisoning of their attitude toward us cockroaches. To say nothing of the fact that these rules (in toto) are so complex and arcane that nobody is ever really sure if they're interpreting them correctly in any given case and just about any position can be "justified" somehow or other. Granny may very well have bought that ticket in March and be exempt. But it wouldn't suprise me one bit for someone at the ticket counter to be holding her up for a full fare anyway.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Beckles:
1) Unless Granny was more than two hours late she was covered by the flat tire rule.</font>

And if she was 2 hours and 5 minutes late?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">2) I'd be surprised that these folks had tickets that were purchased after the change was implemented (8/27/02).</font>

It's MCO. You don't need much advance notice to get a good deal.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">3) MCO is a very popular destination and often oversold. Given points 1 and 2, it sounds more like an availability issue than a "use it or lose it" issue. Often full Y seats are still available (of A fares, full Y and get FC) even if the flight is oversold (cheaper to bump someone than not sell a full Y fare), which must be what they were offering Granny.</font>

If the stand-by rules applied nobody would be trying to hold her up. Unless of course they got all bound up in an argument over a confirmed seat vs a stand-by seat. Some ATO people have always liked to pretend that they've never heard of stand-by and try to head fake people into going for confirmed seats.

And wasn't the issue that she was trying to coordinate a linkup with her son in PIT on the way to MCO? That would hardly be an "MCO is oversold" issue.