DOT May 8, 2015 Notice: Enforcement Policy Regarding Mistaken Fares
May 11, 2015, 1:37 pm
#46
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: ORD
Programs: UA MM, AA PPro
Posts: 1,480
Of course it was. By one decimal point over the normal filed tariff. Particularly when that's the published fare for an upgradeable economy ticket to the same destination. The rationalizations I read around here are so absurd. The DOT ruling is a good one that sets the terms clearly and gives the airlines the out they -- or any other business -- deserve.
The difference between those two isn't 10x, but a ~6x. There is an economy B fare at a comparable cost to the lowest GF fare. Is $5,370 fare a mistake?
The bottom line is, allowing to cancel - at any time - tickets purchased through normal channels, without manipulations a-la DKK or 4mi HKG glitches, is affording airline protections that neither consumers nor other businesses are entitled to.
May 11, 2015, 1:53 pm
#47
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,413
(not a legal opinion)
To me, it looks like DOT is trying to protect "good faith" purchases but not "bad faith" purchases. If you really need a definition, here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith_%28law%29
Thus, if you know this is a mistake fare and you know you are taking advantage of such a fare, DOT is not interested in protecting your purchase. The part about making all consumers "whole", regardless of good/bad faith, is remarkable. I also think it's noteworthy that the airline needs to make ALL purchasers whole if they cancel/refund the fare. However, if you truly had no idea that this was a mistake.. but you thought it was a great deal and bought the ticket, then DOT would take your side over the airlines. That's what it sounds like to me.
So, not encouraging for most people who buy mistake fares since they usually know it's a mistake (don't kid yourself).. but it's not at a point where I wouldn't go for it, especially if my expenses are "covered" in a way that the airline can't just cancel all fares and be done with it. DOT certainly could have offered that solution and let airlines do whatever they want. However, there are hoops to jump through and most airlines lack the customer service aspect to efficiently handle such processing.
To me, it looks like DOT is trying to protect "good faith" purchases but not "bad faith" purchases. If you really need a definition, here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith_%28law%29
Thus, if you know this is a mistake fare and you know you are taking advantage of such a fare, DOT is not interested in protecting your purchase. The part about making all consumers "whole", regardless of good/bad faith, is remarkable. I also think it's noteworthy that the airline needs to make ALL purchasers whole if they cancel/refund the fare. However, if you truly had no idea that this was a mistake.. but you thought it was a great deal and bought the ticket, then DOT would take your side over the airlines. That's what it sounds like to me.
So, not encouraging for most people who buy mistake fares since they usually know it's a mistake (don't kid yourself).. but it's not at a point where I wouldn't go for it, especially if my expenses are "covered" in a way that the airline can't just cancel all fares and be done with it. DOT certainly could have offered that solution and let airlines do whatever they want. However, there are hoops to jump through and most airlines lack the customer service aspect to efficiently handle such processing.
These sorts of arguments fundamentally misunderstand the legal system, which judges reasonableness all the time.
Non-lawyers seem to often expect that legal rules will be technical, minute, and precise, with numerous opportunities to technically comply while gaming the system, but that's often not true. There's no way to decide in advance what expenses might be reimbursable. It has to be decided on a case-by-case basis, because sometimes booking a non-refundable expensive hotel would be reasonable and other times it wouldn't be.
I suspect the DOT will take everything into account when determining reasonableness:
1. Did the consumer realize it was a mistake fare (including circumstantial evidence such as number of bookings, website manipulation, whether the fare was publicized, etc.)?
2. Did the airline catch it quickly, before a reasonable consumer would have booked non-refundable lodging, tours, etc.?
3. Did the consumer appear to deliberately make non-refundable bookings in an attempt to keep the airfare (i.e., super-quick bookings, booking non-refundable deposits and rates when comparable refundable options were available, booking luxuries that the consumer ordinarily does not purchase)?
And there will probably be some borderline cases, and cases where the DOT gets a decision wrong. (And don't get me wrong, there are all sorts of problems with this new regulation.)
But "reasonable" is common in regulations, and it is especially common in situations where the regulator thinks that someone will game the system if any more specific standard is imposed. (I suspect that is also true in the case of the burden of proof provision here with the airline-- rather than defining a mistake fare, they are saying to the airlines "you need to prove it was a mistake", because if they supply a technical definition, airlines might try to circumvent it to withdraw fares they don't want to honor.)
Non-lawyers seem to often expect that legal rules will be technical, minute, and precise, with numerous opportunities to technically comply while gaming the system, but that's often not true. There's no way to decide in advance what expenses might be reimbursable. It has to be decided on a case-by-case basis, because sometimes booking a non-refundable expensive hotel would be reasonable and other times it wouldn't be.
I suspect the DOT will take everything into account when determining reasonableness:
1. Did the consumer realize it was a mistake fare (including circumstantial evidence such as number of bookings, website manipulation, whether the fare was publicized, etc.)?
2. Did the airline catch it quickly, before a reasonable consumer would have booked non-refundable lodging, tours, etc.?
3. Did the consumer appear to deliberately make non-refundable bookings in an attempt to keep the airfare (i.e., super-quick bookings, booking non-refundable deposits and rates when comparable refundable options were available, booking luxuries that the consumer ordinarily does not purchase)?
And there will probably be some borderline cases, and cases where the DOT gets a decision wrong. (And don't get me wrong, there are all sorts of problems with this new regulation.)
But "reasonable" is common in regulations, and it is especially common in situations where the regulator thinks that someone will game the system if any more specific standard is imposed. (I suspect that is also true in the case of the burden of proof provision here with the airline-- rather than defining a mistake fare, they are saying to the airlines "you need to prove it was a mistake", because if they supply a technical definition, airlines might try to circumvent it to withdraw fares they don't want to honor.)
How is that ruling good? It is very vague, it is the contrary to setting terms clearly. They want passenger to have some skin in the game, so perhaps someone will not buy 4 tickets, but 1 is doable. You will get more people booking non refundable and then airlines disputing those cost, with final step DOT getting more complains, that they'll have to look one by one and not a a chance to have a blanket statement.
I have just looked up UA GF fares on BOS-ICN route for a random date in June: the lowest r/t is $5,370 (A bucket) and the highest is $29,746 (F bucket). The highest A bucket is still $28k+.
The difference between those two isn't 10x, but a ~6x. There is an economy B fare at a comparable cost to the lowest GF fare. Is $5,370 fare a mistake?
The bottom line is, allowing to cancel - at any time - tickets purchased through normal channels, without manipulations a-la DKK or 4mi HKG glitches, is affording airline protections that neither consumers nor other businesses are entitled to.
The difference between those two isn't 10x, but a ~6x. There is an economy B fare at a comparable cost to the lowest GF fare. Is $5,370 fare a mistake?
The bottom line is, allowing to cancel - at any time - tickets purchased through normal channels, without manipulations a-la DKK or 4mi HKG glitches, is affording airline protections that neither consumers nor other businesses are entitled to.
May 11, 2015, 2:16 pm
#48
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 54
What a mess.
I understand what the DOT is trying to achieve - not forcing airlines to be on the hook for mistake fares - but they are doing a terrible job of accomplishing that fairly.
This regulation has been out for three (four?) days, and already ripped apart to expose its ambiguity and the damage it will do to consumers not trying to "game the system".
Not that we can expect too much from the government, but this is pretty silly.
Let's see - if I want to 100% ensure that I will be able to fly a given fare, I must research it thoroughly in order to confirm for myself that it's not a mistake. Not just currently offered fares, because those might also be mistakes, but historical fares. Maybe even make comparisons to fares from competitors. Awful.
I understand what the DOT is trying to achieve - not forcing airlines to be on the hook for mistake fares - but they are doing a terrible job of accomplishing that fairly.
This regulation has been out for three (four?) days, and already ripped apart to expose its ambiguity and the damage it will do to consumers not trying to "game the system".
Not that we can expect too much from the government, but this is pretty silly.
Let's see - if I want to 100% ensure that I will be able to fly a given fare, I must research it thoroughly in order to confirm for myself that it's not a mistake. Not just currently offered fares, because those might also be mistakes, but historical fares. Maybe even make comparisons to fares from competitors. Awful.
May 11, 2015, 2:28 pm
#49
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 54
I predicted that the effect of this complaint would be that the DOT would change the regulations to the detriment of the "mistake fare" purchasers. Their original intention was to protect consumers from airline games. Thus far, they have mostly spent their time and resources (and reputations) protecting consumers who want to obtain "mistake fares." That isn't going to last.
May 11, 2015, 3:16 pm
#50
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SAN
Programs: Lots of faux metal
Posts: 6,424
An actual fare available on AA.com. The fare is $2. It isn't a mistake, but who's to say the airline doesn't come back and say "Ooops, that was supposed to be $200."
Code:
Adult fare, taxes and carrier-imposed fees Base fare $2.00 USD Per person CARRIER-IMPOSED FEES $516.00 USD PASSENGER SERVICE CHARGE $26.40 USD DENMARK PASSENGER SERVICE CHARGE $82.90 USD UNITED KINGDOM TRANSPORTATION TAX $35.40 USD UNITED STATES US APHIS USER FEE $5.00 USD UNITED STATES PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGE $9.00 USD UNITED STATES US FEDERAL INSPECTION FEE $7.00 USD UNITED STATES US SECURITY FEE $5.60 USD UNITED STATES US CUSTOMS USER FEE $5.50 USD UNITED STATES Total Adult taxes and carrier-imposed fees $692.80 USD
May 11, 2015, 3:32 pm
#51
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: ORD
Programs: UA MM, AA PPro
Posts: 1,480
That's a good point. AA made a big deal about not ever offering zero-dollar fares as a proof that PEK fare was a mistake, but to a consumer the only price that matters is the grand total of fare, surcharges and taxes/fees.
Last edited by legalalien; May 11, 2015 at 3:51 pm
May 11, 2015, 3:41 pm
#52
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,406
If there are "mistake" fares at lower dollar intervals, it should also extend to higher dollar intervals.
Example: You buy a $1K F fare to Asia. A day later, the airline raises the fare to $10K and claims "mistake". Then you should also be able to claim a "mistake" if you buy a $20K F fare to Asia and shortly thereafter it is lowered to $5K!
Example: You buy a $1K F fare to Asia. A day later, the airline raises the fare to $10K and claims "mistake". Then you should also be able to claim a "mistake" if you buy a $20K F fare to Asia and shortly thereafter it is lowered to $5K!
May 11, 2015, 3:50 pm
#53
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: ORD
Programs: UA MM, AA PPro
Posts: 1,480
There's a surprisingly large number of F fares in the $15k range that have cancellation fees of $400-$500. Full unrestricted F probably doesn't, but others do.
May 11, 2015, 6:46 pm
#54
Join Date: Feb 2015
Programs: united
Posts: 1,636
Stop being so ingenuous. We all know these fares are errors and not bait and switch. The regulations were intended to give consumers a fair break in cases where partial fares (without fees, etc.) were the only information provided. They were not made so you could get to keep a $200 F fare to Japan which is beyond the pale of the norm.
And I suspect what the DOT wants to do is reach some sort of equilibrium where airlines can void actual mistake fares quickly when they are detected, but consumers who really do rely on a purchase and make legitimate travel plans don't get the rug pulled out from under them.
Having said that, I think the previous regulation was better. I think the rule should be to honor mistake fares, and exceptions ought to be made on a case by case basis through DOT rulings.
May 11, 2015, 6:58 pm
#55
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
This country needs a major dose of an updated, consumer-friendly airline passenger protection legal regime, more so now than ever before because of a variety of factors -- factors that include the U.S. DOT being too cozy with the U.S. industry kingpins which it's supposed to regulate. Unfortuntately, the Congress, the White House and the SCOTUS seem to default to siding with the US3 in too many ways.
May 11, 2015, 7:33 pm
#56
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Programs: OWEmerald; STARGold; BonvoyPlat; IHGPlat/Amb; HiltonGold; A|ClubPat; AirMilesPlat
Posts: 38,186
How is that ruling good? It is very vague, it is the contrary to setting terms clearly. They want passenger to have some skin in the game, so perhaps someone will not buy 4 tickets, but 1 is doable. You will get more people booking non refundable and then airlines disputing those cost, with final step DOT getting more complains, that they'll have to look one by one and not a a chance to have a blanket statement.
I have just looked up UA GF fares on BOS-ICN route for a random date in June: the lowest r/t is $5,370 (A bucket) and the highest is $29,746 (F bucket). The highest A bucket is still $28k+.
The difference between those two isn't 10x, but a ~6x. There is an economy B fare at a comparable cost to the lowest GF fare. Is $5,370 fare a mistake?
The bottom line is, allowing to cancel - at any time - tickets purchased through normal channels, without manipulations a-la DKK or 4mi HKG glitches, is affording airline protections that neither consumers nor other businesses are entitled to.
The difference between those two isn't 10x, but a ~6x. There is an economy B fare at a comparable cost to the lowest GF fare. Is $5,370 fare a mistake?
The bottom line is, allowing to cancel - at any time - tickets purchased through normal channels, without manipulations a-la DKK or 4mi HKG glitches, is affording airline protections that neither consumers nor other businesses are entitled to.
What a mess.
I understand what the DOT is trying to achieve - not forcing airlines to be on the hook for mistake fares - but they are doing a terrible job of accomplishing that fairly.
This regulation has been out for three (four?) days, and already ripped apart to expose its ambiguity and the damage it will do to consumers not trying to "game the system".
Not that we can expect too much from the government, but this is pretty silly.
Let's see - if I want to 100% ensure that I will be able to fly a given fare, I must research it thoroughly in order to confirm for myself that it's not a mistake. Not just currently offered fares, because those might also be mistakes, but historical fares. Maybe even make comparisons to fares from competitors. Awful.
I understand what the DOT is trying to achieve - not forcing airlines to be on the hook for mistake fares - but they are doing a terrible job of accomplishing that fairly.
This regulation has been out for three (four?) days, and already ripped apart to expose its ambiguity and the damage it will do to consumers not trying to "game the system".
Not that we can expect too much from the government, but this is pretty silly.
Let's see - if I want to 100% ensure that I will be able to fly a given fare, I must research it thoroughly in order to confirm for myself that it's not a mistake. Not just currently offered fares, because those might also be mistakes, but historical fares. Maybe even make comparisons to fares from competitors. Awful.
I think it's more fluid than that. I do think there was also an intention not to allow airlines to declare a "mistake" after someone had gone out of pocket for legitimate travel expenses, planned the trip, taken time off from work, etc.
And I suspect what the DOT wants to do is reach some sort of equilibrium where airlines can void actual mistake fares quickly when they are detected, but consumers who really do rely on a purchase and make legitimate travel plans don't get the rug pulled out from under them.
Having said that, I think the previous regulation was better. I think the rule should be to honor mistake fares, and exceptions ought to be made on a case by case basis through DOT rulings.
And I suspect what the DOT wants to do is reach some sort of equilibrium where airlines can void actual mistake fares quickly when they are detected, but consumers who really do rely on a purchase and make legitimate travel plans don't get the rug pulled out from under them.
Having said that, I think the previous regulation was better. I think the rule should be to honor mistake fares, and exceptions ought to be made on a case by case basis through DOT rulings.
In my view, the airlines have not been tough enough. Since they could not cancel these tickets (at least the US airlines and foreign ones where there are flights into/out of the USA) they should never give miles when these flights are taken.
Last edited by Pat89339; May 11, 2015 at 9:49 pm Reason: Muitiple successive posts.
May 11, 2015, 7:47 pm
#57
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 519
Get real, the airlines have never disputed normal tickets, just the ones that represent true unintentional errors in pricing. If people start further abuse, the DOT will get even more behind the airlines. Little sympathy here to those of you who have made off like thieves expecting mama DOT to save your souls.
May 11, 2015, 7:49 pm
#58
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Loud, dark, warm, lots of ethernet cables, and in some rack space.
Programs: AA:EXP
Posts: 369
Of course some of us here are trying to protect the idea of mistake airfares. It's only human to protect community and/or self interests (which is why lobbying exists).
In general we do have to cope with reality that things will change. Either a middle ground of airline-consumer no fault or entirely airline interest based.
Airlines will pull the "mistake fare" card at least once on an actual airfare deal. However, do we really expect them to go left and right on fares and claim those are mistake fares too? Of course not. We need to be realistic here and look at it from the standpoint of a group.
Are we as a community being threatened for the fact the gold will dry up or are we really going down a slippery slope of sorts where airlines want to squeeze dollars? We should fight for our interests, but not expect us to gain the full ground.
In general we do have to cope with reality that things will change. Either a middle ground of airline-consumer no fault or entirely airline interest based.
Airlines will pull the "mistake fare" card at least once on an actual airfare deal. However, do we really expect them to go left and right on fares and claim those are mistake fares too? Of course not. We need to be realistic here and look at it from the standpoint of a group.
Are we as a community being threatened for the fact the gold will dry up or are we really going down a slippery slope of sorts where airlines want to squeeze dollars? We should fight for our interests, but not expect us to gain the full ground.
May 11, 2015, 7:52 pm
#59
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Programs: OWEmerald; STARGold; BonvoyPlat; IHGPlat/Amb; HiltonGold; A|ClubPat; AirMilesPlat
Posts: 38,186
I agree. If you are going to write a rule and then decide to ignore the rule you write, it's the path of the the law of the lawless and but a mirage when it shouldn't be too.
This country needs a major dose of an updated, consumer-friendly airline passenger protection legal regime, more so now than ever before because of a variety of factors -- factors that include the U.S. DOT being too cozy with the U.S. industry kingpins which it's supposed to regulate. Unfortuntately, the Congress, the White House and the SCOTUS seem to default to siding with the US3 in too many ways.
This country needs a major dose of an updated, consumer-friendly airline passenger protection legal regime, more so now than ever before because of a variety of factors -- factors that include the U.S. DOT being too cozy with the U.S. industry kingpins which it's supposed to regulate. Unfortuntately, the Congress, the White House and the SCOTUS seem to default to siding with the US3 in too many ways.
On what basis are you making such a statement? Has there ever been such a case? Surely you can't believe a $400 US-China business fare is not a mistake? Please provide some substantiation before making such grand forecasts.
Last edited by Pat89339; May 11, 2015 at 9:52 pm Reason: Use Multi-quote