DOT May 8, 2015 Notice: Enforcement Policy Regarding Mistaken Fares
May 16, 2015, 8:47 am
#106
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,402
It simply makes it more difficult to handle. If any airline wants to go into a battle over a first class, maybe business class seat then be my guest they can. Could they still win? Of course, there's a possibility for both sides. Would they want to be dragged out over a number of factors and for them to prove bad faith in a situation and then have to refund each and everyone's reasonable expenses? Probably not.
The regulation sounds like it's in favour of the airlines. However, considering the amount of work for them to prove bad faith, still have to go through DOT if someone makes the complaint, and process perhaps hundreds of refunds for expense? I'm sure they would have done better on most stances with the older regulations to save time and money spent on their customer service agents.
The regulation sounds like it's in favour of the airlines. However, considering the amount of work for them to prove bad faith, still have to go through DOT if someone makes the complaint, and process perhaps hundreds of refunds for expense? I'm sure they would have done better on most stances with the older regulations to save time and money spent on their customer service agents.
I wouldn't doubt airlines might go down that path again if the potential losses were there, and if they can show purchasers were in 'bad faith' (DOT terminology) I think they would also have a good case for avoiding compensation as expenses incurred might not be 'reasonable' in the circumstances.
May 16, 2015, 9:30 am
#107
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Loud, dark, warm, lots of ethernet cables, and in some rack space.
Programs: AA:EXP
Posts: 369
Swiss did pretty well with the Canadian Transportation Agency on the Rangoon Round 3 fares. The CTA accepted it was a case of mistake.
I wouldn't doubt airlines might go down that path again if the potential losses were there, and if they can show purchasers were in 'bad faith' (DOT terminology) I think they would also have a good case for avoiding compensation as expenses incurred might not be 'reasonable' in the circumstances.
I wouldn't doubt airlines might go down that path again if the potential losses were there, and if they can show purchasers were in 'bad faith' (DOT terminology) I think they would also have a good case for avoiding compensation as expenses incurred might not be 'reasonable' in the circumstances.
However, anything short of that (genuine address, airfare adds up, nothing regarding the user on the site to purposely manipulate the system) would sound quite difficult to say they acted with intent and a purpose. A non-reasonable expense of the Hyatt Regency penthouse suite booked 10 minutes straight away would make for a more obvious case.
I just see the intent of DOT trying to prevent people from manipulating the system (site and fuel dumps). Things similar to the AA 450$ fare seem like they wouldn't care very much as to tell the airline "tough noodles" and honour the fare.