Tchiowa

[Unduly personalized comment edited by Moderator.] Here is the actual text of 399.88

"It is an unfair and deceptive practice within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 41712 for any seller of scheduled air transportation within, to or from the United States, or of a tour (i.e., a combination of air transportation and ground or cruise accommodations), or tour component (e.g., a hotel stay) that includes scheduled air transportation within, to or from the United States, to increase the price of that air transportation, tour or tour component to a consumer, including but not limited to an increase in the price of the seat, an increase in the price for the carriage of passenger baggage, or an increase in an applicable fuel surcharge, after the air transportation has been purchased by the consumer, except in the case of an increase in a government-imposed tax or fee. A purchase is deemed to have occurred when the full amount agreed upon has been paid by the consumer."

Looking really hard for the word "Cancelled" or variation thereof.

And 41712 says "On the initiative of the Secretary of Transportation or the complaint of an air carrier, foreign air carrier, or ticket agent, and if the Secretary considers it is in the public interest, the Secretary may investigate and decide whether an air carrier, foreign air carrier, or ticket agent has been or is engaged in an unfair or deceptive practice or an unfair method of competition in air transportation or the sale of air transportation. If the Secretary, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, finds that an air carrier, foreign air carrier, or ticket agent is engaged in an unfair or deceptive practice or unfair method of competition, the Secretary shall order the air carrier, foreign air carrier, or ticket agent to stop the practice or method."

"On the initiative of the Secretary of Transportation or the complaint of an air carrier, foreign air carrier, or ticket agent,..." Which are you?

"... and if the Secretary considers it is in the public interest, ..." Which basically gives the DOT the authority to say "we not interested".

durberville

[Conforming moderator edit to quoted text.]

I'm surprised that someone who has been so active on FT doesn't know the application of CFR 399.88. Here's a run-down: it has been used numerous times against airlines to coerce them to reinstate previously cancelled tickets that were ostensibly mistake fares.


As stated above, I'm a Baron, and will henceforth be dignified as such.

As I previously said, I acknowledged that the DOT had the discretion to accept jurisdiction or not.

My intent of this conversation was not to get my ticket reinstated. Obviously, when the DOT originally declined jurisdiction under CFR 399.88, my case was over. I was trying to engage, foolishly so, an "academic" examination of what went down. What are the effects of CFR 399.88? Why wasn't this case covered? How could this application apply in future cases? Unfortunately, as a number of FTers have a tendency to do, the conversation was brought far away from a place where knowledge can be constructively examined and developed, but to a place that hinders sharing and furthering of knowledge. This behaviour is how you retard the growth of a community and furthering of knowledge.

It's very sad that this behaviour is exhibited by many senior members of FT. Some members, even in this thread, have attempted to play with the ideas and question them. However, you, and others, have shut down the possibility for debate and growth.

I suppose seat poaching and bad airline food is more pressing and in need of further examination.

Tchiowa

First, your use of the word "coerce" bothers me. I don't want government agencies coercing people. And your word "ostensibly" implies that you think it wasn't really a mistake fare. That's why you don't want Canadian law involved because you know it was a mistake and contract law normally allows for mistakes to be corrected.

Which simply acknowledges that you are not one of the parties that the law grants status to initiate a complaint.


Because in the eyes of most people it's an example of someone trying to take advantage of a law for an unfair gain.

No growth possible and no debate needed. The ideas you are espousing have been rejected by most people here and by the DOT.

More pressing that unfairly gouging an airline for a typo?

Yes.

Doc Savage

It seems that someone at DOT understands exactly what OP is trying to do and is purposefully frustrating him.

Tchiowa

Well, someone in the government is good for something, it seems.

There is also a comment on the DOT site that the "unfair" advertizing and competition clauses apply when the pricing is done where it is expected to be viewed by consumers in the US. Obviously this wasn't. So it doesn't apply in any number of ways.

Giggleswick

Deleted. (On second thought, I'd rather not engage.)

Often1

Rubbish.

Fortunately some junior low-grade clerical employee at DOT knows better.

cbn42

Sure you may be legally subject to the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the USA, but unless you actually return to the USA, the government can't do much to actually hold you liable for breaking the law. I don't know if this website you used has any presence or assets in the USA, but if they don't, then DOT can't do much of anything to them. Therefore, it isn't practical to pursue a complaint even if it's possible.

I don't know enough about this law to determine if you are correct in your interpretation, but if you feel strongly about it, a hard-copy letter may be read by someone with a little more authority/knowledge than an e-mail. A letter from a law firm would get even more attention.

durberville

That's government for you. It's called the "coercive force of the state." The state coerces you daily: if you steal, we'll put you in a small room for a couple years. If you are told to go to court, and you don't, scary folks with guns will take you to it. Here, if you don't acquiesce to the force of the DOT, they will apply substantial financial penalties. The main purpose of government is coercion.

In the context to which you are referring, I used the word 'ostensibly' to refer to previous instances where 399.88 was used coercively. I am not in a position to judge whether or not those fares were mistakes (hence the use of 'ostensibly'). Obviously, in my case, it was a mistake. And you're right: as any self-interested individual, I would rather an avenue that gives me what I want. The CTA wouldn't, whereas theoretically the DOT could (but has chosen not to).


I don't really get what you're saying here. 399.88 is initiated by the consumer, not the Secretary, airline, etc.

Welcome to the game.

Well isn't that an unacademic response. Feels akin to saying "Bible said it, no need to debate it." Few people have actually probed the ideas, just submitted shallow rejections such as:

and

Hardly examining the concepts or issues.

Cause ya, FTers have little interest in preserving mistake fares

pinniped

Wait...what? The tickets were never issued? That's a very substantial change from what I understood earlier in the thread.

If Porter did not actually sell these tickets, then it really feels like it's *not* a U.S. DOT issue. Maybe there's some unfair advertising or other Canadian complaint to be made, but I don't expect DOT to regulate every single false advertisement around the world just because the end destination involved the U.S.

As I said before, I don't have sympathy in 2014 for airlines who "accidentally" sell ultra-cheap tickets because of process or software defects they've purposely chosen not to fix...and then try to back out of their obligations after the fact. But I don't think Porter should be on the hook if this is an issue between some third-party agent and one of their customers.

moondog

This thread is starting to evolve into a textbook case study illuminating the differences between theory and practice.

Ocn Vw 1K

This thread has recently become needlessly personalized. Some edits/deletions have been made. Please discuss the issues and not point insults or snark toward other members. (See FT Rule 12.) Thanks, Ocn Vw 1K, Moderator.

Steve M

Oh, yes they can, depending on how bad they want you. One thing they can and have done is revoke someone's US passport. That makes them instantly an illegal alien in most countries where they might happen to be, subject to deportation, even if they're in a country with no extradition treaty with the US.

EventPhoto

I believe Durberville is Canadian, therefore, he does not have a passport issued by the US. But maybe the DOT issued 399.89 that states they can revoke Canadian passports?

cbn42

That may work if the person or company in question is a US citizen or incorporated in the US. Given, however, that the company here is Canadian, it would not work in this case.

The US has other ways of pressuring foreign companies to do things, like economic sanctions on their host governments, but that isn't going to happen in this case either.