Originally Posted by
gegarrenton
Not at all, that's a complete supposition on your part. I realize that's how the court of internet justice works and all, but it's still not valid.
Hang up and call again is the FT mantra. I have done it many times specifically because I knew the AAgent I was talking to was wrong.
Sorry, I cannot think of a situation where an agent is incorrect in referring a matter to the rates desk
If an agent just says "x is not allowed" and other one says "x, no problem" that is different since agents may be wrong and it does deal with this scenario
This HUACA seems to me to be more likely to be "I know its not allowed and last thing I need is it annotated by the rates desk"
Can you give an example of an agent being wrong when the agent goes "X, I will have to pass this to the rates desk to verify" ?
Originally Posted by Jordyn
Edited to add: your position would make sense if OP was always attempting to make the same change to the same type of fare. It doesn't seem like that's the case based on the posts so far; if it were, I'd agree that the previous denials might constitute some form of "warning".
I think that my position makes sense in that the OP is actively avoiding the rate desk; that , to me, indicates that he is aware that the rate desk is unlikely to permit what he wants under the fare paid. That to me take away innocence of not knowing anything about what is permitted