stephem

I believe it's too late, that the comments they are speaking of when they say they are reviewing and formulating responses, they were all submitted pursuant to this earlier comment request which closed months ago.

My concern here is that the pendulum swings way too far in the direction of the airlines at a time when they have shown a desire for decreasing transparency around pricing practices and fares. What is a mistake? And should the large corporations in total control of their IT systems be allowed to decide? Does that remove any incentive for them to improve those systems at a time when there is less competition and so maybe less market based incentive to improve those systems?

Take for example what BA did a few weeks ago, issued a bunch of fares that were supposed to be restricted to non LHR connecting itineraries. About 24 hours later you could no longer book LCY/LHR connections. Was that a mistake? Would they be allowed to move those of us who booked to OpenSkies or AA direct flights? And the Chase BA discount and AARP discounts were stacking in a strange way that led parties of 2 to actually get a slightly larger discount than one pax, and that too was fixed about 24 hours later. Mistakes? Ones that the ticketing carrier should be allowed to void or worse yet "correct" with a requirement that you pay more to fly?

Also, is there a time constraint, say 24-48 hours for the carrier to act? The BA F fare was around for a while and some had flown it before it even hit FT. There are fares my family is booked on that still havent even seen the light of day on FT. Can those be cancelled now or once the amended rule is issued?

I hope that if this rule is amended, and it certainly sounds like it will, that it doesn't eviscerate the consumer protection that is necessary in this rule. Maybe far fewer EY or BA F fares for us, but I'm not convinced a rule that always allows cancellation or collection of additional $$ will create the proper incentives for the airlines to come into the 21st century.