unfortunately, I have to disagree with one of the statements. I personally did not think the BwC was too good to be true. Airlines were in a desperate need of cash and became very flexible with their tickets because they could use the money we paid at that time. I simply thought QR was doing slightly more than the competitors (particularly TK in this case), which is quite common for QR. So I certainly didn't think it was too good to be true or had any expectations that the terms and conditions would change later. I believe many people had the same expectation as mine. Now personally, it didn't affect me much because I am fairly confident that I can use the voucher in the future in case I cannot fly the ticket I bought but as I said earlier, I don't feel very confident about the airline anymore. If QR had the competent staff to think through the potential implications of their promotion, we wouldn't have had this discussion at all. You can think about potential use of this promo immediately, so why couldn't their staff? To me, this shows how incompetent their ground team is, as such I would be very cautious about them in the future. That is all I am saying but you may have a different trust level for them and you are free to book them with an expectation that they can change their terms and conditions at any time and you are stuck with this ticket. I certainly won't put myself in that situation unless I am prepared to deal with it. Just a general impression of a company, QR certainly strikes me as an airline that doesn't have much business integrity from this case. If this was my business, I certainly do not entertain the idea that I would trick my customers to buy something from me with a great promo and then change the T&C later so they are stuck with it when they do not like the product and want to use the old T&Cs they saw when they bought it. It is just not right and if, as a society, we let companies do this, we won't have any confidence in purchasing products, so I thought there should be a simple legal remedy to prevent companies from doing this sort of tricks. But it seems like the commentators here seem to disagree and claim that it is legally not possible.