Hyperacusis

I was not aware that the increased APD applied retrospectively to previously issued tickets.

marlborobell

Not the recent ones -- there were at least 330 days between the announcement of the change and the change itself.

But several years ago a change was issued with about five months' notice and the UK Government insisted on collecting the extra regardless of booking date. I had to pay the extra myself.

inlanikai

Proposed new SOP on FT: "Any consecutive three letters preceded and succeeded by a space shall not all be capitalized unless explicitly intended to imply an IATA airport code."

Dave Noble

Or at least, the consecutive letters be an initialism or an abbreviation or an acronym. Of course, need to ensure that it isn't just be succeeded by a space but by a small s ( for plurals ) or by separators such as "," , ";" or "." .

I also suggest that the use of "loose" instead of "lose" be ceased and that correct use of apostrophes also be employed

pdog02

Can I add the the correct use of "retrospectively" vs "retroactively"

r415

Um, you mean like Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)?

Dave Noble

Well. the English dictionary I use does state that in law the verb retroact is either (1) intrans to react or (2) law to act retrospectively

84fiero

I didn't say it was retrospective (or retroactive) in that sense, as I was discussing the OP's situation involving a date change. Actually I didn't use either word at all in my post. The PP's text I quoted stated retroactive but was in the context of "when making a date change". I did not suggest that ticketed pax had to now pay YQ (absent any change).

denCSA

Need to fault you here. AA (and BA) are in the wrong here, from a customer's point of view. The idiots in the executive office at both respective carriers do not interface with us 'rift-raft,' therefore in a consumer-oriented culture we have the right and obligation to stand up for ourselves, collectively. While it is NOT okay to abuse or argue with customer-facing agents, the fact is they are the entry point to AA/BA for us.

Look at it objectively from a historical standpoint; Large companies have always listened to customer feedback provided from their own employees (my company does it too). Many companies have rescinded PR and policy 'mistakes' as a result (take UA's CR1 removal and economy TATL BOB disasters as perfect evidence of this). Don't be afraid, speak up [NICELY]!

ExpatExp

Sigh. It's like a fairytale. Grand old AA was being benevolent in the past and was just eating the cost of those "taxes" in a gracious move to support their loyal passengers. Can you imagine a publicly-traded airline not passing on costs to their customers? The shareholders would riot!

I actually think it's good that you objected. They're clearly being served the corporate Kool-Aid and the more times they hear objections, the better. Maybe one of them will take the red pill eventually. Next time, however, you should ask the agent to pass your comments on up the ladder.

This whole issue is becoming such a stupendous fantasy that I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I can't believe that AA thinks their customers aren't going to see through this "tax". Or maybe the really sad part is that most customers believe the hype.

beachfan

AA is now charging YQ on BA award flights and BA is now charging YQ on AA award flights.

BA is not keeping all the money.

Madison Guy

A little OT - and I sure do not claim to be an expert here - but where I live, it is also single-party consent - as long as both parties are within the jurisdiction of the state law enabling this - that is within my home state. Calls where one of the parties is outside of my state are governed, as I understand it, by the FCC, which I believe still requires an upfront announcement or a tone-warning signal at proper intervals. That would be true of any interstate call. Just sayin - and could well be proven wrong.

JDiver

Slight thread title change. AA isn't MAD anymore.

janetdoe

Illegal, no. Unethical, yes.

While we're splitting hairs...

I consider any monies paid to a government or quasi-governmental entity to be taxes. A fee levied by a public facility (an airport) for use of that facility can legitimately be considered a tax. Fees where the business has control over the amount charged are never taxes.

AA's old agreement with BA did not require AA to collect YQ for BA; the two companies have re-negotiated the contract due to the new AA/BA/IB triumvirate.

AA does have control over whether or not it has to collect YQ for BA; AA agreed to collect the YQ; it is craven for AA to wave it away as a tax, essentially saying it is out of their control.

If you are going to make a change that costs your customers more money, you should at least have the decency not to blame it on 'the government'.... Unless you are blaming the DOJ for giving you for anti-trust immunity after you claimed that your merger would benefit customers.

I don't think arguing with a CSR when she is upset is the right answer. File a complaint that the CSRs have been mis-trained and are therefore misleading customers.

rjw242

You misspelled AAngry