andyr

Since I started part of this battle ...

I agree that there is no way to prevail legally, because Federal law regarding air travel supersedes normal consumer protection law. So, airlines can say one thing in an ad, and a different thing in the fine print, and get away with it. No chance of suing and winning.

I still think that it is in fact misleading, and would be actionable in any other type of business, but that is obviously an opinion and a pretty theoretical one at that.

To put it another way (to jdiver's and paincorp's comments), if any other business had an ad like AA's, and had a CoC like AA's that negated the plain meaning of the ad, they could be sued and they would lose. It doesn't make an ad allowable to have fine print at the time of purchase that says something materially different from the ad for any industry that is covered by normal consumer protection laws. And the reason this is not allowed is because it is *wrong*, and ethical companies do not engage in this behavior not because they could be sued, but because it is wrong and perhaps in the end may lose them customers because at the end of the day, people tend to like to do business with companies that do what they say.

I also think (again, opinion, and not actionable except in the court of public opinion) that when an airline *chooses* to advertise specific equipment, to the point of telling you "how to know you are flying on that equipment", and also chooses to both reserve the right to substitute different equipment and then to substitute different equipment without offering you any recourse or consideration, they are making a business decision to operate in a misleading way, particularly for consumers who may not have read the CoC and all the fine print. They could add a caveat to the ad, or they could stick with one equipment type for a given route, either of these would reduce or eliminate the misleading part, but they choose not to do either of those things, because there are no consequences for their behavior.

I get what the CoC says, I've read it and I understand contracts. I think holding airlines to such a low bar of commitment compared to other businesses we deal with on a daily basis demonstrates that their lobbyists are worth every penny they have been paid.

So, as said above by djibouti, I reserve my right to be indignant about it, but OP is indeed owed no compensation. Some people apparently think this is fine, and some think it sucks. I'm in the latter camp, which is one reason I'm no longer EXP at AA as of 11 days ago after more years than I have records of (pre 2003).

andyr

Glad it worked out for you in the end.

I've never been in the 321T F seat (only J), but have been in the 773 J seat, and I agree that oddly it felt kind of cramped. I think the tall sides can make you a little claustrophobic, if that make sense, and the 321T J seats from memory are more "open" on the sides.

Still think it is much better for sleeping, but not as great for sitting up and working (or watching the IFE).

I had the same feeling in the Emirates A380 J seat last week ... you actually have a lot of room, but with so much stuff on all sides it seems closer in than it really is, like you're in a cocoon or something.

jordyn

Yes, you'll see that I wrote "you can't necessarily disclaim away claims that the consumer might reasonably rely on as a result of your advertising", so pointing to the fine print doesn't really respond to my point.

As andyr points out, airline advertising is an anomaly, but in the general case your fine print can't contradict the overall message of your advertising.

If you don't believe me and andyr, here's what the FTC has to say on the subject:

(emphasis mine)
So in the general sense, you can't tell people one thing and sell them something else even if there's some disclaimer somewhere that "clarifies" what you are selling them.

But sure, airline advertising is different and airlines get a free pass. I'm not sure why folks on FlyerTalk need to spend so much time defending their crappy practices, though.

Often1

Quoting irrelevant language from dictionaries and generalized statements on the website of agencies which have close to zero authority over commercial aviation is pointless.

DOT which, by law, has exclusive authority over what constitutes a false or deceptive practice by the commercial aviation industry, requires carriers to post their COC, make them available at any location where the carrier itself sells tickets and so on. Those COC are not "fine print" (or maybe they are, but it doesn't matter). Those COC are what establish the important aspects of the relationship between the customer and the service provider.

I'm realistic and understand that not everybody reads all of this stuff. I certainly don't. But, it's on me and on me alone when I don't.

Unlike contracts which are hidden in some musty drawer and are close to impossible location, anybody who buys a ticket through an AA channel, e.g. online, airport, city ticket office, can access the contract language on the spot.

So, focus on what the DOT rule actually requires, not what some dictionary editor said in 1898, and you will do just fine.

JonNYC

It's not the case for either, BUT, you're most certainly not the only person to report both phenomenons-- that A321 J actually seems more roomy and open than F, -and- that the Cirrus seat in A321 F seems more cramped than the one in 77W and/or just very tight and cramped in general. Bed-length on the A321 Cirrus is actually longer than 77w, but I'm starting to see how that increased angle (that creates the extra bed-length and necessary to get this many rows in) is actually creating a less pleasant flying experience.

In fact, I think the collective experience of those who've tried F and J on A321 like yourself that they "don't find F worth (much of) a premium" (if at all.)

All of this is probably part of the decision-making that's going on now that has this A321 config on the endangered species list and AA frantically looking for an exit strategy, depending on whom you believe. NO question though that it's not working out well and is being reevaluated.

jordyn

I'm not sure if you're completely missing the point or just arguing with a strawman because its fun.

Neither andyr or I is arguing that there's an actionable case against AA because, as we have both already acknowledged and you do such a great job of pointing out (again), airline advertising is a special case and regulated by the DOT.

What we are both saying is that in just about any other context, a company cannot claim one thing in its advertising and then actually offer something different. The FTC guidance is what applies to most businesses in the US. Yes, it doesn't apply to airlines, but that doesn't mean that AA is therefore doing an awesome job just because their advertising is held to a different standard than everyone else. AA advertises, and gets people to buy plane tickets based on, a specific product. When they don't deliver it, you can understand why people are frustrated, even if it is technically allowed by both the CoC and the DOT. Proving that it is allowed does not make it customer-friendly or a practice that we should just dismiss as "caveat emptor".

In any case, glad OP got rebooked on an A321 if he was paying extra just for that experience. Sounds like AA customer service did the right thing even though the CoC didn't require them to do so.

JDiver

Well one thing I have said often is the airlines get away with this - and have since day 1. They write legislation, get their minions to carry and enact it. It has been this since the days of the Warsaw Convention (and modified through Hague, Guatemala and of course, the later Montreal Convention). I never said I liked it - but I can't do much about it other than to be prepared, know the CoC and TOCs well enough I can advocate and get more of what I want when the airline wants to restrict me even further than the CoCs allow them to.

And it's what FT exists - so we can learn, use the information and advocate more effectively. Like getting a change to JFK-LAX on the A321T (well, unless they do a last minute substitution,) and on up to SFO by 738. Compensation? Nope, but the OP got what he really wanted, the 321T experience and transportation between JFK and SFO (and some more miles and points than he would have earned to begin with).

Soon enough, some of us (not me) will be posting about the "good old days" of those "lovely 762s"... "Minions" - I like that word.

hillrider

$6 million a year in Washington (and that's only by AMR) will get you not only these corporatist rules, but a shiny new piece of legislation saying that it's wrong that airlines must use the actual amount of money you need to pay in order to buy a ticket in their advertising, rather every little component (taxes, fuel, labor, etc. etc,) could be itemized without totaling because "it will allow consumers full disclosure of the breakdown of costs that are associated with travel and will no longer require airlines and travel agents to conceal the cost" of each individual component.

Mind you, currently airlines are free to itemize what they want, as long as the total is the most prominent figure given or the "first price quote": "the DOT made clear in the preamble to the rule that advertisers are free to advise the public in price solicitations about government taxes and fees as well as carrier- or agent-imposed fees that are included within the single total price, so long as that notice is not deceptive" (source).

Since "Americans are dumber than average at math", moving the requirement to total everything up to a buried link that leads to a pop-up is probably not a good thing for the voters. But some Congresspeople are actually advocating this (see multimillion figure above).

You simply can't make this stuff up.

Austinrunner

AA has the constitutional right to lobby the government. Just as you do. To the extent that airlines get what they want, that's ultimately the responsibility of the electorate.

Austinrunner

And in 15 years, there will be tons of complaints about the antiquated 777-300ER. The cycle never ends.

PainCorp

Have you ever seen a fast food advertisement? Or, really, ANY food advertisement?

jordyn

You mean, it looks tastier on TV? I think this is pretty different than what airlines do, which is not only to show the seat in its most flattering possible light (equivalent to the fast food presentation), but often (as mentioned above) showing a product that is only available under limited circumstances or subject to being changed with no recourse to the customer. You never go to McDonald's, order and pay for a Big Mac, and then are given a standard cheeseburger because they're out of special sauce; they'd just tell you you can't buy a Big Mac.

But fast food actually provides several examples of false advertising claims to prove the general point:

http://adage.com/article/news/subway...suring/239427/ (can't call a sandwich a "footlong" if it's not actually a foot long)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2522254.html (can't advertise you serve halal food and then substitute in non-halal food when you run out)

More generally, there's tons of regulations covering fast food advertisement, with much more recourse to consumers and competitors:

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/laws-...ood-58515.html

djibouti

While I agree with you 100% on your points, this actually happened to me at KFC . I showed up on duty (as an EMT), paid for chicken strips, then was told they are out and because the manager has gone home (?!) they are unable to refund me and what else would I like instead.

Of course, had I made a stink the next day to the store or to corporate (or gotten some other friends of mine in other uniforms to show up--not that I would waste their time over $4) I'm sure I'd have gotten my money back *and* some free food.

Non-sequitur... I just thought it funny that you mentioned an exact situation that happened to me.

jordyn

Ha, fair enough. Although I think the airline analogy would be more like "sorry, we're out of chicken strips; all we've got left is this one drumstick which usually costs $.99 even though you paid $4. So, you can either just accept that as a voluntary switch or I guess you can come back in three days when we can confirm we'll have some chicken strips available. You could come in and try your luck tomorrow, but you might have to wait six hours and we still won't have any available."

chfenton

Sorry if I missed it in the thread, but is there any way to tell if the 321 is substituted out ahead of time as I too am paying to experience that aircraft in particular? Say 3-4 hours prior to departure (assuming it isn't a last second switch). I would presume you might see a seat change if you check your PNR, but what if you had a seat say such as 2A which might just roll to 2A on any other equipment. I believe flight status on the home page doesn't show equipment type. Thanks.