Copilot23

Today I found that flights were available on a non-stop in January for about $15.00 per ticket less than the RT connecting through Dallas both ways that I found a few weeks ago. The NS was for the same dates, same booking code and same final destination. But I was told by an AA agent I could not change flights without fees. I admit I'm on a non-refundable itinerary. I could care less at this point about the price difference between my booked 1 stop and the NS. The NS departs mid morning as opposed to early morning (3 hours difference) and arrives about the same time that my connecting flight arrives to my destination. AA would get to keep the difference between my booked ticket and the fare reduction for the NS flight, so unless I'm missing something here, this was a win/win for both AA and I. Why wouldn't AA want a higher revenue passenger in the NS seat than the current price they are selling and free up seats on what I assume to be higher traffic routes to their hub?

magic111

Perhaps you are going to be selected in the future to be offered a $49 change.

3Cforme

That's all entirely irrelevant if the OP bought a ticket calling for a change fee. The OP seeks a change to the ticket. Hope for a significant schedule change, or pay to get the convenience of the non-stop.

Deltahater

At this point in time you have two less costly options to get on the NS flight.

You can do SDC standby 12 hours before the NS departs, if the same booking class is available for $50

Or you can go true standby and hope at the gate that you will get on. Costs nothing, other than nerves and time if you don't make it.

AA is correct to not change you and not charge you. Sucks, but such is travel life.

i_fly_AA

To discourage people from buying cheaper, non refundable fares.

The same can be said of many other situations. For example, if one way SNA-SFO costs $350 but the RT costs $250 (a very realistic situation by the way), then why can't someone buy SFO-SNA-SFO and just fly the return? It would certainly seem like a "win win" situation for both parties. Well, no, in fact it's not. It's not a "win" for AA because the pax should have paid the higher one way fare if he wanted to fly one way.

Just like in your situation, if you wanted the nonstop, you should have booked it. Given this, AA is still very flexible in offering free standby the the $50 CFC option (assuming you don't have a broken fare - which it sound like you don't).

tt7

If it's not a 'win' for AA, then it's because it's a 'problem' of their own making. There is absolutely no logic to why the passenger should have to "have paid the higher one way fare." The reason the one way fare is higher is because AA chooses to set it higher for no logical reason other than it can get away with it. They then try to set their own rules about 'throwaway ticketing' to prevent a customer from simply not flying the second leg of a round-trip ticket.

One of the good things about buying air tickets in Australia (after you get over the fact that you really only have 2 choices - QF or DJ) is that the tickets are priced on a one way basis. If you want to fly MEL-SYD return, what you effectively buy is two one-way tickets .... and if you want to buy the super-duper el cheapo on the way there and the super-expensive fully changeable on-the-way-back-because-I-don't-know-what-time-my-meeting-is-going-to-finish, you can.

AA knows that the vast majority of people fly round-trip and it prices those tickets to meet the market. Different markets (starting points) may often have different pricing but there is simply no rational reason to charge more for a one-way ticket. Many transactions involve some sort of discount for 'round trip' or 'multiple purchase' transactions, be it "two for one" offers or, as Mrs. tt7 did recently, getting two jackets made at the tailors in Hong Kong rather than one. The airline business must be about the only business that gets away with charging you more for buying less of their product.

mvoight

Are you saying you bought a ticket with a change fee and don't understand why they want to charge you to make a change?

What would the point be of having change fees if they weren't going to charge them for changes??\

Happy

Just want to point out you cannot use Australia as an example because the one-way pricing is due to Government's regulation changes a few years ago. You can thank Australian Government for that convenient pricing, but not QF. AA is not the only legacy airline in US that price r/t cheaper than one-way. Surely you know that.

tt7

Why? It's a perfectly valid example for the point I was making.

I am well aware that Australia has consumer protection laws that are sadly lacking in the US. You only have to look at the way AA advertises its Net Saaver fares to know that. I don't think I "thanked" QF, merely made an observation as to how tickets are priced.

Wow - really? How does this invalidate the point I was making? What's the point you're making - that the legacy US airlines operate a cartel that the consumer laws do nothing to prevent?