If as noted in post #9, the BOLDED text really appeared, then OP was remiss in not seeing it; but if that text did NOT appear, then AA shouldn't fault the OP for not reading (in some cases 3 pages of difficult to fathom) "fare rules".

I am pretty sure every browser has a "find" function. I know Chrome does. It really saves time as you can enter the terms "PENALTY, CANCEL, REFUND" on the fare rules page to figure out the rules that are bound to your ticket in a minute or so.

Although it says that there is a change fee , looking at the penalties section of the detailed fare rules, it does state for the $725 fare

Why should the "average" flyer know that they should even search for those "words". [We FTers know better:)] When I logon to aa.com and complete a booking, there is NO warning that I should read the fare rules--admittedly AA does require that I check a box at the end, but every piece of software requires that one check the EULA box..does anyone read the full EULA?

I get your argument, for most reading is hard but ignorance is not bliss. Even though someone doesn't care to read the terms theyre still bound to them, just ask all those folks that took out interest only, adjustable, and other alt-a notes in the mid 2000s.

DataPlumber, Dave Noble, I appreciate the points you are making and especially appreciate your attention to detail. I did eventually make my way to the dense text you reference, although even as someone who is constantly on aa.com, I found it darned hard to find. But leave that aside: Even without using a find function, I did come across the text that suggests that you can cancel the tickets without paying a penalty. Yet there is so much else there. I could not convince myself that I was reading it in the right context (all the repetition with slight distinctions). And how to weigh what I am reading against the simpler text hovering on the site linking ticket changes to additional fees?

I spend more time than is healthy buying plane tickets, trying to figure out the best strategy for doing so, etc. Yet I am still shaking my head at the counter-counter-intuitiveness of all this. At the end of the day, am I now to understand that a refundable ticket really is refundable, in the common understanding of the term?

A refundable ticket may be
fully refundable or
refundable with a cancellation penalty

How much the penalty is (if any), will depend on what is stated in the fare rules

For AA fares, if it simply states in penalties "CHANGES/CANCELLATIONS CHANGES/CANCELLATIONS PERMITTED. " then there is no charge for making changes nor penalties for cancellations

Further up in the thread can be seen a sample text where there is a cancellation penalty "CANCELLATIONS ANY TIME CHARGE USD 600.00 FOR CANCEL/REFUND." - there will then be a separate entry for penalties ( if any ) for making changes

The biggest problem is most lay persons automatically assume a refundable ticket means they get FULL refund of a ticket. It is NOT the case, all depends on the all important fare rules.

My quick and dirty approach is to scan any NUMERIC value in the dense text, as if there is any penalty and fee, they must be specified the amount - hence you would see the NUMERIC VALUE of the fee. If no such numeric value to be found, then suffice to say, the ticket is refundable without penalty.

I think that the biggest problem is that people do not want to pay for services of those that can explain the situation to them ( such as travel agents or airline sales agents ) but then will not make sure that what they are purchasing is what they want

OP did call AA to confirm the refundability of his ticket, which is why he was annoyed when he had to pay $600. Why should one assume that a travel agent would have given him better info?

From post#1: "I even called the agent after I purchased to confirm"

What question was asked though? Unfortunately people sometimes word their questions as badly as airlines word their rules...

"Can my fully refundable fare be refunded without any charges"

(As already pointed out ..MANY read "refundable" as "FULLY refundable"......let THAT flow over into the question and you've got problems.....)

This kind of thing is really frustrating and in my opinion, is highly deceptive and at some point, some attorney general should step in and put an end to it. Ask 100 people what the word "refundable" means and 99 will say that it means that you get all of your money back. That is the common understanding of "refundable" across the economy. If something is not fully refundable, it should clearly state that it is "partially refundable". Everyone would understand that. Right now, AA and other airlines are trying to deceive the vast majority of customers.

It is even confusing for long term flyers. I recently bought a TPAC J "refundable" ticket. Before I bought, I knew to look at the fare rules for both the outbound and return since they were booked into different fare buckets. It took forever to sort through and I finally ended up calling CK to get some questions answered regarding inconsistencies in the language within each fare bucket rules and across both fare buckets regarding if there was a penalty both ways and how much it was. CK rep could not answer the questions. He put me on hold for over 10 minutes while he tracked down others who might help. When he finally came back, he had an answer that may or may not be right. He admitted that the fare rules were confusing and inconsistent and the answer he got was the best he could do.

Someone who is not a hard core flyer would never be able to get through all of that - or know where to look and who to call. All AA has to do is clearly state that the fare is partially refundable on the main reservations page and state the penalty amount. Everyone would understand that. Anything less is deceptive as far as I am concerned.

+1 ^

These fares really boil down to, "it never used to be this complex". But, that is not an excuse. The ever-more segmented market does mean that you either read the fare rules or you take the risk that there is something in there you won't like. Simply put, there is no such thing as "fine print".

Refundable fares which carry a penalty are nothing new in Europe, but until recently, were fairly uncommon in the US. These fares respond to market demand from businesses which pass costs on to clients and can find it very hard to handle the accounting for non-cash credits of the type typically used by US carriers on non-refundable fares. There are a lot of businesses which find it a great deal easier to purchase a refundable ticket with a $300 penalty than a non-refundable ticket with a $200 penalty because accounting for the stored value of the credit is hard.

As to the phone agent who reportedly misstated the fare rules, that has nothing to do with the fare rules and is simply a matter of competence. It happens every day in every industry.

There is one simple answer. The COC make it abundantly clear, not only on AA, that no employee has the authority to vary the COC. Thus, the fare rules are what they say they are. It does not matter what the phone agent says.

But, as a matter of customer service, if the question was properly framed and the answer was clearly given, as a matter of customer service, AA ought to grant an exception and treat the fare as refundable on a one-time basis.

AA does randomly record calls. But, it does not retain them for any appreciable length of time. Nor do line employees have access to them. That includes anybody you can reach on the phone even if they say they are a supervisor. In a dispute, make a written request via webform ASAP and provide the date and approximate time.

All the more reason for AA (and other airlines) to make it clear (not hidden away in 3 pages of tightly written RULES), that such fares have important caveats re refundability.