Agreed, I don't think the average person should need to read through hundreds of lines of fare rule gibberish to determine the fees involved. The airlines should be presenting this clearly in the booking process.

If we want to be pedantic about it, technically every ticket is refundable, subject to a cancellation fee that is less than or equal to the original fare paid.

Not sure how this is deceptive. The price each of the ticket is fully disclosed. Just because you choose not to read the terms doesn't mean that the airline is being deceptive. Just because you buy a car and the dealer says well take it back and issue you a refund, doesn't mean they were deceptive when the contract says you only have five days to do so, or that there'll be a fee charged for mileage driven.

Some car dealer saying they will refund and AA clearly stating in writing that the ticket is refundable are two entirely different things. Both are deceptive but AA is more-so since most people will not believe anything a car salesman says (and know not to trust anything said orally) but would believe the plain meaning of something clearly stated in writing on the reservation page by a company like AA. There is zero reason for AA to be so obtuse about this other than trying to extract a few hundred dollars from casual travelers who do not realize that AA cannot be trusted when they clearly state the terms of the ticket in plain English, but then modify that clear language in pages of gibberish that are both hard to find and even harder to wade through.

I do not question that the partially refundable, refundable ticket has its place as pointed out in other posts. But AA should make clear that it is only partially refundable on the reservation page and not lead anyone to believe that they can get all of their money back, which is afterall, the common definition of refundable. Just add the word "partially" and be clear about it. Otherwise, AA is being deceptive.

You're the one making up the term partial refund. The entire amount is refundable, however there is a service charge for cancelling. Lots of places charge a service charge when issuing a refund. Try returning an open computer to the store. You'll get the full amount refunded, but then they add on a service charge. Thus the amount credited to your card is less then what you paid. Doesn't mean that you didn't get a refund of the original price.

Actually, it does mean you did not get a refund of your entire purchase price. You pay 100 and you get 85 back. The restocking fee is subtracted from the refund amount. The same way the AA fee is subtracted from the refund that hits your credit card. No reason to complicate it.

Restocking fees for computers and TVs are normally clearly stated in electronics stores, on their receipts, and their web sites - along with return deadlines. If AA would do the same on its reservations page, I would have no issue. I tried to keep it simple by adding just one word, but adding the phrase "less a $500 service fee" would be fine too. Just saying refundable when it is not fully refundable, is being deceptive.

It is not deceptive. Period.

The FT conventional wisdom is that the carrier should have somehow made whatever is at issue more clear than it was.

You don't need to read pages of fare rules unless you care about limits on open jaws and odd-ball stop-over issues. All the average passenger needs to check are the change fees and perhaps co-terminals if it matters.

If it isn't important enough to be bothered, that's fine. But, you can't then complain that it used to be one way or TWA used to do it another. Or, I guess you can. But, it won't do much good.

Um, no. Real nonrefundable tickets are not refundable. You can't get your money back. You. An use the remaining value, sure but that's absolutely not the same thing as a refund.

Agreed. This is why there is a DOT complaint path, and then a small claims court if one feels they've been agrieved. I don't know if that would be successful, but it might be worth a try. Let AA try to defend their definition of refundable and their fine print.

With a non refundable ticket you may - or may not - depending on the fare rules, be able to use the value for another journey. In many cases, the best that can be done is get the taxes reimbursed

Come on, this should be indefensible. I don't know if AA is necessarily worse than other carriers, but this is deceptive by any reasonable standard.

I just tried a booking like the OP's. There is no indication anywhere in the check-out process that there is a 300 USD fee (or any fee at all) for refunds unless you click on the single Detailed Fare Rules link that is presented right before you pay and then drill down into them. It took me several minutes to find the fare rules, and I knew what I was looking for. There are also 11 other similarly sized links – 9 of which come before the fare rule link – that mention fees, refunds, price details, contracts of carriage, terms and conditions, etc. So if you don't know the exact phrase that you're looking for – and the average traveler doesn't – then you'd have to click on almost a dozen small links throughout the checkout process and look closely at the pages they link to before you could catch the cancellation fees.

And this is setting aside the fact that the fare rules themselves are opaque, both in terms of language and typesetting. I MEAN I HEAR IT IS GREAT INTERNET ETIQUETTE TO JUST TYPE IN LONG RUN ON SENTENCES IN ALL CAPS. WITH RANDOM PUNCTUATION INSERTED IN BIZARRE - PLACES BECAUSE PEOPLE REALLY LOVE THAT AND THEN THEY WILL READ YOUR POSTS VERY VERY CAREFULLY AND REALLY REALLY LOVE YOU I'M JUST SAYING.

So AA could market every single ticket it sells as refundable as long as it always set the cancellation fee at (Fare Paid - $0.01) or less?

Sorry, but service charges to issue refunds are a common occurrence. In general a refund doesn't even need to be offered under the law. If one is offered then it's per the terms of contract.

The fact you don't want to read the terms isn't the companies fault. To allow otherwise would negate the point of contracts/T&Cs.

I don't know what "JUST SAYING" at the end is supposed to mean

If not liking the website of AA for getting the details, there are multiple other ways of booking , such as booking on another site, book over the phone with the airline and ask for the details , book with a travel agent

Don't tick a box agreeing to terms and conditions unless happy with the terms and conditions

Dave, I generally agree on the "freedom of contracting" concept. However, I also win cases on "disclosure" and "clear and conspicuous terms." I have a problem with fares marketed as "refundable" IF (I am not saying it is true here, I am just saying "if") it is unreasonably difficult for the average consumer to locate or be aware of those terms. I do not think it is beyond the ability of AA to say "* - Subject to a fee of $200 for the refund."

I find nothing unclear and inconspicuous about: "refundable subject to $200 penalty" simply because it used to be otherwise.

"Plain English" legal documents may make people feel better, but they are necessarily longer and that means fewer people are bothered to read them, e.g., "if you cancel this ticket, we will refund the payment you made for this ticket to the original form of payment less a penalty of $200." Do that 50 times for the 50 items in the fare rules and it is not that much longer.

So did many things.