No 24 hour refund if using trip credit
 

AA is claiming to me that 24 hour cancellation rule doesn't apply if using trip credit to book a basic economy ticket and they are refusing to let me cancel a basic economy ticket I just booked with trip credit Is this true? Doesn't seem right to me - they can't point to anything in terms and conditions saying this. My reading of trip credit is if cancelling within 24 hours, the refund goes back to original form of payment (in this case the trip credit). Help?

Who at AA told you that? Let me guess, Twitter...

AFAIK the method of payment has no bearing on whether you can or cannot utilize the free 24 hr cancellation.

Doesn't seem right to me either. Perhaps the agent thought you were trying to get a full refund, and not simply return the value a trip credit?

-FlyerBeek

HUCA and see what happens.

I know that for agency bookings, you cannot do a 24 hour void if you apply a credit to a booking. It wouldn't surprise me if something similar applies to direct AA bookings.

My understanding is travel agent can actually void an exchange but many don’t/not aware it can be done.

I was told the same thing by a phone agent. I agree that it doesn't seem right, but in my scenario I didn't have anything to gain by pushing the issue so I didn't.

24 hr cancellations are required by the DOT. Is there a clause that lets AA off the hook if paying with a flight credit?

When is your flight? 24 hours only works if booked more than 48 hours before the flight.

Maybe it is a new enhancement. I booked a SFO-JFK-SFO trip for travel this weekend with a trip credit and cancelled it within 24 hours last week. I was charged the credit + add on and didn't get it back. I couldn't bear to call as it was $125.00 and value my time more than waiting on hold/call back for them. I rebooked it yesterday, for $1.00 more (yes $1). Today fare dropped to $208.00 RT, a $126.00 new credit and an instant PP upgrade. Pissed at first then non caring after.

Same Problem
 

I'm having the same issue. I purchased tickets with an AA phone agent. I canceled 5 hours later, months before the flight date. No refund.

Phone agents gave conflicting explanations. Refund request form online said no refund. BBB complaint brought a response from customer relations explaining that it was not a new booking but a rebooking and so not eligible for a refund under the 24 hour policy.

It seemed like a new booking to me. I booked a new flight, and just gave them the flight credit info when they asked how I wanted to pay for it. About $1000 was flight credits and $4500 cash.

Anybody have experience with this?

Is it still the same booking reference or is there a new record locator?

Any trip credit used makes it a rebooking. I had the same experience.

Correct. It’s technically a Re issued ticket so the 24 hour doesn’t apply. What u can do is book it on .com and then 34 hours later call and apply the credit

New record locator.

This seems DOT-complaint worthy. It seems like a made up distinction by AA, and is not at all clearly advertised in any of their public-facing documents so people could make decisions not understanding how it affects how they can use the credit.

I'm failing to see the issue. Applying a non-refundable ticket to another non-refundable ticket doesn't make the original non-refundable ticket refundable if the second one is cancelled within 24 hours. Either way, the traveler would get a trip credit, not a refund. What am I missing?

Hopefully Lohrip can clarify, but this seems to be a new booking, paid for by $4500 in cash and $1000 in flight credits, but AA refused to refund the $4500 in cash upon cancellation within 24 hours. Of course the $1000 in flight credit isn't going to be refunded as cash, simply redeposited as flight/trip credit, but the $4500 cash outlay for the new booking should be refunded as cash.

Yes AndyAA, that is correct. I made a new booking. The agent asked how I wanted to pay and I said "flight credits, and cash for the remainder". Then I cancelled a few hours later, but they will not refund the cash.

USFlyerUS: by US law if you book a flight and cancel within 24 hours, they airline has to refund your money, not just get a trip credit (subject to a couple of exceptions which don't apply in this case). This is also AA's policy.

Any ideas on how to proceed? I can file a complaint with the DOT but I assume they don't actually advocate for individual cases, right? It will just go into a repository of complaints? For $5000 I could hire a lawyer to help, if there are any lawyers that handle this kind of small airline-related case.

AA's policy is actually more generous than what the law requires since they also offer a 24 hour hold, which basically gives us 48 hours (or more since you have until midnight local time the next day on holds) to cancel and refund on a new ticket. In cases like this, I always recommend one hold the ticket for 24 hours and then only apply the trip credit if you're sure you want to proceed.

As far as a consumer is concerned, a trip credit is an airline credit, not a non-refundable ticket being re applied. That's not clear at all to the average customer.

That said, fair enough on the fact that the credit is not refundable as it already was part of a previous ticket. Why does the remaining balance become no refundable?

If the OP put 1k in credit and 4k in cash, within 24 hours they should get the 4k back as cash and the 1k as credit.

The airlines are required to respond to every DOT complaint, and normally those responses will come from someone that has at least has half a brain rather than the typical customer service idiots. The best case is AA recognizes their error and corrects in there. If DOT believes this violates their 24 hour regulations, they can take enforcement action. Though, at the very least, you'll hear from AA one more time when they respond to the complaint.

Would the same work on a change to an existing itinerary? For example, I just exchanged an existing ticket with an A/C of $45.00. If I cancel the whole thing later tonight, should I expect to get the $45.00 back? Honestly, I wouldn't have before reading this thread today. I'd have expected the value of the new ticket to be issued as a trip credit in the form of an unused ticket, not a partial trip credit and partial refund.

Based on the wording of fare rules for a domestic ticket, I don't think that this is the case.

The ability to hold an unused ticket for further travel comes under the 'Changes' section. The wording guven, from one I just checked is



The wording there shows ir as a change and where there is a fare difference, that the fare difference needs to be paid. If the $5500 fare was a non refundable fare, then it would seem that AA is correct. If the $5500 fare is refundable/refundable wirh a cancellation penalty, then the amount excluding the $1000 non refundable amount should be refunded/refunded minus penalty

Whether the non refundable amount would be avaulable as credit would depend on what the fare rules of new ticket allow for

Thanks Dave Noble. You say "hold an unused ticket for further travel...." In my experience I received a flight credit, and applied it to a future ticket (at least those are the words the AA agents used). But are you saying the reality was that my ticked was held for further travel, and the application of a flight credit to a different reservation was just a "shorthand" description but not really true?

This has nothing to do with AA policy or what's written in the fare rules. This is a DOT policy; AA policy cannot override that.

Just file a DOT complaint and you should get a refund of the cash portion that you paid, and the portion that was paid with trip credit should remain available to you as a trip credit.

It's true that AA's policy is more generous than what's required, but once they advertise a policy they have to stick to it. They can't trick you into booking by telling you that one policy applies, and then keep your money when you try to cancel by saying that they weren't required to have that policy in the first place.

DOT policy is quite clear on the rules for a brand new booking - it is worth writing to DOT , but I suspect that AA may respond that this is a rebooking of an existing purchase and that the 24 hour therefore doesn't apply

Indeed AA cannot override DOT rules - I am not sure that it is overriding DOT rules and I doubt that it would publish fare rules that contravene them

I feel quite certain that a DOT complaint will get a refund of the cash amount here. If pushed, I'm sure that the DOT would clarify this policy (which the airline does not want, which is why the complaint will result in a refund)

Southwest has the same policy as AA. If you comingle any travel credit and additional cash, the entire new fare becomes non-refundable. I believe most US airlines follow this policy.

A fare can be non-refundable. Most fares are. I think, in my entire life, I've bought one ticket that was refundable (not counting awards).

That has nothing to do with the 24 hour refund required by the DOT.

There are lots of fares that are refundable - many have cancellation penalties, but i would posit that non refundable fares are not in the majority

I don't think that AA would overly care - it would be able to simply change the situation such that changes are permitted and take away the option to hold value - changes will just require confirmation rather than effectively being open dated

From an consumer standpoint, this is a distinction without a difference.

I disagree - it is very common to purchase fares which have penalties associated for changes and refunds - much more common than not beting able to make changes or get refunds at all

Purchasing a $2000 ticket that has a $300 cancellation penalty is significantly differemt to a $2000 ticket where value is lost if unable to travel on the booked date

That's not what I said though - no one would confuse a ticket where value is lost as refundable.

The vast majority of fares in the US are non-refundable. It's only as of relatively recently that there are reasonably priced options that are refundable.

Anyway, this has absolutely nothing to do with the DOT policy. You can buy a basic economy ticket which is not only non refundable, but loses all its value when cancelled. The fare rules clearly spell out that the ticket is not changeable or refundable. But, again, the fare rules do not override the DOT policy and do they can be cancelled for a full refund within 24hr.

Whether the ticket is refundable has absolutely nothing to do with whether it can be cancelled for refund within 24 hr. I'm not sure why it's being discussed. It's completely irrelevant.

I'm fairly certain that the clarification would be that any new funds collected would be fully refundable within 24hr of them being collected. This is, after all, clearly the intent of the rule.

I would disagree. If you have a ticket from A-B on a specific date and then make a change to a new date or route where the fare is higher, a fare difference applies; this fare difference is not fully refuindable for 24 hours
If as the fare rules put forward, that this is just the use of an existing ticket rather than being a new booking, how would this be different?

I would say that the best thing to do is wait to see AA's response to any DOT referral - maybe DOT will side with this being a new booking and that a full refund is due, but I could also see it agreeing that this comes as a change to the original booking as detailed in fare rules ; I don't see that this is a clear cut situation where there is no doubt that the passenger will prevail over AA with DOT

There is zero indication to a customer that use of a trip credit is a ticket being reissued.

If I return an item for store credit at target and now buy a new item, am I held to the return policy of the original item? I am not.

Take off the FT hat and look at it like a normal consumer would. I understand your point, but my mom wouldn't and my friends wouldn't either.
​​​​​​​

In the end, it only matters what the DOT thinks - my points are addressing what AA puts in fare rules in relation to holding a tickets value in credit - what I personally think, or your mother thinks matter not - would you actually disagree that AA does detail its rules in a way that is in line with its refusal? it will be interesting what DOT decides

It would make it much clearer if it removed the holding of value and simply required a confirmed change