FlyingUnderTheRadar

Hmmm, I wonder if this new surcharge is what the OP got hit with?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/05/25...ex.html?hpt=T3

mooper

You can buy stock direct without going through an intermediary. The seller has the right, and is logical to, mark to market before processing the transaction.

MarqFlyer

If there is a law out there that gives him the right to change the price during a transaction and after I have agreed to pay the price he was asking, then there is a problem with the law. Certainly wouldn't be the first time....

GUWonder

That is not news. It also doesn't change a thing given the inapplicability of your earlier example (and/or even this revised one) when argument by analogy falls flat on its face from the get go.

Unless the buyer has explicitly agreed to let the seller to unilaterally adjust and/or determine the market-clearing price for listed securities after marketing the equity for sale, such a change in price would run foul of securities regulators in the US. Not that this changed example (of say something including DRIP-purchases) has any relevance since the airline ticket market dynamics operate far differently -- and under a different regime -- than equity market dynamics.

DL has been allowed to get away with too much for too long. Eventually these kind of rip-offs by DL will invite federal regulation of the airline industry. I won't shed a tear about that.

bocastephen

This applies to a market order for securities - it does not apply to retail transactions where a seller has held out a price for a product or service and gives the public customer an opportunity to confirm that price.

Retailers, which include airlines like Delta, who sell to the public must honor their stated prices (except where an obvious mistake is made) and cannot change those prices in the middle of a transaction.

You cannot go to Macy's, buy a shirt, and after the product is rung up at the register permit Macy's to change the price while you're fishing your credit card from your wallet.

GUWonder

... but airlines and travel agencies selling in the US on behalf of the airlines in the US do this "no longer available"/"price has changed" thing daily. The big difference is that Macy's is subject to local consumer protection laws while the interstate commerce-engaging airlines benefit from the federal government coddling them so as to try to insulate them from state-level consumer protection actions.

bocastephen

Actually I remember it was Orbitz doing this - and most often with NWA inventory. The price changed, but I had not begun the transaction - it was still a quote at that point and not confirmed until I clicked 'purchase'.

The issue is a price change *after* you click purchase, but before you have finished entering your name and payment info.

They can change the price while you search, and perhaps they can change the price at the moment you click purchase, but they cannot change the price *after* you click purchase and you're entering your name and CC info then submitting it for final payment.

mooper

The transaction takes place when the final button is pressed to confirm payment. There is no law prohibiting fluid pricing as long as fair notification is given, which is done in this case. Some websites, such as Ticketmaster, use a time-out mechanism... Delta opts to simply update in real time with the latest price. Both are perfectly fair and legal.

My analogy is sound. The buyer does not need to give permission to adjust the price *before* the transaction has taken place. You are mistaking situations and laws that protect against post hoc changes. Not the case here. If Delta, a financial firm, or any other seller updates the price and properly discloses *before* the payment is made and the transaction occurs, they have absolutely no obligation to provide a price guarantee for an unspecified amount of time while the *potential* buyer enters details, muddles the purchase, etc. Providing such guarantees would be unfair to the seller as it would provide the opportunity for consumers to manipulate the market.

This is not true. Macy's or any other seller may change their price *before* the transaction occurs. However, you are correct that the test of reasonableness comes into play. It might not be upheld as reasonable for Macy's to snag away a shirt by a seemingly willing buyer if they picked up a shirt and went to the counter to purchase it without excessive loitering. However, the nature of airline inventory (there is no way to replace a seat on a flight that flies a designated route at a designated time, and unlike the shirt, multiple people are vying for the same seat simultaneously) is that it would present a problem if someone could "lock in" the price while they take an indefinite amount of time to peruse. Also, unlike the shirt, purchases of other seats affect the market for the seat "in the cart".

tgtg

Heard on CNN last night that the airlines will be tacking on their Summer Fee at the end of the transaction, not listing it up front.

-=tg=-

GUWonder

The analogy is not applicable. Read above.

"This is not true." "Not the case here."

What you state above is far from being characterized as "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". With regard to a retail provider of product/service advertising its wares at a consciously-decided retail price and then unilaterally changing the retail price after the consumer has selected the product and the product's affiliated price tag at the shopping venue, that runs afoul of consumer protection laws/regulations in numerous places around the world, including in much of the US.

bocastephen

Delta cannot use fluid pricing once a reasonable person has been led to believe the transaction price is agreed.

However, I went back to Delta.com to see how they are naming the transaction buttons. It is apparent they have made some changes - what was originally a 'purchase' button is now a 'review and purchase' button. A purchase is not directly implied until the customer name and payment info is submitted.

So, it appears that DL has made changes to the purchase to make it clearer that you have not committed to anything - although again I would say that the 'review' process should also lock the price and inventory or DL should be clear on the website that prices and availability are not guaranteed until you have entered passenger info, payment info and clicked 'purchase'. For example, when I purchase a ticket on co.com, my price and inventory are locked (no price changes) until I finish the transaction or my session times out. I have never, ever experienced a price change or fee update while in the middle of a transaction once I select my flights and can see the inventory change once I've selected my flights.

As for Delta, of course I would expect nothing less from a company that plays games with first class fare semantics (The A fare debacle) and one that claims 'best in class status' while shoving its boot up the rear of its customers. Caveat Emptor.

mooper

My analogy was an analogy for a reason. The situation you describe is not applicable because it isn't happening here, hence the analogy to help you understand. Delta is not changing the price of a transaction after it has occurred, nor unlawfully engaging in commerce. If you feel otherwise, you should explain more clearly *how* the law is being broken and *what* law is being broken, rather than continuing to make gratuitous assertions.

MarqFlyer

See, that's where we disagree. The way Delta does it, price changes often pop up after the customer thinks the deal has been agreed upon. People wouldn't think that (and be surprised by the sudden change) if Delta had truly given fair notice....

My guess is that the "notice" you speak of is buried in some biolerplate language that most customers never see, and Delta knows that. I suspect it makes it legal, but it still does not make it "fair," as you assert.

mooper

That's where the test of reasonableness applies. Reasonable people can disagree, and if enough people feel the way you do, a lawsuit could work out well. In my opinion, it is absurd (not reasonable) to think that a fluid-inventory item, especially when this is widely known and explicitly disclosed, is "agreed upon" until complete any more than the purchase of a stock or similar instrument is.

GUWonder

No amount of attempting to argue by analogy to defend DL's customer-unfriendly practices will change the reality that DL is getting the criticism DL deserves here too.

DL has to lawyer up more than the other major US airlines because of these and other DL shenanigans. This kind of change is just one change done for DL to try to cover its rear which ought to be legally-exposed for its deceptive trade practices.