DOT May 8, 2015 Notice: Enforcement Policy Regarding Mistaken Fares
#16
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Loud, dark, warm, lots of ethernet cables, and in some rack space.
Programs: AA:EXP
Posts: 369
Would the airline force you to cancel the ticket on another airline if they have to reimburse you? Or would it so happen that your positioning flight is first class, cross country and they reimburse you for that flight while you can still take it because they can't force you to refund it?
If they throw it out because it isn't reasonable, let me rephrase it: Business class, cross country.
Does it then become reasonable because I am going out on a business trip of sorts on that said fare? Last minute meeting perhaps.
If they throw it out because it isn't reasonable, let me rephrase it: Business class, cross country.
Does it then become reasonable because I am going out on a business trip of sorts on that said fare? Last minute meeting perhaps.
#17
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: KSTP KSPG
Programs: AOPA
Posts: 974
DOT realy should give 24 hours for airlines to determine if a fare is a mistake just like we are only given 24 hours to get out of a reservation. Its only fair.
BTW anyone know of any good mistake fares to the bottom tip of south america? I think it may be time to book that $10K Antarctic cruise I've been looking at
BTW anyone know of any good mistake fares to the bottom tip of south america? I think it may be time to book that $10K Antarctic cruise I've been looking at
#18
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
Under the temporary enforcement policy, the carrier bears the burden of proving a mistake and the consumer bears the burden of proving the consequential damages as "reasonable.".
I wouldn't run out and book a non-refundable Antarctic cruise unless I plan on paying for it myself.
I wouldn't run out and book a non-refundable Antarctic cruise unless I plan on paying for it myself.
#19
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
For those who don't like this, comments may be submitted on the DOT website. Ranting here won't change anything.
But, the handwriting is on the wall. There's gonna be a rules change. The question isn't whether, it's what protections may be built in for non-mistake gamers.
But, the handwriting is on the wall. There's gonna be a rules change. The question isn't whether, it's what protections may be built in for non-mistake gamers.
#20
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Loud, dark, warm, lots of ethernet cables, and in some rack space.
Programs: AA:EXP
Posts: 369
For those who don't like this, comments may be submitted on the DOT website. Ranting here won't change anything.
But, the handwriting is on the wall. There's gonna be a rules change. The question isn't whether, it's what protections may be built in for non-mistake gamers.
But, the handwriting is on the wall. There's gonna be a rules change. The question isn't whether, it's what protections may be built in for non-mistake gamers.
#21
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Orange County, CA, USA
Programs: AA (Life Plat), Marriott (Life Titanium) and every other US program
Posts: 6,410
I predicted that the effect of this complaint would be that the DOT would change the regulations to the detriment of the "mistake fare" purchasers. Their original intention was to protect consumers from airline games. Thus far, they have mostly spent their time and resources (and reputations) protecting consumers who want to obtain "mistake fares." That isn't going to last.
#22
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Manhattan Beach, California
Programs: BMI Diamond Club Gold forever
Posts: 6,350
I believe it's too late, that the comments they are speaking of when they say they are reviewing and formulating responses, they were all submitted pursuant to this earlier comment request which closed months ago.
My concern here is that the pendulum swings way too far in the direction of the airlines at a time when they have shown a desire for decreasing transparency around pricing practices and fares. What is a mistake? And should the large corporations in total control of their IT systems be allowed to decide? Does that remove any incentive for them to improve those systems at a time when there is less competition and so maybe less market based incentive to improve those systems?
Take for example what BA did a few weeks ago, issued a bunch of fares that were supposed to be restricted to non LHR connecting itineraries. About 24 hours later you could no longer book LCY/LHR connections. Was that a mistake? Would they be allowed to move those of us who booked to OpenSkies or AA direct flights? And the Chase BA discount and AARP discounts were stacking in a strange way that led parties of 2 to actually get a slightly larger discount than one pax, and that too was fixed about 24 hours later. Mistakes? Ones that the ticketing carrier should be allowed to void or worse yet "correct" with a requirement that you pay more to fly?
Also, is there a time constraint, say 24-48 hours for the carrier to act? The BA F fare was around for a while and some had flown it before it even hit FT. There are fares my family is booked on that still havent even seen the light of day on FT. Can those be cancelled now or once the amended rule is issued?
I hope that if this rule is amended, and it certainly sounds like it will, that it doesn't eviscerate the consumer protection that is necessary in this rule. Maybe far fewer EY or BA F fares for us, but I'm not convinced a rule that always allows cancellation or collection of additional $$ will create the proper incentives for the airlines to come into the 21st century.
My concern here is that the pendulum swings way too far in the direction of the airlines at a time when they have shown a desire for decreasing transparency around pricing practices and fares. What is a mistake? And should the large corporations in total control of their IT systems be allowed to decide? Does that remove any incentive for them to improve those systems at a time when there is less competition and so maybe less market based incentive to improve those systems?
Take for example what BA did a few weeks ago, issued a bunch of fares that were supposed to be restricted to non LHR connecting itineraries. About 24 hours later you could no longer book LCY/LHR connections. Was that a mistake? Would they be allowed to move those of us who booked to OpenSkies or AA direct flights? And the Chase BA discount and AARP discounts were stacking in a strange way that led parties of 2 to actually get a slightly larger discount than one pax, and that too was fixed about 24 hours later. Mistakes? Ones that the ticketing carrier should be allowed to void or worse yet "correct" with a requirement that you pay more to fly?
Also, is there a time constraint, say 24-48 hours for the carrier to act? The BA F fare was around for a while and some had flown it before it even hit FT. There are fares my family is booked on that still havent even seen the light of day on FT. Can those be cancelled now or once the amended rule is issued?
I hope that if this rule is amended, and it certainly sounds like it will, that it doesn't eviscerate the consumer protection that is necessary in this rule. Maybe far fewer EY or BA F fares for us, but I'm not convinced a rule that always allows cancellation or collection of additional $$ will create the proper incentives for the airlines to come into the 21st century.
#23
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 14
You're very welcome. While I was obsessing about my 24HR hold, I noticed how information trickled out about the United Denmark affair. I'd check the What's New page in addition to the main complaint page. Friday night there was finally something new.
#24
Join Date: Feb 2015
Programs: united
Posts: 1,636
I wonder if this might prompt purchasers of the mistake fare to incur a whole bunch of non-refundable costs for hotels and other expenses related to the travel. Demand reimbursement from the airline, and then go on the trip and use what you purchased. The airline might end up covering your stay at the Ritz.
#25
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: LAX-TPE-LAX
Programs: No more status...just doing my best in burning my points/miles.
Posts: 2,002
#26
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,334
For premium cabin fares, staying top hotels should obviously be reasonable, even suites, since passengers have demonstrated that they value and are willing to pay for extra space, service, F&B, and comfort on flights.
If someone is traveling to Africa, a safari would be reasonable since it's often the purpose of the trip. Plus, how can staying in tents not be a reasonable expense?
If someone is traveling to Africa, a safari would be reasonable since it's often the purpose of the trip. Plus, how can staying in tents not be a reasonable expense?
#28
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Global
Posts: 5,977
For premium cabin fares, staying top hotels should obviously be reasonable, even suites, since passengers have demonstrated that they value and are willing to pay for extra space, service, F&B, and comfort on flights.
If someone is traveling to Africa, a safari would be reasonable since it's often the purpose of the trip. Plus, how can staying in tents not be a reasonable expense?
If someone is traveling to Africa, a safari would be reasonable since it's often the purpose of the trip. Plus, how can staying in tents not be a reasonable expense?
of course this all comes back to making the airline pay for it. And DOT has made it clear they are not interested in doing that.
#29
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SFO/SJC, CA
Posts: 630
#30
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,006
As someone already suggested, it should be a double way 24h window for both pax and the airline