Aug 31, 2015, 9:17 am
Last edit by: footastic
Sequence of events:
American Airlines (AA) Brazil website misprices revenue tickets in initial calculation on purchase page. Repricing the same reservation by changing billing country resulted in the correct price, even when reverting to Brazil.
Vast majority of tickets appear to have gone unticketed for ~1 week. It appears that tickets were issued manually, not automatically.
AA states repeatedly and to several outlets that they will unconditionally honor all fares.
AA begins cancelling tickets. Subsequently, they send out cancellation emails implying that the "country of residence" was misrepresented. Of course, this is not the case, as AA never actually asks for the "country of residence" but the billing address which includes the country of the billing address.
Since AA repeatedly and publicly stated that they would unconditionally honor the tickets, even when specifically asked about it, many purchasers relied upon AA's representations and made non-refundable plans. DoT regulations require airlines to reimburse purchasers who relied upon mistake fares to make non-refundable plans. It may be worth writing into the US Department of Transportation (DoT) to complain about AA's handling of the situation and ask for compensation even without having non-refundable reservations, because AA went to great lengths to assure purchasers that tickets would be unconditionally honored.
DoT air travel complaint form: http://airconsumer.dot.gov/escomplaint/ConsumerForm.cfm
DoT air travel complaint mailing address:
Aviation Consumer Protection Division, C-75
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Ave, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20590
DoT air travel complain phone line information:
You may call the ACPD 24 hours a day at 202-366-2220 (TTY 202-366-0511) to record your complaint. Calls are returned Monday through Friday, generally between 7:30 am and 5:00 pm Eastern time.
As mentioned by classyflyer and posted by pb9997, if your flight had some kind of legal nexus within Brazil, their consumer protections should apply to your ticket. Here is the contact information for the relevant consumer protection agencies within Brazil. Please be clear in your communication and REMEMBER TO SUBMIT YOUR COMMUNICATIONS IN PORTUGESE.
To translate your communications before submitting them:
http://translate.google.com
www.reclameaqui.com.br
Quote from pb9997: "This site is known to be the most popular, most viewed upon by companies who care about reputation; Though not official, it has proven to be the most respected by consumers and corporations, who may delay answers on their own channels but do take care to have teams focused on answering for this public site. Information written, from both parties, is public."
www.consumidor.gov.br
Quote again from pb9997: "This is the official PROCON site where consumers and companies present their complaints and arguments. It is official, additional care ought to be taken.
I would highly suggest following the order presented; With the first site the company has room to assess impact, prepare an amiable answer and protect their public reputation.
On the second site... well, it's official and what is written by both parties is the basis to act afterwards in a court of law. Ideally the complaint presented should have the Law that explains why a consumer has been impacted and the expected remedy, according [sic] to the Law."
As of 9/8/15 - Individuals who had tickets cancelled in the first round (8/28) have yet to see refunds post to credit cards.
Feel free to update this Wiki with more complete information.
American Airlines (AA) Brazil website misprices revenue tickets in initial calculation on purchase page. Repricing the same reservation by changing billing country resulted in the correct price, even when reverting to Brazil.
Vast majority of tickets appear to have gone unticketed for ~1 week. It appears that tickets were issued manually, not automatically.
AA states repeatedly and to several outlets that they will unconditionally honor all fares.
AA begins cancelling tickets. Subsequently, they send out cancellation emails implying that the "country of residence" was misrepresented. Of course, this is not the case, as AA never actually asks for the "country of residence" but the billing address which includes the country of the billing address.
Since AA repeatedly and publicly stated that they would unconditionally honor the tickets, even when specifically asked about it, many purchasers relied upon AA's representations and made non-refundable plans. DoT regulations require airlines to reimburse purchasers who relied upon mistake fares to make non-refundable plans. It may be worth writing into the US Department of Transportation (DoT) to complain about AA's handling of the situation and ask for compensation even without having non-refundable reservations, because AA went to great lengths to assure purchasers that tickets would be unconditionally honored.
DoT air travel complaint form: http://airconsumer.dot.gov/escomplaint/ConsumerForm.cfm
DoT air travel complaint mailing address:
Aviation Consumer Protection Division, C-75
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Ave, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20590
DoT air travel complain phone line information:
You may call the ACPD 24 hours a day at 202-366-2220 (TTY 202-366-0511) to record your complaint. Calls are returned Monday through Friday, generally between 7:30 am and 5:00 pm Eastern time.
As mentioned by classyflyer and posted by pb9997, if your flight had some kind of legal nexus within Brazil, their consumer protections should apply to your ticket. Here is the contact information for the relevant consumer protection agencies within Brazil. Please be clear in your communication and REMEMBER TO SUBMIT YOUR COMMUNICATIONS IN PORTUGESE.
To translate your communications before submitting them:
http://translate.google.com
www.reclameaqui.com.br
Quote from pb9997: "This site is known to be the most popular, most viewed upon by companies who care about reputation; Though not official, it has proven to be the most respected by consumers and corporations, who may delay answers on their own channels but do take care to have teams focused on answering for this public site. Information written, from both parties, is public."
www.consumidor.gov.br
Quote again from pb9997: "This is the official PROCON site where consumers and companies present their complaints and arguments. It is official, additional care ought to be taken.
I would highly suggest following the order presented; With the first site the company has room to assess impact, prepare an amiable answer and protect their public reputation.
On the second site... well, it's official and what is written by both parties is the basis to act afterwards in a court of law. Ideally the complaint presented should have the Law that explains why a consumer has been impacted and the expected remedy, according [sic] to the Law."
As of 9/8/15 - Individuals who had tickets cancelled in the first round (8/28) have yet to see refunds post to credit cards.
Feel free to update this Wiki with more complete information.
[PREM FARE GONE] AA: GIG/GRU- multiple locations (HKG/LAX/MIA/SFO ETC) ~$200 Y ~$360
Aug 31, 2015, 2:36 am
#961
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: MUC
Programs: black is magic
Posts: 879
I have chosen my real Country of Residence in the booking process and my reservation is still (since 10 days) "On Request" and for mid 2016. I wonder if the fact that I gave them the correct country of Residence will be in my favor, since I basically only paid in BRL, but provided only correct info.
Aug 31, 2015, 4:31 am
#962
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 89
Thanks American, hope you don't mind reimbursing $1800 in hotels. This is far worse than if they would have just said they weren't honoring them in the first place. They plainly stated dozens of times that they were honoring the reservations. This is garbage.
Aug 31, 2015, 8:15 am
#963
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 319
For me the basis of my complaint is
1) After the "mistake", no tickets were automatically ticketed.
2). American announced they would unilaterally honor ALL booked tickets.
"American Airlines @AmericanAir Aug 21
@josedelacuadram Hi Josefina! American Airlines will honor the mispriced fares that were booked in select international markets yesterday.
Cristián Sáez Manzo @c_saezm Aug 21
@AmericanAir @josedelacuadram Hi! Do you know what markets will be considered in? Thanks
American Airlines @AmericanAir Aug 21
@c_saezm American Airlines will honor all mispriced fares, Cristian. Thanks for your message."
3) They manually went through and ticketed all fares booked under this mistake as they announced they would
4) The retracked on their initial promise with a flimsy email. Residency requirements were NOT a condition of honoring this fare. And at no part was residency required to be inputted. Credit Card billing address does not define residency. Now it is here where I would have completely understood if AA announced they would not honor. It's completely reasonable. BUT they knew people were doing this from the beginning (well documented on FT which is heavily monitored) AND then announced they would honor all (as opposed to UA Great Dane which never said they would honor) AND then manually ticketed (as opposed to UA Great Dane mistake which was an automatic system) AND then went back on their promise.
5) Since multiple days elapsed between a. announcing they'd honor b. confirming all tickets, many people booked hotels/flights on the basis of AA's word.
I do feel for AA, it was an obvious mistake. But they did announce they'd unilaterally honor....
1) After the "mistake", no tickets were automatically ticketed.
2). American announced they would unilaterally honor ALL booked tickets.
"American Airlines @AmericanAir Aug 21
@josedelacuadram Hi Josefina! American Airlines will honor the mispriced fares that were booked in select international markets yesterday.
Cristián Sáez Manzo @c_saezm Aug 21
@AmericanAir @josedelacuadram Hi! Do you know what markets will be considered in? Thanks
American Airlines @AmericanAir Aug 21
@c_saezm American Airlines will honor all mispriced fares, Cristian. Thanks for your message."
3) They manually went through and ticketed all fares booked under this mistake as they announced they would
4) The retracked on their initial promise with a flimsy email. Residency requirements were NOT a condition of honoring this fare. And at no part was residency required to be inputted. Credit Card billing address does not define residency. Now it is here where I would have completely understood if AA announced they would not honor. It's completely reasonable. BUT they knew people were doing this from the beginning (well documented on FT which is heavily monitored) AND then announced they would honor all (as opposed to UA Great Dane which never said they would honor) AND then manually ticketed (as opposed to UA Great Dane mistake which was an automatic system) AND then went back on their promise.
5) Since multiple days elapsed between a. announcing they'd honor b. confirming all tickets, many people booked hotels/flights on the basis of AA's word.
I do feel for AA, it was an obvious mistake. But they did announce they'd unilaterally honor....
Aug 31, 2015, 11:03 am
#966
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: GRU
Programs: *A Gold, OW Sapphire, SPG Gold, HH Diamond, Accor Plat
Posts: 3,367
www.reclameaqui.com.br
This site is known to be the most popular, most viewed upon by companies who care about reputation; Though not official, it has proven to be the most respected by consumers and corporations, who may delay answers on their own channels but do take care to have teams focused on answering for this public site. Information written, from both parties, is public.
www.consumidor.gov.br
This is the official PROCON site where consumers and companies present their complaints and arguments. It is official, additional care ought to be taken.
I would highly suggest following the order presented; With the first site the company has room to assess impact, prepare an amiable answer and protect their public reputation.
On the second site... well, it's official and what is written by both parties is the basis to act afterwards in a court of law. Ideally the complaint presented should have the Law that explains why a consumer has been impacted and the expected remedy, acording to the Law.
There are other venues, but from a practical point of view I would say this is a good start, with a timeframe for a company to reply back and the easiness of doing it over the internet.
Aug 31, 2015, 11:12 am
#967
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: GRU
Programs: *A Gold, OW Sapphire, SPG Gold, HH Diamond, Accor Plat
Posts: 3,367
I have chosen my real Country of Residence in the booking process and my reservation is still (since 10 days) "On Request" and for mid 2016. I wonder if the fact that I gave them the correct country of Residence will be in my favor, since I basically only paid in BRL, but provided only correct info.
Each passenger informs their passport number and all their official data on another step, regardless of country of residence.
ClassyFlyer's comments are worth reading.
Aug 31, 2015, 11:14 am
#968
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Dallas
Programs: AAdvantage EXP, IHG Spire, Marriott Gold, HHonors Gold, National Executive Elite
Posts: 1,523
And frankly, who buys nonrefundable hotels without insurance on it? Your AA flight cancels and you're crap out of luck. Its rare that refundable hotels are more than 10% different, and that goes into the insurance/self-insurance debate.
Last edited by imapilotaz; Aug 31, 2015 at 11:25 am
Aug 31, 2015, 11:18 am
#969
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Upper Sternistan
Posts: 10,047
Plenty of us here self-insure. If you travel enough, it just makes economic sense.
Aug 31, 2015, 11:23 am
#970
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: GRU
Programs: *A Gold, OW Sapphire, SPG Gold, HH Diamond, Accor Plat
Posts: 3,367
I agree the passenger may decide to send the bill to an insurance company, if they have one, or to AA. In fact if the insurance company is aware of the background, and they need to be to pay the customer, Insurance will gladly pay their customer to then send the bill to AA, the ultimate culprit.
Lots of flights, hotels, cruises, etc are plainly non-refundable; AA needs now to step in and even losses. And, I believe these losses have been estimated to be peanuts compared to some tickets flown in F aboard the most expensive partner carriers...
Aug 31, 2015, 12:25 pm
#971
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Programs: AS MVP Gold 75K, ex-AA EXP, ex-UA 1K
Posts: 707
And I'm sorry, but it's not even *debatable* that AA needs to reimburse all nonrefundable expenses resulting from this debacle. DOT regs may be open to interpretation in *some* fashion, but this particular part is crystal-clear.
Aug 31, 2015, 12:45 pm
#972
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 17
After United was allowed off the hook recently, I think all the other US airlines are going to similarly be denying these so called mistake fares. Essentially, American is stating that unless you were from Brazil, you had no reason to be booking from a Brazilian site and therefore your booking was not a mistake but you acting in bad faith and/or fraudulently. I have a feeling they will not be forced to honor this fare if pushed -- and lets be honest -- unless you are from Brazil, you knew it was not a legitimate fare when you went searching for it.
Aug 31, 2015, 12:46 pm
#973
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: NYC METRO
Programs: AA EXP, Marriott Platinum Elite w/ Amb, UA Gold
Posts: 16
Thank you, pb9997.
I think the language in AA's cancellation e-mail is worrisome. They are attempting to claim not that the tickets are being cancelled because they were the result of a fare error, but rather that they were invalid in their entirety. The distinction is important when considering the DOT's interim guidance on error fares and their requirement of reimbursement of all non-refundable costs. The argument can be made by AA that it wasn't an "error fare" issue, per se, that is causing them to cancel, but rather that there was never an "error fare" because the bookings were never valid bookings to begin with, and therefore the reimbursement provisions in their interim guidance wouldn't apply.
Of course, this argument, were AA to make it, is not all bad. In fact, those challenging this issue with the DOT might find it advantageous to make it themselves, as it allows the DOT to retain jurisdiction in this matter outside of their interim error fare guidance because that is no longer directly relevant as AA has not cited the fare error for the cancellations. If they did, I suspect they would need to cancel all the tickets. The "invalid" wording is an attempt to distinguish the specific tickets they are attempting to cancel.
In any event, attempting to claim the tickets are invalid is, at best, specious. Back to basics... the ticket, when it was issued, formed a contract between the purchaser and AA. In this case, a contract is valid when both parties agree to the terms and there is an exchange of good and valuable consideration for the product or services (i.e., tickets were paid for). AA had more than ample opportunity to perform their due diligence before accepting payment and binding the contract. Indeed, they publically stated they were doing exactly that, which is why it took several days for the tickets to be issued rather than the few hours it usually takes. Once the ticket was issued, the contract was in force, and neither party can unilaterally cancel or invalidate an otherwise valid contract. From a legal perspective, AA is a sophisticated enough entity to know better.
AA's argument seems now to be that they were fraudulently induced into entering into the contract. They can certainly make that argument in a court of competent jurisdiction to try and void the contract, but unilaterally deciding to do so does not carry the force of law behind it to be valid.
I think the language in AA's cancellation e-mail is worrisome. They are attempting to claim not that the tickets are being cancelled because they were the result of a fare error, but rather that they were invalid in their entirety. The distinction is important when considering the DOT's interim guidance on error fares and their requirement of reimbursement of all non-refundable costs. The argument can be made by AA that it wasn't an "error fare" issue, per se, that is causing them to cancel, but rather that there was never an "error fare" because the bookings were never valid bookings to begin with, and therefore the reimbursement provisions in their interim guidance wouldn't apply.
Of course, this argument, were AA to make it, is not all bad. In fact, those challenging this issue with the DOT might find it advantageous to make it themselves, as it allows the DOT to retain jurisdiction in this matter outside of their interim error fare guidance because that is no longer directly relevant as AA has not cited the fare error for the cancellations. If they did, I suspect they would need to cancel all the tickets. The "invalid" wording is an attempt to distinguish the specific tickets they are attempting to cancel.
In any event, attempting to claim the tickets are invalid is, at best, specious. Back to basics... the ticket, when it was issued, formed a contract between the purchaser and AA. In this case, a contract is valid when both parties agree to the terms and there is an exchange of good and valuable consideration for the product or services (i.e., tickets were paid for). AA had more than ample opportunity to perform their due diligence before accepting payment and binding the contract. Indeed, they publically stated they were doing exactly that, which is why it took several days for the tickets to be issued rather than the few hours it usually takes. Once the ticket was issued, the contract was in force, and neither party can unilaterally cancel or invalidate an otherwise valid contract. From a legal perspective, AA is a sophisticated enough entity to know better.
AA's argument seems now to be that they were fraudulently induced into entering into the contract. They can certainly make that argument in a court of competent jurisdiction to try and void the contract, but unilaterally deciding to do so does not carry the force of law behind it to be valid.
Aug 31, 2015, 1:03 pm
#974
Suspended
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: London
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 860
www.reclameaqui.com.br
This site is known to be the most popular, most viewed upon by companies who care about reputation; Though not official, it has proven to be the most respected by consumers and corporations, who may delay answers on their own channels but do take care to have teams focused on answering for this public site. Information written, from both parties, is public.
www.consumidor.gov.br
This is the official PROCON site where consumers and companies present their complaints and arguments. It is official, additional care ought to be taken.
I would highly suggest following the order presented; With the first site the company has room to assess impact, prepare an amiable answer and protect their public reputation.
On the second site... well, it's official and what is written by both parties is the basis to act afterwards in a court of law. Ideally the complaint presented should have the Law that explains why a consumer has been impacted and the expected remedy, acording to the Law.
There are other venues, but from a practical point of view I would say this is a good start, with a timeframe for a company to reply back and the easiness of doing it over the internet.
Aug 31, 2015, 1:08 pm
#975
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 158
Google Translate can often be a bit loose in its translations... If people are serious about pursuing this then it might be worthwhile finding a friendly Portugese speaker who's willing to translate a (relatively generic) complaint template that people could use and reach a critical mass of complaints much more quickly.
I'm guessing, though, that a lot of people will have particular situations that they wish to describe as part of their grievance.