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, 1:11 pm
#976
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: NYC METRO
Programs: AA EXP, Marriott Platinum Elite w/ Amb, UA Gold
Posts: 16
Google Translate is probably effective enough. Try running the translated text back through to English to see where any issues might come up and phrase around them differently until you are satisfied. There are character limitations on each of the regulators' web forms, so best be very succinct. Also, the language doesn't have to be perfect, as long as the point is made, they will get it.
I think the best issues to deal with from the Brazil regulator's perspective is that there were flights to/from Brazil involved. The residency issue will just be noise to them and potentially bog them down.
All the rest of the issues being discussed here are fare game for the DOT or in individual actions anyone might bring in State or Federal Court.
I think the best issues to deal with from the Brazil regulator's perspective is that there were flights to/from Brazil involved. The residency issue will just be noise to them and potentially bog them down.
All the rest of the issues being discussed here are fare game for the DOT or in individual actions anyone might bring in State or Federal Court.
Aug 31, 2015, 1:25 pm
#977
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Programs: AS MVP Gold 75K, ex-AA EXP, ex-UA 1K
Posts: 707
Fellow FTers,
FYI, I'm a lawyer. Much more pertinent to our collective dilemma, one of my specialties is consumer law. I also happen to know quite a bit about federal agency rule-making. IceTrojan is probably thinking along the same lines I am, but this mess is absolutely actionable, and moreover there are two clearly guilty parties here: AA and the DOT. While I am not suggesting anyone consider legal action just yet, I thought it'd help to briefly explain a few points as well as some potential actions:
1. First of all, the DOT is thankfully not the final arbiter here. While the courts generally grant broad deference to federal agencies in terms of rulemaking, that in no way means that said rules can't be reversed. That's particularly the case in instances like this one where the DOT unilaterally decided "on the advice of its counsel" to simply stop enforcing its own preexisting rule. This might be defensible if adhering to the rule caused an airline significant economic damage, but by AA's own admission ("American is honoring the overwhelming majority of fares ... After reviewing the bookings, a small number have been canceled") this isn't the case.
Put more succinctly, the DOT took precisely the wrong course of action: they should have continued to enforce 399.88, not just arbitrarily throw it by the wayside while they "think things over." They screwed the pooch way back in February when they ruled in favor of UA on the ex-UK flights, and they just did it again here, with an almost identical rationale. Pardon my French, but that's TOTAL horseshit.
2. Their rationale that tickets sold on the foreign websites of US-based airlines don't count as "fares marketed to American consumers" is also total horseshit. They're U.S. airlines!! Of course it falls under their purview!! (or at least it does given every single variation of the "American nexus" test I can think of) It absolutely falls under their purview when someone books a ticket on, say, UA's UK site or AA's BR site but then the PARENT company -- based in the US, obviously -- decides to do a 180 and unilaterally overrule decisions made by their international ticketing offices.
Further, there are SCORES of reasons why an American would book a ticket on a website in another country. Hell, I used to LIVE in the UK, and I always used local sites for booking tickets on CO (this was a while ago), AA, DL, etc. because I'd be charged an outrageous currency-conversion rate on my British credit card if I bought them in dollars versus GBP. Do they even *know* how many of their own road warriors effectively live in the skies, and thus have credit cards, bank accounts, etc. in multiple countries? I mean, please: until very recently American credit cards didn't even *work* in thousands of places around the world! EMV cards (the ones with a chip in them) are now ubiquitous in Europe and only now being (slowly) rolled out in the US. Anyway, I digress: my point is that the DOT's logic is faulty in too many ways to count.
3. While agency rulemaking is a byzantine process, suing an agency for making the wrong call is definitely not. I'm waiting to see just how many people detrimentally relied on AA's earlier assurances, but from what I've seen thus far there are enough complainants to warrant a lawsuit against both the airline and agency that meets the criteria for being certified as a class. (Translation: we could pursue a class-action suit.)
Anyway, I'd like to see how this whole fiasco plays out over the next few weeks before suggesting any more specific action. I think IceTrojan is totally correct that AA was emboldened by the DOT's decision following the UA mess earlier this year, and I completely agree with ClassyFlyer that AA's email was factually incorrect on its face: there is no "residency requirement" for buying tickets on a particular site. Moreover, it's not the airlines that should be arbitrarily deciding whether or not to allow a ticket to go through; it's the credit card companies, all of whom have strict anti-fraud measures in place. Particularly if a charge goes through -- as all three of my personal tickets did -- the airline should honor. And yes, everyone who had a ticket connecting through GRU, GIG or elsewhere in BR should absolutely file complaints with PROCON and ANAC.
FYI, I'm a lawyer. Much more pertinent to our collective dilemma, one of my specialties is consumer law. I also happen to know quite a bit about federal agency rule-making. IceTrojan is probably thinking along the same lines I am, but this mess is absolutely actionable, and moreover there are two clearly guilty parties here: AA and the DOT. While I am not suggesting anyone consider legal action just yet, I thought it'd help to briefly explain a few points as well as some potential actions:
1. First of all, the DOT is thankfully not the final arbiter here. While the courts generally grant broad deference to federal agencies in terms of rulemaking, that in no way means that said rules can't be reversed. That's particularly the case in instances like this one where the DOT unilaterally decided "on the advice of its counsel" to simply stop enforcing its own preexisting rule. This might be defensible if adhering to the rule caused an airline significant economic damage, but by AA's own admission ("American is honoring the overwhelming majority of fares ... After reviewing the bookings, a small number have been canceled") this isn't the case.
Put more succinctly, the DOT took precisely the wrong course of action: they should have continued to enforce 399.88, not just arbitrarily throw it by the wayside while they "think things over." They screwed the pooch way back in February when they ruled in favor of UA on the ex-UK flights, and they just did it again here, with an almost identical rationale. Pardon my French, but that's TOTAL horseshit.
2. Their rationale that tickets sold on the foreign websites of US-based airlines don't count as "fares marketed to American consumers" is also total horseshit. They're U.S. airlines!! Of course it falls under their purview!! (or at least it does given every single variation of the "American nexus" test I can think of) It absolutely falls under their purview when someone books a ticket on, say, UA's UK site or AA's BR site but then the PARENT company -- based in the US, obviously -- decides to do a 180 and unilaterally overrule decisions made by their international ticketing offices.
Further, there are SCORES of reasons why an American would book a ticket on a website in another country. Hell, I used to LIVE in the UK, and I always used local sites for booking tickets on CO (this was a while ago), AA, DL, etc. because I'd be charged an outrageous currency-conversion rate on my British credit card if I bought them in dollars versus GBP. Do they even *know* how many of their own road warriors effectively live in the skies, and thus have credit cards, bank accounts, etc. in multiple countries? I mean, please: until very recently American credit cards didn't even *work* in thousands of places around the world! EMV cards (the ones with a chip in them) are now ubiquitous in Europe and only now being (slowly) rolled out in the US. Anyway, I digress: my point is that the DOT's logic is faulty in too many ways to count.
3. While agency rulemaking is a byzantine process, suing an agency for making the wrong call is definitely not. I'm waiting to see just how many people detrimentally relied on AA's earlier assurances, but from what I've seen thus far there are enough complainants to warrant a lawsuit against both the airline and agency that meets the criteria for being certified as a class. (Translation: we could pursue a class-action suit.)
Anyway, I'd like to see how this whole fiasco plays out over the next few weeks before suggesting any more specific action. I think IceTrojan is totally correct that AA was emboldened by the DOT's decision following the UA mess earlier this year, and I completely agree with ClassyFlyer that AA's email was factually incorrect on its face: there is no "residency requirement" for buying tickets on a particular site. Moreover, it's not the airlines that should be arbitrarily deciding whether or not to allow a ticket to go through; it's the credit card companies, all of whom have strict anti-fraud measures in place. Particularly if a charge goes through -- as all three of my personal tickets did -- the airline should honor. And yes, everyone who had a ticket connecting through GRU, GIG or elsewhere in BR should absolutely file complaints with PROCON and ANAC.
Aug 31, 2015, 1:28 pm
#978
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Programs: AS MVP Gold 75K, ex-AA EXP, ex-UA 1K
Posts: 707
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) . . . 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.
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, 1:37 pm
#979
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Washington D.C.
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 131
Funny thing: I'm Brazilian and my reservation was ticketed on the 21st and for some reason I just got another email from AA and it looks like it was re-ticketed today. Any reason why they would do that? I'm still worried miles won't post since this is a mistake fare.
Aug 31, 2015, 1:44 pm
#980
Join Date: May 2011
Location: SFO
Programs: AA Plat, WN CP, Elevate Silver, AS MVP, Hilton Diamond, Hertz PC, Sixt Platinum, National Exec
Posts: 253
Aug 31, 2015, 1:51 pm
#982
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 82
Thanks. What is your recommendation for next step?
1) reply to AA and asking for reimbursement of non refundable hotel/tour?
2) complain to DOT in USA?
3) complain to DOT in Brasil?
1) reply to AA and asking for reimbursement of non refundable hotel/tour?
2) complain to DOT in USA?
3) complain to DOT in Brasil?
Fellow FTers,
FYI, I'm a lawyer. Much more pertinent to our collective dilemma, one of my specialties is consumer law. I also happen to know quite a bit about federal agency rule-making. IceTrojan is probably thinking along the same lines I am, but this mess is absolutely actionable, and moreover there are two clearly guilty parties here: AA and the DOT. While I am not suggesting anyone consider legal action just yet, I thought it'd help to briefly explain a few points as well as some potential actions:
1. First of all, the DOT is thankfully not the final arbiter here. While the courts generally grant broad deference to federal agencies in terms of rulemaking, that in no way means that said rules can't be reversed. That's particularly the case in instances like this one where the DOT unilaterally decided "on the advice of its counsel" to simply stop enforcing its own preexisting rule. This might be defensible if adhering to the rule caused an airline significant economic damage, but by AA's own admission ("American is honoring the overwhelming majority of fares ... After reviewing the bookings, a small number have been canceled"
this isn't the case.
Put more succinctly, the DOT took precisely the wrong course of action: they should have continued to enforce 399.88, not just arbitrarily throw it by the wayside while they "think things over." They screwed the pooch way back in February when they ruled in favor of UA on the ex-UK flights, and they just did it again here, with an almost identical rationale. Pardon my French, but that's TOTAL horseshit.
2. Their rationale that tickets sold on the foreign websites of US-based airlines don't count as "fares marketed to American consumers" is also total horseshit. They're U.S. airlines!! Of course it falls under their purview!! (or at least it does given every single variation of the "American nexus" test I can think of) It absolutely falls under their purview when someone books a ticket on, say, UA's UK site or AA's BR site but then the PARENT company -- based in the US, obviously -- decides to do a 180 and unilaterally overrule decisions made by their international ticketing offices.
Further, there are SCORES of reasons why an American would book a ticket on a website in another country. Hell, I used to LIVE in the UK, and I always used local sites for booking tickets on CO (this was a while ago), AA, DL, etc. because I'd be charged an outrageous currency-conversion rate on my British credit card if I bought them in dollars versus GBP. Do they even *know* how many of their own road warriors effectively live in the skies, and thus have credit cards, bank accounts, etc. in multiple countries? I mean, please: until very recently American credit cards didn't even *work* in thousands of places around the world! EMV cards (the ones with a chip in them) are now ubiquitous in Europe and only now being (slowly) rolled out in the US. Anyway, I digress: my point is that the DOT's logic is faulty in too many ways to count.
3. While agency rulemaking is a byzantine process, suing an agency for making the wrong call is definitely not. I'm waiting to see just how many people detrimentally relied on AA's earlier assurances, but from what I've seen thus far there are enough complainants to warrant a lawsuit against both the airline and agency that meets the criteria for being certified as a class. (Translation: we could pursue a class-action suit.)
Anyway, I'd like to see how this whole fiasco plays out over the next few weeks before suggesting any more specific action. I think IceTrojan is totally correct that AA was emboldened by the DOT's decision following the UA mess earlier this year, and I completely agree with ClassyFlyer that AA's email was factually incorrect on its face: there is no "residency requirement" for buying tickets on a particular site. Moreover, it's not the airlines that should be arbitrarily deciding whether or not to allow a ticket to go through; it's the credit card companies, all of whom have strict anti-fraud measures in place. Particularly if a charge goes through -- as all three of my personal tickets did -- the airline should honor. And yes, everyone who had a ticket connecting through GRU, GIG or elsewhere in BR should absolutely file complaints with PROCON and ANAC.
FYI, I'm a lawyer. Much more pertinent to our collective dilemma, one of my specialties is consumer law. I also happen to know quite a bit about federal agency rule-making. IceTrojan is probably thinking along the same lines I am, but this mess is absolutely actionable, and moreover there are two clearly guilty parties here: AA and the DOT. While I am not suggesting anyone consider legal action just yet, I thought it'd help to briefly explain a few points as well as some potential actions:
1. First of all, the DOT is thankfully not the final arbiter here. While the courts generally grant broad deference to federal agencies in terms of rulemaking, that in no way means that said rules can't be reversed. That's particularly the case in instances like this one where the DOT unilaterally decided "on the advice of its counsel" to simply stop enforcing its own preexisting rule. This might be defensible if adhering to the rule caused an airline significant economic damage, but by AA's own admission ("American is honoring the overwhelming majority of fares ... After reviewing the bookings, a small number have been canceled"
this isn't the case.Put more succinctly, the DOT took precisely the wrong course of action: they should have continued to enforce 399.88, not just arbitrarily throw it by the wayside while they "think things over." They screwed the pooch way back in February when they ruled in favor of UA on the ex-UK flights, and they just did it again here, with an almost identical rationale. Pardon my French, but that's TOTAL horseshit.
2. Their rationale that tickets sold on the foreign websites of US-based airlines don't count as "fares marketed to American consumers" is also total horseshit. They're U.S. airlines!! Of course it falls under their purview!! (or at least it does given every single variation of the "American nexus" test I can think of) It absolutely falls under their purview when someone books a ticket on, say, UA's UK site or AA's BR site but then the PARENT company -- based in the US, obviously -- decides to do a 180 and unilaterally overrule decisions made by their international ticketing offices.
Further, there are SCORES of reasons why an American would book a ticket on a website in another country. Hell, I used to LIVE in the UK, and I always used local sites for booking tickets on CO (this was a while ago), AA, DL, etc. because I'd be charged an outrageous currency-conversion rate on my British credit card if I bought them in dollars versus GBP. Do they even *know* how many of their own road warriors effectively live in the skies, and thus have credit cards, bank accounts, etc. in multiple countries? I mean, please: until very recently American credit cards didn't even *work* in thousands of places around the world! EMV cards (the ones with a chip in them) are now ubiquitous in Europe and only now being (slowly) rolled out in the US. Anyway, I digress: my point is that the DOT's logic is faulty in too many ways to count.
3. While agency rulemaking is a byzantine process, suing an agency for making the wrong call is definitely not. I'm waiting to see just how many people detrimentally relied on AA's earlier assurances, but from what I've seen thus far there are enough complainants to warrant a lawsuit against both the airline and agency that meets the criteria for being certified as a class. (Translation: we could pursue a class-action suit.)
Anyway, I'd like to see how this whole fiasco plays out over the next few weeks before suggesting any more specific action. I think IceTrojan is totally correct that AA was emboldened by the DOT's decision following the UA mess earlier this year, and I completely agree with ClassyFlyer that AA's email was factually incorrect on its face: there is no "residency requirement" for buying tickets on a particular site. Moreover, it's not the airlines that should be arbitrarily deciding whether or not to allow a ticket to go through; it's the credit card companies, all of whom have strict anti-fraud measures in place. Particularly if a charge goes through -- as all three of my personal tickets did -- the airline should honor. And yes, everyone who had a ticket connecting through GRU, GIG or elsewhere in BR should absolutely file complaints with PROCON and ANAC.
Aug 31, 2015, 1:53 pm
#983
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Upper Sternistan
Posts: 10,047
Plenty of times, there are specials that present hurdles. For some, you have to use a phone app for a purchase. Or a coupon. Or buy your drugs from Canada. There at tons of other examples.
So we all learned that there were cheap fares on the Brazilian version of the AA website. Good enough - we went there to book.
We didn't attempt to defraud, we just followed the deal.
Aug 31, 2015, 2:09 pm
#984
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: IAH
Programs: SPG Platinum, Hyatt Diamond, IHG Gold Ambassador, Marriott Gold
Posts: 519
Good luck to all of those who had their tickets revoked! Mine were never issued (stuck in pending even though one of them was paid for... just wasn't able to convince AA to ticket it before they pulled the plug) so I don't think I can join FlyerTalk v. AA ...
Just have to figure out how to get the money back from AA. I never got the cancellation email so will give them a week before calling AA BR or Amex.
... Just have to figure out how to get the money back from AA. I never got the cancellation email so will give them a week before calling AA BR or Amex.
Aug 31, 2015, 2:25 pm
#985
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 25
Can AA cancel trips whenever they want?
I made this booking with a Swedish VISA card.
It's still active, but what I want to now is if AA can cancel this trip in like February or even March?
The travel it self takes place in March-16.
Basically my question is, when can I make plans and assume I get to travel?
It's no rush, and I can always book refundable hotels but anyway.
Or is it like they say, you aren't safe until you sit on the plane?
I made this booking with a Swedish VISA card.
It's still active, but what I want to now is if AA can cancel this trip in like February or even March?
The travel it self takes place in March-16.
Basically my question is, when can I make plans and assume I get to travel?
It's no rush, and I can always book refundable hotels but anyway.
Or is it like they say, you aren't safe until you sit on the plane?
Last edited by Otra vez; Aug 31, 2015 at 2:41 pm
Aug 31, 2015, 2:41 pm
#986
Join Date: Feb 2002
Programs: Hilton Diamond
Posts: 177
I am going to simply move on...
It was fun booking the fare, watch it be ticketed and the excitement once I told my family (after AA publicly stated they would honor the fare).
It's been a bummer the past couple of days but I feel for me it's best to just move on.
I have written my thoughts to the DOT and AA.
I do hope anyone that booked nonrefundable travel is able to recoup there losses!
It was fun booking the fare, watch it be ticketed and the excitement once I told my family (after AA publicly stated they would honor the fare).
It's been a bummer the past couple of days but I feel for me it's best to just move on.
I have written my thoughts to the DOT and AA.
I do hope anyone that booked nonrefundable travel is able to recoup there losses!
Aug 31, 2015, 2:49 pm
#987
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: LAX,BUD
Programs: AA EXP,SPG G
Posts: 249
[PREM FARE GONE] AA: GIG/GRU- multiple locations (HKG/LAX/MIA/SFO ETC) ~$200 Y ~$360
@Otravez this is what I'm afraid too.
My ticket is still OK for a November ex-Brazil trip.now I just don't know when to breathe up,since they can cancel it anytime ,even close to the travel dates.
My ticket is still OK for a November ex-Brazil trip.now I just don't know when to breathe up,since they can cancel it anytime ,even close to the travel dates.
Aug 31, 2015, 2:55 pm
#988
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: NYC METRO
Programs: AA EXP, Marriott Platinum Elite w/ Amb, UA Gold
Posts: 16
If anything, the bad faith argument is one that can be waged against AA here. By attempting to unilaterally void a contract, to which both parties are equally bound, by simply cancelling the tickets -- even for those tickets that are some time in the future such that there is enough time to proceed with an action -- with a basically worthless claim of the tickets never having been valid, and hoping people buy their crap, is bad faith.
kirker - I wholeheartedly agree with all your points, and add that in order to have obtained the pricing in BRL, one need not have used the foreign website. The US site was doing the same thing as soon as Brazilian address was entered in the credit card billing section.
Additionally, the name of the section itself would seem to imply that the information being provided is for the purpose of allowing the merchant bank and credit card provider to authorize the transaction. If one wanted to pay with a particular currency for whatever reason, say there was a promotion with your credit card that you get 5% off in the conversion rate of anything purchased in Euros, who is AA to stop them from doing so? As long as AA received what they were asking for the ticket, there is no issue of bad faith at play. No action on the part of the consumer caused the currency conversion error on the website. Capitalizing on the situation is not bad faith as far as contracts go. Manipulating AA's systems to have caused the underlying currency conversion error by the purchaser's actions might be, but that's not the case here. And, perhaps the most obvious thing that has yet to mentioned in connection with this, nothing has stopped AA from claiming it was an error fare and thereby relying on the DOT's interim guidance to get out of honoring the ticket.
Aug 31, 2015, 3:08 pm
#989
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: GRU
Programs: *A Gold, OW Sapphire, SPG Gold, HH Diamond, Accor Plat
Posts: 3,367
ANAC website for complaints (English and Spanish, also)
Another course of action for airline complaints in Brazil, once the vast majority here does not speak Portuguese :
Foreigners without CPF (equiv USA IRS number) do not seem to be able to easily file a complaint at PROCON, over the web - the consumer protection agency, responsible for consumer contracts within Brazil.
Once this path is not easily available I would suggest the ANAC path instead, with the main advantage that complaints are accepted both in Portuguese, English and Spanish; I believe this to be their best course of action, without having to rely on translations, accuracy, etc. The downside is that compensation is not offered to individual passengers, other than a fine to the airline.
ref.: http://www2.anac.gov.br/arus/focus/f...arUsuario2.asp
ANAC FAQ:
If services/practices of airlines have failed, where can I complain?
Initially, you should contact the airline and file your claim with them, requesting a protocol number.
With that protocol, you can contact ANAC (Contact with ANAC ) , to ascertain whether there was breach of obligation provided for, in civil aviation legislation. After examination of the claim, the Administrator may file an administrative proceeding to investigate the irregularity and , if necessary , apply a fee to the airline , which does not translate into compensation to the passenger.
If you want compensation for possible damage , should be referred to consumer protection agencies and the judiciary.
15) Caso me sinta lesado com alguma atitude das empresas aéreas, onde posso reclamar?
Inicialmente, você deverá dirigir-se à companhia aérea e registrar sua reclamação.
De posse do protocolo de reclamação, você poderá entrar em contato com a ANAC (por meio do Fale com a ANAC), que averiguará se houve descumprimento de obrigação prevista na legislação de aviação civil. Após análise da reclamação, a ANAC poderá abrir um processo administrativo para apurar a irregularidade e, se for o caso, aplicar uma penalidade à empresa aérea, que não se reverte em indenização ao passageiro.
Caso você deseje indenização por danos eventualmente causados, deverá recorrer aos órgãos de defesa do consumidor, bem como ao Poder Judiciário.
Foreigners without CPF (equiv USA IRS number) do not seem to be able to easily file a complaint at PROCON, over the web - the consumer protection agency, responsible for consumer contracts within Brazil.
Once this path is not easily available I would suggest the ANAC path instead, with the main advantage that complaints are accepted both in Portuguese, English and Spanish; I believe this to be their best course of action, without having to rely on translations, accuracy, etc. The downside is that compensation is not offered to individual passengers, other than a fine to the airline.
ref.: http://www2.anac.gov.br/arus/focus/f...arUsuario2.asp
ANAC FAQ:
If services/practices of airlines have failed, where can I complain?
Initially, you should contact the airline and file your claim with them, requesting a protocol number.
With that protocol, you can contact ANAC (Contact with ANAC ) , to ascertain whether there was breach of obligation provided for, in civil aviation legislation. After examination of the claim, the Administrator may file an administrative proceeding to investigate the irregularity and , if necessary , apply a fee to the airline , which does not translate into compensation to the passenger.
If you want compensation for possible damage , should be referred to consumer protection agencies and the judiciary.
15) Caso me sinta lesado com alguma atitude das empresas aéreas, onde posso reclamar?
Inicialmente, você deverá dirigir-se à companhia aérea e registrar sua reclamação.
De posse do protocolo de reclamação, você poderá entrar em contato com a ANAC (por meio do Fale com a ANAC), que averiguará se houve descumprimento de obrigação prevista na legislação de aviação civil. Após análise da reclamação, a ANAC poderá abrir um processo administrativo para apurar a irregularidade e, se for o caso, aplicar uma penalidade à empresa aérea, que não se reverte em indenização ao passageiro.
Caso você deseje indenização por danos eventualmente causados, deverá recorrer aos órgãos de defesa do consumidor, bem como ao Poder Judiciário.