It's not a case of being for or against. There are many good ideas shared here about this hotel, the best seat, etc. Not everybody is here to screw the airlines.

That being said, there isn't any reason for the airlines to set it up so you can screw them. I don't for a minute believe that all the computer glitches are actually glitches, I think some are very tightly controled marketing tests. For way less then the cost of focus groups, they can load a $29 fare, and then by watching here and a few other places see how long it takes to be noticed, and how fast it spreads, where people heard about it, etc. Once they have enough data, they close it down.

See, I can't believe they just can't write a routine in their fare tables that says any fare under $50 or any fare over $4,000 (whatever numbers you want) can't be published without it being approved by somebody first. I worked for a bank and all of our interest tables had this, so that even with all the triple checking we did we could never be able to accidently put a savings rate of 30% online.

Actually, you could look at it as a public service, this way when the airlines do screw up (though I still don't believe that is af often as people think) we tell them about it so they can fix it.

Pshaung - In Connecticut, if an item is priced at a lower price then it rings up at the register for, you get one of those items for free. Not at the lower price, for free. If the item is not priced individually, but the store display has a lower price then they scan it at, you get one of them for free. When stores started switching to scanners it was common practice for them to have one price on the item and have it scan at a higher price (and it wasn't always a mistake), so the state decided the way to make them a bit more accurate is to make them give you one for free on the spot. Sort of like a trial, conviction, and fine all at once. Funny, pricing errors are pretty much a thing of the past now. If the store doesn't correct it you can take that copy of office out to your car, walk back in, and get another one and keep doing it until they fix it (though most managers will stop you at the door at the second time).

Printing errors are excluded, as long as the store posts the error either at their entrance or where the item was being sold. There are signs all the time saying "The tomatoes listed in the newspaper insert for $0.49 per pound are actually $2.49 per pound". If they don't have the correction posted, they have to sell them to you at the advertised price.

There isn't any excuse for errors like this to go through, and when they do make them they should take responsibility for them.

pshuang as lemonthrower pointed out, this is at the heart of "false advertizing." now, I am not talking about a ad you get in the mail that is obviously wrong, and has the disclaimer that the store is not responsible for typos, etc...

I am talking about a price tag w/ the correct SKU showing $49.99, or when it scans coming up at $49.99. The store is obligated to honor the price that comes up, so long as it is lower than the real price, if it is higher than the customer gets it for the "right" price.

There are two very different scenarios at play here:

(1) Airline posts incorrect fare for whatever reason. You attempt to book it, they catch it before you book it, and you complain about not being about to book the incorrectly-low fare. In this case, while I understand the disappointment, I also understand the airline's right to not sell that fare. I liken that to a typo in the Sunday paper offering TVs for $29.99 instead of $299.99. Joe's Electronics can't be expected to go out of business because the Tribune made a typo, can it? (Of course, I tend to agree with cordelli on *some* of these low fares. They may not be unintentional, but that's another story.)

(2) Airline posts a fare (whatever it is), and then ALLOWS YOU TO BOOK IT. That's the key difference. If the newspaper prints an ad for $29 TVs, I drive to Joe's Electronics, Joe sells me one for $29 and helps me load it into my car, and I get home to find a message from Joe saying "Oops...it was really $299 - please come back and pay the difference", then it's his fault. I wasn't unethical buying the TV (even though it was obviously below cost), and Joe has no right to take it back from me.

THIS is the scenario from United's $50 Europe fares and Delta's RPU Gestapo. IMHO, the airlines have NO grounds to stand on. Am I unethical to select a ten-segment mileage run for a low price if the airline is PERFECTLY WILLING AND EAGER to sell it to me? No - no question about it. Am I unethical for selecting the lowest fare to Europe, even if it seems to be lower than usual? Again, the airline is PERFECTLY WILLING AND EAGER to sell it to me. No - no question about it. Is it unethical for the airlines to change the rules and try to jam a customer who has already bought the ticket? YES - no question about it.

In general, I'd like to consider the airlines as a FRIEND. Why? Because I kind of like having them around, and I certainly don't want to go to Europe or Hawaii in a boat. Some airlines are certainly less friendly than others, as we all know...

I don't think that last year's $23 fare was advertised. Ithink it was a computer glitch.

If a firm chooses to do business on the internet, and the fare shows up on the internet, that is advertising as far as I am concerned.

Joe

No, it was listed as a fare in their booking engine online. If they publish or list it, and they let you book it, then they were selling it, glitch or not. Indeed, they let it sell for an hour or so, but it could have been available longer, nobody knows for sure.

If they make a fare available to me in any method, then I would assume I can book that fare. Back then there was much discussion as to when a fare is too low to be true and when it's a deal, right after the disaster one airline was doing $1.00 fares from new York to the West Coast, and that was a real fare to get you on the plane (you had to purchase a $99 return ticket, so round trip was $100). Was the $1.00 a mistake? No, it was a promotion. I still don't belive the Paris fare was a mistake.

you mean like this one:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum...ML/001418.html

IT screw-up, giving out 62,000 HH points like candy...

Yes, and we even have a TalkBoard member trying to justify it!

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum...ML/000030.html


[This message has been edited by cactuspete (edited 02-19-2002).]

I consider myself a travel nut that comes here to learn how to better enjoy the perks of being a frequent flyer.

I also think that how each of the members of this community chooses to use the information gathered here is a personal decision. Furthermore, almost all of the problems, agruments and flame wars that are started around here have to do with the fact that some members feel they need to regulate or censor how other members choose to use that information.

Perhaps all the police matters on these boards should be left to its owner and those designated by him, and we would all have a smoother & more productive existance on FT.

------------------
Gaucho100K

Nice in theory, but not practical and very naive.