Although I agree with you that, so long as all of the terms are disclosed up front, there is no fraud involved, I do believe that, in some case, the airlines (and the car rental companies, and hotels, and car dealers, and the telephone companies, etc.) are intentionally trying to mislead, without crossing the line that constitutes fraud. The fuel surcharge is a perfect example in the airline industry. The fuel surcharge is a fare increase, plain and simple. Yet the airlines want the consumer to view it like a tax -- i.e., as a charge that the airline is forced to pass through to the consumer but that does not enhance the revenue or profits of the airline.

As consumers, it is important that we all understand the all-in costs of products and services we purchase when comparing prices. This is the best way to protect ourselves. But I would love to see the airlines (and the car rental companies, and hotels, and car dealers, and the telephone companies, etc.) be more upfront in their advertisements so that you don't need a magnifying glass and a law degree to figure out all of the terms.

All of this said, for the reasons I articulated in an earlier post, I think the two-for-one promotions are neither fraudulent nor misleading (except for things like ads that suggest you can get to Bali with your free ticket on AA).

[This message has been edited by Blumie (edited Jan 16, 2004).]

I would agree. It is a bit frustrating when you have to spend so much time to find out the terms of the deals. With the financial troubles of the airlines, you might wonder if they would be better off being a little less complicated with their pricing and schemes.

With this deal, the airline is honest in what it says, but it takes some time to figure it out. I am no expert on law, but I have to wonder how well these schemes would hold up if they were challenged. When the airlines offers an award and then tells you whether or not you can use it at the time of awarding and provides absolutely no guarantee that you will even ever be able to use if before it expires. Of course, it is not based on true availability but their own hidden practices and capacity controls. A person reading that promotion could easily be misled into thinking that a free ticket is theirs for the taking after completing the deal, only to find that any trip of interest may not be available.

It is kind of like when someone challenged a credit card on the verbage "Payments MAY be applied to lower interest balanaces before higher interest balances." Someone challenged that on the word MAY, saying that the credit card was deceptive because they ALWAYS kept this practice. I do not know what the final result of the lawsuit was, but the credit card did end up changing that wording in the T&C to say WILL.