Such a strongly worded rebuke is hardly called for. The original poster was not expressing a legal opinion, but rather his/her opinion that the terms of this particular offer are unfair.

I happen to think the the terms are neiter fraudulent (in the legal sense) nor unfair. The poster merely makes a rational economic decision not to upgrade the available fares if the cost to do so exceeds the value to him/her of the free ticket. However, there are many other travelers who will earn the free ticket without purchasing more expensive tickets than they otherwise would: business travelers, for example, who do not qualify for the deeply discounted fares to which the promotion does not apply. And it is, after all, these flyers who the airlines are trying to attract.

FedEx and UPS both have fuel surcharges right now, is that fraud too?

Where is the line? You know what the product will cost, and they will be more then happy to break the charges down into the parts that add up to it.

Again, it's the total cost that matters.

The fuel surchage is a bit questionable. The price of fuel is a cost of doing business but the airlines do not want to raise their base rates so they put the surchage in the tax accounting lines. These taxes do not have to be shown when looking at published fares.

Even the DOT does not like this and is trying to stop the airlines from doing this.

With all due respect, did you not read the other posts i made in the same thread:

"fair enough, "fraud" is a bit extreme. the underlying principle, however, is what bothers me so much."

"again, i'm sorry i used the word "fraud"... i'm just frustrated at how deceptive the marketing can be and i don't like when businesses play games like this with their customers."

i mispoke in my original post and i retracted that statement twice. i don't know what about my post in the first place constituted a 'legal' opinion...i thought that this was a forum where we can talk casually amongst each other and discuss certain topics. this is the first time i've posted on the "MilesBuzz!" forum and i feel like i'm being grilled by camryn manheim in an episode of "the practice".

in the future, i hope you and the rest of the flyertalk community will take opportunities like this to help others see things from a different perspective and impart your knowledge and experience onto others, rather than using it as an opportunity to insult and bully people. i've never encountered so much hostility from total strangers.

i'll try to "do my homework" next time. and i guess watching a little judge judy wouldn't hurt either.

So offering a discount on a product that's not the cheapest one available is fraud? I love FT.

I guess a lot depends on your viewpoint. While this is not the situation described you described, yalie25, consider the possibility of the good old last minute reservation because you absolutely have to be somewhere tomorrow, or tonight.

You're going to pay out the nose for the ticket, promo or no promo. In these cases, I think of the offer as a freebie (since I was going to buy the expensive ticket anyway).

The offer certainly didn't increase Delta's revenue, but it was a good thing for me.

Just a thought...

Whether the airlines (or any other company selling its product) itemize the various charges or not, as long as the charges are displayed up-front before I put the plastic on the table (or click the final "submit") I don't really care.

Think of this common situation: you are considering which of two washing machines to purchase. They are identical in all respects, save that one is $399 including free installation and delivery, whereas the other is $349 with a $50 installation and delivery fee. Assuming that one does not wish to self-install, one should be indifferent between the two, even though one is "cheaper." Sure, one can say that he/she would prefer to self-install--but that is a different product/service combination, just as one may choose to purchase a cheaper connecting instead of a non-stop flight.

Similarly, disclosed terms and conditions of special offers are perfectly fine. The DL and AA offers are no different than the restaurant that offers a buy one, get one free offer with the caveat that the discount only applies to the cheaper item.

What's more misleading is the AA commercial for their promo -> fly twice and get a ticket anywhere they fly...

In the commercial, you see a number of people yelling out a destination where they want to go, like Waikiki, Bahamas, Bali (?)... wait a min. AA doesn't fly to Bali... So, with the free ticket, how can one fly to Bali???? I think only AA's partner fly to Bali... The only Asian destination that AA fly to is Tokyo, no?

In my opinion, that's misleading!

i disagree on this point--they are different--because a restaurant would never say 'buy one get one free'--subject to availability. the free meal is only available depending on whether the restaurant feels like giving free food out that day or not. the free meal doesn't have blackout dates. and the free meal doesn't involve having to make reservations several months in advance, etc...

I disagree--and so does the DOT. A fuel surcharge allows them to raise their airfares but not show it in their advertisising or published fares.

I am amazed at how many people are defending the airlines in how they market their product when they would complain if any other business tried the same.

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.