yes both times.

To clarify.
two tickets
I just changed the date of the first segment.
Yes there had been a price change both times.
No RECALCULATION of the fare.

Who had originally issued the tickets, and who re-issued them?

AA CPT.

(my bolding)

I have a degree in law, with a major in air law.

This is the first I have heard that IATA rules are 'law of the air' - they're not.

Member airlines may choose to be bound by the rules as set down by IATA but that does not mean that these rules are incorporated into statue law in any country.

Also please note that IATA rules, or oneworld rules, or airline fare rules, do not overrule contract law, or consumer protection laws, of a particular country unless agreed by the parliament of that country.

So your advice that caveat emptor applies is not correct for many legal systems around the world. Certainly not in the complex area of contract and consumer laws.

My advice therefore to any poster with a problem is to seek proper advice.

With regards

lme ff

Congratulations on your degree. I have no degree in law, especially not of the air. It was a figure of speech. Did not even know there was such a thing. :) What I meant was that IATA has established this rule and the associated airlines (should) abide by it (or so I have been told). My advice would be not to seek legal advice since it will be no doubt more expensive than the actual price difference. :D

I am suprised about the differences in experiences here. My ticket was issued by AA CPT as well and no change to the first flight was possible without reissue against new prices. Cindy was quite strict on that one. She and CX NL have spent a lot of time deciding who should pay for the reissue. Why would she go through all that trouble if she does it for other pax for free?

I will ask her. When was this?

Last question: I had an e-ticket. Did the others have a paper ticket per chance?

I agree that the cost of legal action may outweigh the benefit derived - however often the threat of the action (in a small claims tribunal for example) can be enough to get the outcome you want.

Whether the poster has a case here I don't know - but in most common law jurisdictions contract law will stop a large company (here being the airline) from trying to turn around after the ticket has been issued and say 'oh, by the way, here is a huge bunch of terms and conditions (from IATA) which no-one told you about but on which we now want to rely on'.

Especially if another body of rules were presented at the time of sale.

So here, set of rules #2 is given to the passenger (supposedly allowing change for free), and the aiirline is saying set of rules #1 (IATA based) should really apply. I would beg to differ.

If set of rules #2 was never given to the passenger then the case may be different. It would be reasonable for the passenger to either (a) ask for the basic rules, or (b) assume certain basic rules.

(However if those basic rules contained clauses which are unusual (or even if there are clauses which can lead to significant financial issues) - then the airline (or travel agent) should, as best practice, point these unusual rules out to the passenger in order to protect themselves.)

Interesting case. Generally speaking I would agree that it is reasonable for an airline to charge the difference in fare if you change the outbound date - but here it seems they may have given conflicting rules.


regards

lme ff

It has indeed made for many posts... I do not dislike the rule but I think the arbitrary application thereof is not so nice.

On the other hand: I heard that the 10% discount is back, so I would suggest anybody who bought a ticket without that discount to change the first flight and demand a refund!

Thanks for mentioning this, I hadn't realized it.

Interesting that the fare sale page explicitly says "In the event that customer changes the first segment of a booked itinerary after the promotional period is over, fare will be re-priced using the new base fare available for sales after 03 November 2009."

Interesting development - at last they are clarifying this issue.

As far as I'm concerned, this is a tacit admission that the whole situation surrounding the 1st sector change and consequent increase in fare is totally unclear and possibly that the increases levied where 1st sector has been changed is without foundation in law.

Fuel surcharges+ tax +tax
 

Looks like the fuel surcharges are back big time on QF and CX so the difference in the 10% off fare may not be all that much.

I was going to rebook my Aone 4 with a routing via SYD, but even via HKG the new re calculation is higher!!! So I will not fool with it.

Always book AA. Are only QF and CX having a sale? That is weird...

I don't think the rebooking trick will work though. They are giving a 10% discount on the base fare for tickets bought between... etc.

So the fare is still what it is, you only get a discount on it if you by now. Changing the first flight will get you nowhere since the base fare is still the same and the discount does not apply. Cancel and rebook might work. At least for 5%...

However, if that is true it is also true in reverse and tickets bought during a discount should be considered regular fare tickets. Complicated game, but luckily we have a lawyer present!

Henkybaby, as one who is quite adept at reading the fine print and pushing the meaning of the word to the letter, I would support your argument. However, I'm pleased to say I've had success with AA who have issued me a refund of just over ZAR5000 for a DONE4 I booked about two weeks ago. All I did was bring forward the date of the first flight by one day.

Pleased to say that after an extended exchange of letters between myself, Oneworld and CX, I have now received a refund of the additional 10% imposed. Without elaborating too much, it would appear that there was an acceptance that the so-called IATA regulations and the xONEx rules at the time were conflicting and caused confusion, as did treatment of similar situations by other member airlines.

Always nice to have a happy ending, but what a long drawn-out process that at least avoided a the Small Claims Court in HK.

Great news guys! Mindpearl is very customer centric. Surprised that CX caved as well but that took some doing I gather.

^