Really? You’re at a loss as to how it says that?

That’s exactly what it says.

Disappointed? Upset? I get that.

But the terms are pretty clear. It’s too bad you didn’t understand the terms and got bit by them (many of us, including myself, have).

IMO Southwest has a really generous change/cancel policy, even with the possible contamination of TTFs.

If my favorite store refuses to credit the paid, non-expired amount of a return, they’re being shady.

Purchase amounts should be credited for one year until used, as they advertise, and if not, they should clearly say so when credits are applied during purchase.

Pointing to a vague sentence buried in the terms is absolutely shady.

Failure of OP to understand the rules doesn't constitute shadiness by WN.

While the above is a true statement, and a lot of people are giving Southwest some slack because of their generous change policy, I think part of the OP’s point (and one I agree with) is that WN goes out of their way to advertise that they are not the industry standard. Therefore you need to judge how they implement their policies against their customer promise - not what the competition does.

Shady is not the right word - as shown they state the policy when you redeem a voucher (even if the buyer misses it). I am sure many lawyers have signed off on it. But I do think at some point how Southwest has implemented this policy will catch up with them - especially in cases where the amount that expired “early” - aka less than one year from the time funds touched Southwest’s books - exceed the value of the credit used that caused the “early” expiration. I think this situation is a class action waiting to happen relative to their advertising and branding, and probably when it goes to court we will all learn it has more to do with their antiquated IT systems than purposely trying to take from their customers.

I had a recent experience where I used 2 x $50 ticketless funds on tickets last November (for April travel) and then due to price drops ended up with 2 x $110 in ticketless funds with only a month left to use in April. My specific case was a little more complex because the price dropped 7 times over a couple weeks end of March, which is rare. And even though I am a pretty experienced flyer, I guess I had never re-fared a WN flight more than once - so I thought each change/credit would go back to the same ticketless fund. Instead I ended up with 7 ticketless funds x 2 people (14 total) with weeks to use.

I did have one trip I could try and take before expiration, but then with 7 TTF per person trying to book one trip - even as two one-ways - you run into other policies like max 3 payment sources. And on top of that WN applies the smallest TTF amount from a single locator to the new reservation first, even if the order you received them was different (more IT limitations I assume). I would have needed at least two round-trips in those 5 weeks to use them all - and in that timeframe you are not talking sale fares. Even with $220 in credit, my ticketless funds became practically valueless and unusable from my point of view (even if technically, by letter of the law, they had value).

Even more frustrating, I did have another trip to book one month after expiration. Letting the TTF expire and paying the $100 each person would have netted me 2 x $10 LUV vouchers. I would have been much better off not using my TTF in the first place - letting the $50 x 2 expire and having $110 x 2 for my June trip - would have saved me net $120 - and again I think that is where WN will eventually need to take action. If you offer something - even if no one else in your industry does - then there will be consumer protections at play that ensure the average consumer can reasonably expect to utilize the value offered.

I think a good start would be the big warning nsx suggested about the inherited expiration date, especially if your net new money in far exceeds the credit being used. Longer-term I really think Southwest should track the funds digitally in a wallet like many other airlines manage to do, and decouple the expiration dates of funds from the tickets. That may mean some policy changes too - and even a small change fee. But overall it would go a long way to delivering on their Transfarency brand promise in these situations.

Last thing to add is that I was able to work something out with Southwest customer service for my situation - which reaffirmed for me why they are different than the others and will keep my family flying with them. But one of the main reasons I book most of my domestic family trips on WN is the ability to lock in our flights earlier and worse case if the price drops, have the vouchers for the next trip. Having now been caught with short expiration of TTF a couple times, will use points the next couple trips we want to reserve a ways out, but eventually will need to wait longer/closer to book when the points are gone - which does erode one of the main reasons we fly WN.

i agree with you. I was not saying that I expect Southwest would do anything willingly. And I agree only more limitations will come. But at some point legal action might force action.

I am not sure a class suit could be won, but I do think eventually one will come for this specific type of case - where the expired value exceeds original credit. Just an opinion - but I have seen class actions filed for less over the years. For example, I could easily see something like this filed - just replace the plaintiff Giavasis with jon512

Giavasis says she felt “ripped off” and “cheated”​​​​​​
Giavasis accuses ... of violating the California False Advertising Act and the California Unfair Business Practices Act.

Not even saying I want to see a suit like this. I like Southwest and its effect on the market. And perhaps even if a suit was filed it would be unwinnable. But again - in my opinion - the specific way they have implemented this scenario in their policy seems to be a blind spot vs. what they advertise. It creates a situation where their customer feels cheated out of money - even if the policies are all correct and legal, and the competition would not offer it in the first place. Never a place you want to be with your customer - and maybe one decides they feel cheated enough to take the next step (even if we all go back and forth here logically on about how the should have known).