It seems to me that with the new pricing structure, the Airlines are opening themselves up for a class action. They have not realized that by making the ticket totally non-refundable with no residual value, it is in fact not a passenger ticket, it is a non-refundable reservation. The only way it becomes a non-refundable ticket is if the airline does not sell that seat, for the whole itinerary, and in order to justify that, it has to be the last seat on the flight, even after counting NRSA. Otherwise it is either a non-refundable reservation or a refundable ticket. The deception lies in the packaging, they are really selling a reservation and passing it off as a passenger ticket.

I make it a general rule not to flame newcommers (being rather new myself) - I however might suggest that you seek a refund or MCO on the law degree

Welcome to FT

[This message has been edited by B Watson (edited 09-10-2002).]

I understand what he said. If they couldn't sell your seat to anyone else once you bought the ticket, then it would be a ticket. However, if they resell your ticket, it is only a reservation. Again, think of the ballgame example...if you have Phillies Tickets, and you don't show up, you can't get your money back, but they darn well can't sell your seat again.

Old news - class actions were tried MANY MANY times in the 70's when yield management started and overbooking began.

The standard to get a class certified is a monster and there is no way this flys

I did request a refund, but it was one of those NON-refundable law degrees, they did however offer to issue me a new one for $100.00 change fee.

Doesn't it depend on what you mean by ticket? The airline "ticket" is the written (or electronic) documentation of the contract of carriage between the passenger and the airline. That contract can stipulate whatever both parties mutually agree on. It's always been the case at most airlines that the contract is non-transferable. There can't be anything objectionable in the contract including, for the relevant fares, provisions that the airline is never under an obligation to refund the fare paid, and never under an obligation to carry the passenger on any flight other than the one stated on the ticket.

Genuine "travel or bust" tickets (no changes, no refunds, ever) have been around for a long time outside the US and have never caused any legal problems, and I doubt they would cause any within the US either.

You might be interested to know that there are some tickets to sports and arts events which are non-transferable. For example, season tickets to a football club's matches can be non-transferable. Also, if you buy a ticket for the Bayreuth Festival, your name will be printed on it and the opera house may demand to see ID to ensure that only the named ticket-holder gets in.

But if you don't show up, they don't reprint your ticket and sell it to someone else.

They don't need to. They've got the revenue for that seat for that show, and they don't have to provide any alternative.

If an airline sells "travel or bust" tickets (no changes or refunds, before or after departure), they don't need to either. They've got the guaranteed revenue for the seat. They don't have to care about it. It makes life simpler (and cheaper) for them. And the combination of "travel or bust" and non-transferability means that people really tend to travel as booked, which is also simpler and cheaper for the airline.

Anyway, I was only giving an answer as to why I don't think there's a legal problem involved. There are obviously more complex business issues.