If I order an extra value meal and throw the fries away can McDonalds sue me? Maybe the airlines should rethink their fare structure.

What would be a better idea? People that complain about fares are usually those that have no clue just how complicated the revenue management formula is for airlines.

Sure you could try to go simple and say Cost per Available Seat Mile (CASM) + X % = air fare per mile charged. Let's take American for example. Q1 2015 System CASM was 12.8 cents per seat mile. So if we look at OKC-DFW on an MD-80 that seats 140 pax, system CASM you are looking at $3136.00 to operate the flight. Reality though is you are more so you are going to have to look at actual operation costs which are closer to $6300 per hour for an MD-80. Most flights are blocked at about an hour for OKC-DFW so that makes this year. So looking at the route itself you are now looking at a CASM closer to 26 cents for the flight alone and not include other supporting services. The argument then becomes, what is an appropriate profit margin? Most will argue it depends on how much people will pay before it turns people off. So sticking with our example, you need to also pay for ground crews, reservations, logistics, flight planning, weather operations, and the many other line items like every other business. To keep things simple I'm not going to try to burn those in here. So just to break even on the flight you would need to charge at least $46 one way before any supporting expenses.

Now let's say you want to continue on to SAN. 1171 miles with this leg and scheduled roughly for 3 hours. Operating costs are around $19,000 with this flight, if done with an MD-80 to keep things even here, or a CASM of 11.5 cents. That gives you a fare of $135 one way just to cover aircraft operating costs. So round trip you are looking at $362. Now to make it fun we have a new airline want to do OKC-SAN nonstop...assuming the block time is closer to 2.75 hours you are looking at operating costs around $17325 with a CASM of 10.9 cents. This gives you an airfare of $248 round trip. Great you think until you are the airline that provides connecting service trying to remain competitive, now you have to cut fares on the market itself and thus begins the issue of losing money to retain people in the OKC-SAN market.

Sure you could try to get airlines to rethink their air structure, but how you going to force everyone to play by the same rules? If people want to go back to the days of regulation, so be it. It also might mean being back to the days where airlines have to get route authorities or permission to offer various markets. I'm pretty sure no one is ready for that.

JTF not having much luck on airline threads this week.

What would be a better idea? People that complain about fares are usually those that have no clue just how complicated the revenue management formula is for airlines.


Ven, you know how much I respect ya and I dislike being a bit on the other side of the fence from you on this...but let me try to cobble together a response to this that doesn't make you want to throw an occluded front at me.

You're right in that most people don't know how complicated airline's route revenue formula is. They also don't know the transportation component in the meat cost of their McDonald's hamburger, the cost-to-market of a new drug, or the dealer's markup on a new car. The grim reality is that it's not their job to know. It's the consumer's job to look after his own best interest.




Sure you could try to get airlines to rethink their air structure, but how you going to force everyone to play by the same rules? If people want to go back to the days of regulation, so be it. It also might mean being back to the days where airlines have to get route authorities or permission to offer various markets. I'm pretty sure no one is ready for that.

All the illustrations about cost pricing models assume one naive fact - that the airline doesn't know the "hidden city" passenger exists. But you and I and the grand piano all know that they do, and that simple fact is, of necessity, already factored into those multitudinous calculations. It's when the idea that the actual number of hidden city fliers exceeds the model created by the airline's actuaries. And that, more than anything, points to why the airlines are now aggressively working to shut down this website. It disturbs the model. The model is built under the assumption that there is limited, generally fixed knowledge about the "hidden city" practice. Some pursue it, some don't, but when an unexpected actor enters the "numeric ecosystem" and perturbs the distribution of knowledge - the model is confounded, the numbers no longer work, and the lawyers come calling.

It also presupposes complete innocence on the part of the airline when the hidden city model works in reverse. I'm just not prepared to believe that actuarial model doesn't quietly include multihop routes the airline doesn't want nor expect to be used in their entirety. The model, in reality, almost certainly relies to some extent on some of those "last hops" not being used because of the way costs are allocated throughout the pricing and profit model.

This notion that "(a passenger) signed a contract to use all X legs of the ticket they bought" is, to me, just a little disingenuous. As a practical matter, you can *never* enforce that aspect of a contract. How would you? Armed guards on each airplane refusing egress if you didn't have a ticket specifying that destination? Forced restraint to mandate a passenger "abide his contract?" Or take the passenger to court and sue him for a breach that one might be hard pressed to demonstrate was material without disclosing the pricing model? Of course not. The simplest solution - contractually specifying an additional fee for not deboarding at the proper destination - is one that is conspicuously absent from the discussion (and the absence of that option reinforces my belief that the airlines, to some extent, want some of those hidden city routes to go unused). Beyond that, the closest you can get is to derive a pattern of users leveraging the hidden city beyond some constraint, again, one defined by the pricing model, and denying that person passage on your airline. Even doing that can be problematic, particularly when wholesale publicity to defend the practice necessarily entails blaming customers in general, and calling them unethical in particular. You can't buy that kind of...PR.

The presence and prevalence of the hidden city practice does not imply an alternative of a wholesale return to regulation. It means that the once-secret information relied upon by the providers of a good or service isn't secret anymore, and the pricing model that relied upon them is going to have to change. Shutting down one provider of information does not put the cork back into the bottle. I remember the early days of automotive pricing services that started to pierce the invisible wall of manufacturer-to-dealer car pricing and, in turn, infuriate dealers who used to say "we need to talk to them and get them to stop publishing this information." That idea didn't work very well for that industry, either. The information about hidden cities is out there, and shutting down one web provider won't change that. To me, it sounds like the actuaries need to adjust their model - and that's precisely the correct response in the market-driven environment. Punishing the provider of the information is the essence of shooting the messenger.

I won't pretend that airline pricing isn't a monumentally complex notion and the details go way beyond the coarse subtleties of a message board. FLyers jumping off a multihop route are a fact of life, and airlines aren't going to start strapping passengers into their seats against their will to make them "live up" to their "contract" even if doing so abides the absolute letter of the law. The reality is that more information is getting to the consumer, and the market has to learn how to reply - painful though it may be, and no matter how tempting it might be to simply suppress the information.

Can I still visit the chatroom, Ven? :)

Let me add - airlines routinely overbook flights. So much for having a contract to fly on a specific leg. Back to the McDonalds scenario - if you went to a McDonalds and tried to order a Big Mac, fries, and coke separately, they would default you into value meal automatically, even if you don't ask for it. The airlines do the exact opposite - defaulting you into the more expensive option if one is available. As a consumer - that kind of pisses me off.

Also, the price manipulated multi-leg contract would be fine if they also let me buy the legs ala-carte using the pricing model you outlined above. If the complaint is good enough for the cable industry it should be good enough for others.

Ven, you know how much I respect ya and I dislike being a bit on the other side of the fence from you on this...but let me try to cobble together a response to this that doesn't make you want to throw an occluded front at me...

....Can I still visit the chatroom, Ven? :)

LOL always! I'm no fan of the airline revenue management system. I hate overly complex things for the sake of being complex.

Let me add - airlines routinely overbook flights. So much for having a contract to fly on a specific leg.

And as a consumer, you have specific rights if the airlines don't fulfill their part of the contract. The airlines also have rights if you don't fulfill your part. That's how contracts work.

This is a typical contract you agree to when you purchase a ticket in case you want to read the multitude of pages.

http://www.united.com/web/format/pdf/Contract_of_Carriage.pdf

And as a consumer, you have specific rights if the airlines don't fulfill their part of the contract. The airlines also have rights if you don't fulfill your part. That's how contracts work.

In fact, the contract you AGREE to outlines the airlines right to oversell the flight.

Airlines fall under the same category as the music industry to me. For a long long time, they have been able to provide piss poor service at a high cost. Customers had little choice but to accept it or not fly/buy music. The internet has given customers an alternative. The music industry was forced to change due to websites like Napster (which was blatantly illegal). If Hidden City (which is perfectly legal) gives customers a tool to use to fight back, then good. I shed no tears for the airline industry.

Airlines fall under the same category as the music industry to me. For a long long time, they have been able to provide piss poor service at a high cost. Customers had little choice but to accept it or not fly/buy music. The internet has given customers an alternative. The music industry was forced to change due to websites like Napster (which was blatantly illegal). If Hidden City (which is perfectly legal) gives customers a tool to use to fight back, then good. I shed no tears for the airline industry.

What part of defrauding a company by agreeing to a contract you have no intention of following through is legal.

Everyone loves to hate the airlines.

Accounted for inflation, air fares are at some of the lowest costs in history.

If you don't like the price or service you receive, you are more than welcome to drive or take a train. Oh, that takes too long? Well, pay the cost of flying near supersonic speeds at a comfortable 5-8 miles above the earth.

Airlines, historically, have always lost money. The "outrageous" airfares don't seem to correlate to profitability, as airlines were generally unprofitable for 30 years straight.

You are flying on a $200 million dollar machine, the airline owns several hundred of them. The airline is paying insurance on them. The machine burns more fuel on one flight than you burn in an entire year. One computer in the cockpit costs more than your entire house. Unless you have a 1.5 million dollar mansion, in that case your house costs as much as the cockpit does. The airline spends hundreds of millions of dollars in training costs to make sure you have a competent crew. The airline forks over hundreds of millions of dollars in hotel costs, to ensure your flight crew is rested and safe to fly you across the country. The airline invests hundreds of millions of dollars every year to inspect and service the airplanes to make sure they are safe for you to fly.

and you want to complain about a $399 fare.

Generally, the airline spends $10 to make $1, one of the lowest profit margins of any industry.
I don't have the numbers in front of me, but If I recall correctly, United took in $12. BILLION in revenue last quarter, and spent $11.4 BILLION to do it. Leaving a small $600 million profit to pay debt and put in the bank for the next economic disaster.

Maybe you should instead have a problem with bars and restaurants that sell liquor. Liquor is one of the highest profit margin products you can purchase as a consumer. When you buy a drink at the bar, around 60% of the money you hand over goes straight into the profit of the business. When you buy an airline ticket, around 7-10% of the money you hand over goes into the profit of the business.


Just remember, that $400 ticket. The airline pocketed $40. The $10 drink you bought in the bar, the bar took $6.

What part of defrauding a company by agreeing to a contract you have no intention of following through is legal.

Pretty much every single part of breaking a contract is legal. Ever move out of your apartment before your lease was up? Ever cancel a cell phone contract early? Did the police show up and take you to jail? No.

Pretty much every single part of breaking a contract is legal. Ever move out of your apartment before your lease was up? Ever cancel a cell phone contract early? Did the police show up and take you to jail? No.

Hmm. Not really but there are legal remedies for when contracts aren't legal to begin with, or when broken, to assign damages for relief to the victim or even to require specific performance. (The court requires you to do what you agreed to do in the contract.)

Not every broken contract is a violation of criminal law, but that doesn't mean it's legal to break contracts willy nilly. It means you probably won't go to jail.

Well I guess we will see when this case finishes if it is legal or not.

Pretty much every single part of breaking a contract is legal. Ever move out of your apartment before your lease was up? Ever cancel a cell phone contract early? Did the police show up and take you to jail? No.

I have! Because my contract specifically stated I may exit the contract early if I pay a penalty.

It looks like the airline industry might be caught in a progress trap if the cost of providing the service is getting very close to the price people can afford to pay. No wonder their focus has switched to business travelers who can write the ticket price off on their taxes.

As for the contract, what would the airline do if I asked to negotiate it or offered a counter proposal?

And as a consumer, you have specific rights if the airlines don't fulfill their part of the contract. The airlines also have rights if you don't fulfill your part. That's how contracts work.

This is a typical contract you agree to when you purchase a ticket in case you want to read the multitude of pages.

http://www.united.com/web/format/pdf/Contract_of_Carriage.pdf

I know it does but the contract is weighted heavily in favor of the airline with the passenger protections only mandated by law. That is hardly a contract negotiated in good-faith and some could argue the customer was under duress when they entered into the contract by being told by airline websites that only a very limited number of tickets remained at that price (buy it now or we will raise the price).

I know it does but the contract is weighted heavily in favor of the airline with the passenger protections only mandated by law. That is hardly a contract negotiated in good-faith and some could argue the customer was under duress when they entered into the contract by being told by airline websites that only a very limited number of tickets remained at that price (buy it now or we will raise the price).

You aren't forced to agree to it. If you want to use the services the airline provides, you have to agree to the rules they set. If you don't want to, you can fly a different carrier or drive. (hint: all the airlines have similar contracts)

I have! Because my contract specifically stated I may exit the contract early if I pay a penalty.

Actually, the law allows you to break contracts. There doesn't have to be a specific provision in the contract to do that. What the penalty clause did was establish what happens if you choose to end the contract early. Without such a provision, the answer isn't as clear. But it is perfectly legal, and has always been perfectly legal, to not fulfill a contract.

That's what I am saying, it isn't a contract negotiated in good faith where both parties can make changes. If I told the airline I planned to not take the last leg they wouldn't entertain the idea and would refuse to sell me the ticket. They aren't licensing or renting me the seat - I am buying it.

You aren't forced to agree to it. If you want to use the services the airline provides, you have to agree to the rules they set. If you don't want to, you can fly a different carrier or drive. (hint: all the airlines have similar contracts)

So that's really no choice at all then, huh?

Honestly, this "you'll do it this way or else" attitude makes me have zero sympathy at all for airline companies. They remind me of the music industry more and more.

You aren't buying the seat. You are buying transportation. If you were buying the seat you would be taking it home.

you are purchasing transportation -- the seat assignment is up to the airline (most allow you to self-assign)

So that's really no choice at all then, huh?

Honestly, this "you'll do it this way or else" attitude makes me have zero sympathy at all for airline companies. They remind me of the music industry more and more.

You are free to run your company how you see fit. It sounds like you are too cheap to buy an airline ticket, so you assume the airline is out to get you. Airlines aren't exactly stealing money. Only in the past several years have they become profitable. And they are among the lowest profit margins of any industry still.

Hoya, you're free to go out and spend $12 BILLION of your own dollars every quarter on multi million dollar equipment, expensive flight crews, high cost fuel, rent at hundreds of locations, millions of dollars of ground equipment, millions of dollars of hangars and run an airline on $49 OKC-Tokyo fares.

That sounds like what you want, free transportation.

I just priced a ticket PDX-OKC for $594 round trip next month.

That's 21 cents per mile.

My cars fuel alone is 11 cents per mile. So, I can spend twice what I would on gasoline, and get to my destination 3 times faster. What's unreasonable?

You are free to run your company how you see fit. It sounds like you are too cheap to buy an airline ticket, so you assume the airline is out to get you. Airlines aren't exactly stealing money. Only in the past several years have they become profitable. And they are among the lowest profit margins of any industry still.

It sounds like you're just parroting the company line to me.


Hoya, you're free to go out and spend $12 BILLION of your own dollars every quarter on multi million dollar equipment, expensive flight crews, high cost fuel, rent at hundreds of locations, millions of dollars of ground equipment, millions of dollars of hangars and run an airline on $49 OKC-Tokyo fares.

That sounds like what you want, free transportation.

Why is the first response to a criticism of "this appears to be an unfair business practice" always "if you aren't a billionaire then shut up"?

Not at all. It's just unreasonable to expect airlines to provide transportation at a price that they lose money.

It sounds like you're just parroting the company line to me.



Why is the first response to a criticism of "this appears to be an unfair business practice" always "if you aren't a billionaire then shut up"?

What's unfair about a 10% profit margin?

I think we are missing the point a bit. By not taking the last leg, the passenger is actually saving the airline operating expenses (less weight, less baggage, one less can of Coke, etc...). The objection is being over- charged in the first place. That is the direct result of the airlines pricing model, not the cost to actually provide the service.

Actually catch, the only thing I've said in this thread is that airlines generally provide poor service for high cost, and customers have had little recourse other than to put up with it. Then I corrected the assumption you had that breaking your contract was somehow against the law (it's not).

I think we are missing the point a bit. By not taking the last leg, the passenger is actually saving the airline operating expenses (less weight, less baggage, one less can of Coke, etc...). The objection is being over- charged in the first place. That is the direct result of the airlines pricing model, not the cost to actually provide the service.

But you are holding a fare back on the connecting leg that could have been sold to someone else. So you could have cost them money as missed revenue on the connecting leg.

What's unfair about a 10% profit margin?

By itself, there's nothing wrong with any particular profit margin. I am saying that this particular practice appears to be overcharging the customer, and when customers are made aware of it, the airlines freak out and try to shut down the person letting others know about it.

But you are holding a fare back on the connecting leg that could have been sold to someone else. So you could have cost them money as missed revenue on the connecting leg.

They've been paid for the seat already.

The more I think about this, this could end badly for the airlines if it is found that the airline pricing model is fraudulent (specifically the hidden-city and throw-away components) and someone files a class-action lawsuit to recoup past costs.

They've been paid for the seat already.

...and presumably at a profit, which just became more profitable.

I wish instead you would think about how fares work.

OKC-PDX is a different market than OKC-DEN, and DEN-PDX. Each market has different levels of competition, thus the three markets will have different prices. OKC-DEN-PDX is sold as OKC-PDX and will remove inventory from the OKC-DEN and DEN-PDX market to complete the fare.

Buying a ticket OKC-PDX is different than buying a ticket OKC-DEN. Getting off in DEN with the lower fare is using a product you did not buy. You bought OKC-PDX. The connection city is not guaranteed in your contract of carriage. They guarantee travel from Origin to Destination, via many possible routings through hubs to get you there.

If you want to travel to Denver, you need to purchase a ticket to Denver.

I wish instead you would think about how fares work.

OKC-PDX is a different market than OKC-DEN, and DEN-PDX. Each market has different levels of competition, thus the three markets will have different prices. OKC-DEN-PDX is sold as OKC-PDX and will remove inventory from the OKC-DEN and DEN-PDX market to complete the fare.

Buying a ticket OKC-PDX is different than buying a ticket OKC-DEN. Getting off in DEN with the lower fare is using a product you did not buy. You bought OKC-PDX. The connection city is not guaranteed in your contract of carriage. They guarantee travel from Origin to Destination, via many possible routings through hubs to get you there.

If you want to travel to Denver, you need to purchase a ticket to Denver.

I understand how it works. I believe it is an unfair pricing system.

catch22 should be the last guy toeing the company line after recent events, but he's just laying it out how it's structured, no company line toeing needed

What would solve the problem is the airline calculating cost from A to B and B to C, add in fees for seat preference, class of service, boarding priority, add profit, and charge passengers that. They award frequent flyer miles based on each leg (not market) but they can't figure out how to charge by leg?

So that's really no choice at all then, huh?

Honestly, this "you'll do it this way or else" attitude makes me have zero sympathy at all for airline companies. They remind me of the music industry more and more.

Doing my best Lily Tomlin: We're the phone company. We don't care. We don't have to.

catch22 should be the last guy toeing the company line after recent events, but he's just laying it out how it's structured, no company line toeing needed

It is one thing to explain how it works, it is another thing to defend it. We all know how it works - that's why we don't like it. A 'here is how it works, and it sucks' response is a reasonable position to stand on.

Screw the airlines. They can go stick it in their ear.

While I have managed to save some money myself, I have yet to be able to get the ultimate prize. The ultimate prize is when you get off at point B and instead of eating the ticket to point C, you find out the airline overbooked and you volunteer to relinquish that ticket for a voucher at a later date. Maybe someday.

It doesn't suck, it's just incredibly complicated

Good luck with that. My flight got diverted last week and I got off the plane and drove the rest of the way. When I called the airline to see if I could get a credit for the flight segment I didn't take, not only did they say no, but that if I tried it I would have to pay a $150 ticket change fee.

Good luck with that. My flight got diverted last week and I got off the plane and drove the rest of the way. When I called the airline to see if I could get a credit for the flight segment I didn't take, not only did they say no, but that if I tried it I would have to pay a $150 ticket change fee.

If you volunteer at the gate when they are looking for people to relinquish, it is a different story. Contracts ya know.

Good luck with that. My flight got diverted last week and I got off the plane and drove the rest of the way. When I called the airline to see if I could get a credit for the flight segment I didn't take, not only did they say no, but that if I tried it I would have to pay a $150 ticket change fee.

thats gold, let me guess, you were talking to India?

Sadly, I wasn't. It was some guy here in the US. Even better though, I fly into ATL at 9PM and my flight to Jax is at 11pm. There is a 10pm flight to Jax but it is anywhere from $180 to $220 more. However, for $50 I am able to buy a stand-by ticket and take the earlier flight and I don't have to pay the $150 ticket fee. Go figure.

I'm not certain why Wal-Mart charges different prices for similar products?

Demand maybe? The earlier flight has more demand so they can charge more? All the available fare buckets for cheaper prices are gone.. Leaving the higher ones to purchase?

Don't fly if you don't like it. With 88% load factors, the airlines aren't exactly tripping over themselves to get you a cheap loss-leader fare. They rather hold fares back and sell them for profit -- like every other industry does!

I'm certainly not talking the company line, if anyone is more upset with the airlines right now, it is me. I'be been replaced by minimum wage workers and moving 2,000 miles across the country on my own. I'm not really that big of a fan at the moment.

But that doesn't change how the pricing structure works. And it's not unfair, and it's not out to screw people. It's an unregulated pricing market -- every route has fierce competition. And every market has a price. Connections facilitate lower fares and more flight options.

We can go back to the pre-regulation days. Airfares would skyrocket. If you wanted to fly to Denver you'd only have one choice of carrier. If you wanted to fly to Los Angeles, you'd have one choice of carrier.

If you don't like city-pair pricing, don't complain when it DOES give you cheaper fares, as it often does.

I get the demand argument you mentioned and should have included that in factors the airline can use to adjust fares to the same city at different times of the day. In some instances it is worth the extra $50 to get there an hour earlier, but it isn't worth $180 (at least to me). However, the fact that seats are available 10 minutes before departure does call into question the demand. I was 18th on the stand-by list 2 weeks ago and I got on.

Good luck with that. My flight got diverted last week and I got off the plane and drove the rest of the way. When I called the airline to see if I could get a credit for the flight segment I didn't take, not only did they say no, but that if I tried it I would have to pay a $150 ticket change fee.

Kerry, your negotiating skills must not be very good. I've dealt with the airlines countless times in similar situations with the traveler getting a refund for the unused portion of the flight.

I think the point is there souldn't have to be any negotiation. He paid for a segment that he did not get to use and should automatically get the credit regardless. The airlines don't get to have it both ways.

thats gold, let me guess, you were talking to India?

What the hell does India have to do with this?

What the hell does India have to do with this?

I understand the reference. What I do not understand is why so many parents in India name their sons Sam.

I think the point is there souldn't have to be any negotiation. He paid for a segment that he did not get to use and should automatically get the credit regardless. The airlines don't get to have it both ways.

I don't think anyone disagrees. Might be a case of just needing to call again to get a different agent.

There are plenty of people who work in the airlines, who are just very bad at grasping somewhat simple concepts. Nice people but just not on the same wavelength as the rest of the operation.

Surprising coming from American. I've always had wonderful customer service on them. When I reached Gold status back in 2010, I received a hand written card from a VP of the mileage program thanking me for putting up with their issues as they negotiated their way through bankruptcy. Thought that was cool. It was probably written and signed by some secretary. But a good token nonetheless.

The agents for the most part DO want to help you, often times they themselves are limited in what they can do under their sign-in. All refunds get audited. So if the agent you talked to was new, or had a bad experience issuing a refund he may have been nervous to issue. Or he may just not have understood the situation at all.

What the hell does India have to do with this?

In my experience dealing with outsourced call centers, they typically have less wiggle room, very much "if it's not policy I'm sorry I can't do anything." That's all that meant.

I think the point is there souldn't have to be any negotiation. He paid for a segment that he did not get to use and should automatically get the credit regardless. The airlines don't get to have it both ways.

When I said negotiate, that was with tongue in cheek. I don't call them to negotiate. I call them to tell them what I expect and it works it that kind of situation. And catch is exactly right. When I talk an airline agent who obviously doesn't understand what they are doing, I just politely let them go and call back to talk to someone who does.

And for those that think I am 100% pro-company line, you are incorrect.

The DOT has ruled that it will no longer push airlines to honor mistaken/error fares, so long as they prove it was a mistake reimburse the traveler of any expenses they had in relation to the ticket (non refundable hotels, rental cars, etc.)

http://cms.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/Mistaken_Fare_Policy_Statement_05082015.pdf

The airline should fulfill the contract they signed, just as Walmart and other companies do when a product is mistagged with an incorrect price. It's the cost of doing business.

If Delta or United publishes $15 fares, and a buyer purchases it, the airline should honor the fare. The airline should not have the power to retroactively cancel a contract due to it's IT department dropping the ball.

A fair proposal I have read, is that there should be a 24-hour period for both the purchaser and seller. If the airline discovers the mistake within 24-hours, it can cancel with no issues; just as the consumer has 24-hours to cancel the ticket if they no longer want it, or discover they had made an error with dates/times. But that doesn't seem to be something the DOT is wanting.

But that's not to say the current ruling is anti-traveler pro-airline, it is still very fair as the airline has to fully refund and reimburse you. If you book a hotel on a non-refundable date, the airline will be paying you directly for how much you paid the hotel. So, the traveler will walk away with no travel and no loss of dollars, and the airline will walk away with giving you your money back + what you can't get back for hotels and other travel costs.

So if you book a nonrefundable hotel as a result of a mistake fare and the airline cancels the "mistake" ticket plus reimburses you the cost of the hotel room - you still have a valid hotel reservation right? Because it's nonrefundable, and now you've been reimbursed. So now all you do is find a non-mistake fare to your destination (or burn some miles), and you have a free hotel room waiting for you. Sounds like a good deal to me!

In my experience dealing with outsourced call centers, they typically have less wiggle room, very much "if it's not policy I'm sorry I can't do anything." That's all that meant.

Careful. Not every center in India is an outsourced operation. My employer has several over there and they are all internal employees. "Global company" seems to be a concept lost on many people these days.

Careful. Not every center in India is an outsourced operation. My employer has several over there and they are all internal employees. "Global company" seems to be a concept lost on many people these days.

Fair enough, I bet they are better trained and more skilled than those outsourced operations, so I would expect service from them.