I normally make fun of those who demand these things get honored. But in this case, i don t see how

Recent Comments Bill N on Enter Here to Win a Seat on Star MegaDO 4! thomas on How to Get Turkish Airlines to Match Your Elite Status (or Free United and US Airways Lounge Access ) Martin B on Enter Here to Win a Seat on Star MegaDO 4! Richard on How to Get Turkish Airlines to Match Your Elite Status (or Free United and US Airways Lounge Access ) bean on Enter Here to Win a Seat on Star MegaDO 4! Archives Select Month October 2012
We are writing in regards cruise ship to the travel you recently booked with Swiss International Air Lines Ltd. from Yangon (RGN), Myanmar. Unfortunately, as you must have been aware of, the fare you purchased was incorrect and resulted cruise ship from an inadvertent error that was out of our control. While SWISS honors its commitment to the highest level of customer service and safety in air travel, it must also honor its obligations to its employees and shareholders.
We are not obligated to provide our services for compensation that is obviously erroneously published cruise ship and commercially infeasible. We are aware that good travel bargains are quickly recognized and booked, however principles of fare bargaining dictate that a service provider does not give away its services for almost cruise ship free or at a loss.
Because the fare you booked was not valid, we will unfortunately have to cancel your reservation and ticket. We are extremely sorry for this error and we are not increasing the price of your ticket; rather we will promptly issue you a full refund for the total price you paid for the ticket. The full amount will be automatically credited using your original form of payment. In the event that you would like to rebook your itinerary at the appropriate price, please contact your nearest SWISS service center or your travel agent.
SWISS deeply regrets the inconvenience caused by the publication of the erroneous fare to the passengers who may have thought they had booked and purchased a valid ticket for an erroneous cost. We apologize for this unfortunate situation and trust your future travel cruise ship on SWISS is comfortable.
I ve never been one to argue over these things. I ve never felt as though I had a right to fly international first class for $500. I don t get litigious. Instead, my attitude has always been I m going to get in on this, it s like buying a lottery ticket. If the airline cruise ship decides to let folks fly around the world in a premium cabin at a deep discount, I d love to be one of the people that gets to do that! And if they don t, that s cool. Nothing ventured nothing gained.
This same route Myanmar to Canada was the locus of a mistake fare at the end of April. On the 30th of April it was possible to book fares similar to this, and tickets were issued by Korean Airlines. They cancelled those tickets. The US Department of Transportation got involved for tickets that involved a connection in the U.S. or that were issued in the U.S. And they required Korean to re-instate those tickets; re-instatement happened about two weeks later.
In this case it s already been a week since tickets were booked, without any communication from Swiss. Many of these tickets were issued by US agents. And many of the itineraries involved connections in the U.S., most often New York JFK. Which suggests that there will be some nexus with U.S. rules.
To be clear, not all of the tickets were issued on Swiss ticket stock . For instance, some folks have Iberia tickets. Those appear to still be in tact. Those folks whose tickets have been cancelled are getting these e-mails cruise ship from Swiss.
Does the prohibition on post-purchase price increases in section 399.88(a) apply in the situation where a carrier mistakenly offers an airfare due to a computer cruise ship problem or human error and a consumer purchases the ticket at that fare before cruise ship the carrier is able to fix the mistake?
Section 399.88(a) states that it is an unfair and deceptive practice for any seller of scheduled air transportation cruise ship within, to, or from the United cruise ship States, or of a tour or tour component that includes scheduled air transportation within, to, or from the United States, to increase cruise ship the price of that air transportation to a consumer after the air transportation has been purchased by the consumer, except in the case of a government-imposed tax or fee and only if the passenger is advised of a possible cruise ship increase before purchasing a ticket. A purchase occurs when the full amount agreed upon has been paid by the consumer. Therefore, if a consumer purchases a fare and that consumer receives confirmation (such as a confirmation email and/or the purchase appears on their credit card statement or online account summary) of their purchase, then the seller of air transportation cannot increase cruise ship the price of that air transportation to that consumer, even when the fare is a "mistake." A contract of carriage provision that reserves the right to cancel such ticketed purchases or reserves the right to raise the fare cannot cruise ship legalize the practice described above. The Enforcement Office would consider any contract of carriage provision that attempts to relieve cruise ship a carrier of the prohibition against post-purchase price increase to be an unfair and deceptive practice cruise ship in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712.
Korean was forced to reinstate very similar tickets. United was not when the 4-mile Hong Kong mistake award tickets were offered, they contended that the correct price was shown throughout and published on their website and it was only the final stage where the wrong number appeared. That seemed to be enough.
It will be interesting to watch how the DOT rules do or do not apply, I imagine that it took Swiss a week to initiate cancellations because they were working cruise ship with their lawyers to determine whether they had plausible grounds.
my guess is that since swiss does not publish any through fares between RGN and YUL and the mistake fare was also not a SWISS published fare rather it was a IATA generic fare and the tickets was issued on LX Stock 724 since their flight number is marked as the first carrier over the ocean on the reservation
Whatever the outcome it makes me think less of Swiss. The company should honor the fare even if it was a mistake. The fact that it may lose money is not a defense. This is a fare increase pure and simple.
I normally make fun of those who demand these things get honored. But in this case, i don t see how they can cancel the tickets. Seems different cruise ship that the UA award tickets where it was the miles deducted that caused the discrepancy. I can t believe i am writing this, but i think these travelers may have a case.
I m no expert at American law, but from what I read it seems as if the people who routed through the US might have a case if they file with the DOT? This cancellation letter might be Swiss way of weeding out the fares that need not be honoured or people who weren t really planning on flying the tickets.
I don t think this is like finding a mis-priced item on a store shelf and the cashier refusing to sell it at the incorrect price. This is like finding a mis-priced item, going to the cashier and paying for it with no dispute cruise ship coming from the store and then the store contacts the customer later at home and says it wants the product back in exchange for a refund because it freely and voluntarily sold it at a loss. Swiss is just wrong and behaving in a way that reflects poorly on its values. My two cents.
And by the way, how does the DOT enforce it? It s not like LX is a US based airline, and other than stop them from serving the US, which wouldn t go over well with anyone, I don t see what they can really do if LX (rightfully) says no.
We are aware that good travel bargains are quickly recognized and booked, however principles of fare bargaining dictate that a service provider does not give away its services cruise ship for almost free or at a loss.
Why should cruise ship it honor the fare? It is not a fare increase as they are cancelling the tickets they clearly say so in their letter and that is obviously based on consultation cruise ship with their lawyers. The only issue is whether or not the DOT will insist they honor the tickets on itineraries that involve cruise ship travel to/from an airport in the USA. Otherwise they have no jurisdiction.
One more thought: The assumption of the comments is that if Swiss s position is unlawful it must be only unlawful under U.S. law. I have no idea whether cruise ship what Swiss did was or was not lawful under Swiss law or the law of any other country. The letter quoted in the article cruise ship cites no legal authority whatsoever. It will be interesting to see what happens.
The US, and just about every country rightfully says that the EU has no right to a) tax foreign carriers, and b) tax carriers for mileage outside their territory. Sounds just like this, DOT telling a foreign carrier to do and telling it what to do on flights that don t come within thousands of miles of the US (Note that the US Senate passed a law preventing US airlines from abiding by the EU ETS).
The US complains that the EU charges taxes on US flights that land in the EU, yet somehow regulating flights that don t come within thousands of miles of the US is perfectly fine. Give me a break, the DOT needs to get off their high horse.
I agree with Gary and many here that while I normally would just say easy come easy go to such a thing, cruise ship Swiss s attitude here, and their shaky justification cruise ship for canceling ( I must have known it was an incorrect cruise ship fare, surely cruise ship ) makes me want to fight this.
And to the person who mentioned entitlement it s really not about that. It s about holding corporations to account and making sure they play by the rules. What if I were someone who didn t know what a First class fare was supposed to cost, and in the six intervening days since buying this flight I had booked thousands of dollars worth of non-refundable travel around it?
I don t think that when DOT passed those regulations it saw itself as being the vanguard of protecting poor mistake fare first class frequent flyers from Rangoon to Montreal from those evil, unfair a