Naive airline question

[jsilvers]

The rule which requires offering a 24 hour "courtesy hold" isn't proposed, it's a rule. I don't think that particular rule is effective. I'm not sure if he effective date is 10/11 or 1/12.

The effective date is January 24, 2012. While you're technically correct that the rule already exists, I referred to it as a proposal because (1) by its own terms it is not yet in effect, and (2) Allegiant Air and Spirit Airlines have sued to prevent it taking effect (the case is pending).

I'm pretty sure the PP is incorrect with regards to Maine. I don't think price adjustments are required by law.

As previously noted, it doesn't matter what the law is in Maine. Airline pricing is governed exclusively by federal law.

 

[seashoreCM]

Only a small number of airlines will match their fare if there is a fare decrease.

Long long time ago many airlines would match a fare decrease.

In both cases you got a credit towards future travel, not a cash refund.

The purpose of matching the fare in the event of a fare decrease is in order to get more advance bookings and therefore more cash into the coffers sooner. Those airlines that stopped prce matching (or never did price matching) just decided that early bookings was not a high priority strategy.

 

[ExPirateShopGirl]

Airline pricing is no longer regulated by federal law. See Also: The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978.

Part 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations governs the airlines with regard to the Contract of Carriage ("CoC"). The CoC provides notice to passengers wishing to book flights the terms with which they must agree if they choose to make the purchase. It preemts any state law on the matter and allows airlines to set the fares and terms of those fares as they wish.

Of course... I could just be pulling this info out of my refillable mug.

The effective date is January 24, 2012. While you're technically correct that the rule already exists, I referred to it as a proposal because (1) by its own terms it is not yet in effect, and (2) Allegiant Air and Spirit Airlines have sued to prevent it taking effect (the case is pending).



As previously noted, it doesn't matter what the law is in Maine. Airline pricing is governed exclusively by federal law.

 

[jsilvers]

Airline pricing is no longer regulated by federal law.

Not strictly accurate. While it is now almost unheard of for it to intervene in pricing, the U.S. Department of Transportation still does have some ability to regulate fares. For example, some agreements with foreign countries are "approval" regimes which technically require the governments to approve fares. Likewise, Title 49, Section 41510 of the U.S. Code still technically prohibits carriers from charging less than their "tariff" prices, although DOT has made clear that it has no interest in enforcing it.

In any case, the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 specifically prohibited states from regulating airline pricing, in order to prevent the states imposing their own laws to replace federal law. But deregulation didn't turn out quite the way it was expected...

 

[Lewisc]

The effective date is January 24, 2012. While you're technically correct that the rule already exists, I referred to it as a proposal because (1) by its own terms it is not yet in effect, and (2) Allegiant Air and Spirit Airlines have sued to prevent it taking effect (the case is pending).

As previously noted, it doesn't matter what the law is in Maine. Airline pricing is governed exclusively by federal law.

People in this thread are attacking the OP over her choice of words. You are incorrect (not technically incorrect but incorrect). The rule is published in the Federal Register and has a definite effective date. Rules get repealed all the time. If the FAA rescinds the rule or the courts overrule it then the rule will no longer be in effect. The fact that the rule may not exist in the future doesn't mean it's a proposed rule. Do you really think the courts will rule in favor of Spirit/Allegiant and against the FAA and the other airlines?

States don't regulate airlines. The point is many business offer price protection.

Only a small number of airlines will match their fare if there is a fare decrease.

Only a small number of airlines give a full credit when their is a fare reduction but Jet Blue and Southwest are two exceptions. Those airlines fly a large percentage of passengers to Orlando. Up until recently most airlines offered a fare adjustment subject to a change fee. Current change fees are so high as to all but preclude price adjustments, at least for domestic flights to Orlando.

 

[alaska8]

Fares could also go up!
A "plane" is diviided into different fare buckets and its a departments job at an airline to watch sales figures....if a flight isnt selling then they lower the price of some seats to encourage sales, as sales increase (ie more demand) then they can limit the "cheaper" fares and increase the number of higher fares. These fares can change daily/even by the minute depending on number of tickets sold. Closer to the flight (sometimes a few hours before) they can slash the price of a ticket just to fill that seat. Its very complicated and always a gamble for the consumer

 

[lonegirl]

OP here. I am a resourceful person in many areas of my life, though airline travel is not one of them (thus the admitted "naive").
Again, never expected to be handed a refund, so I was inquiring if there was any slight chance that I was not aware of.
I guess a business does not have to "care" for its customers but I like to think that maybe they should. Call me old fashioned. and naive. Thanks to those who shared your knowledge!

 

[jsilvers]

Do you really think the courts will rule in favor of Spirit/Allegiant and against the FAA and the other airlines?

First, no airlines have sided with the government in the pending case, and the defendant is DOT, not FAA, so your question is fundamentally flawed.

Second, while one can never be sure what a court will do, Spirit and Allegiant have put forward a detailed argument that even if DOT has the authority to adopt the rule, DOT failed to adequately document its reasoning, which would be a basis to invalidate the rule.

Third, I stand by my description of the rule. Even published in the Federal Register, it is not now in effect, and there's a chance that it never will be. Rather than explaining all of this in a forum not devoted to the nuances of federal rulemaking, calling it a "proposal" was an appropriate shorthand.

 

[Lewisc]

I made a mistake. It is DOT not FAA. I didn't ask a question. Nothing is "fundamentally flawed". I made a mistake.

Your description remains incorrect. The policy is not proposed. Many (most?) laws and regulations have a delay between the time they are passed and the time they go into effect.

Calling it a proposal is not shorthand. It is wrong. There is a difference between a proposal (being considered) and a policy which is pending (promulgated but not yet effective) There are new compensation rules regarding "bumping" I don't recall anyone calling it a proposed rule between the time the rule was promulgated and the time it went into effect.''

Any policy/rule can be repealed before or after it's implemented. The fact that a court might invalidate a rule doesn't mean it's proposed.

To the OP it isn't a matter of caring for their customers. Some airlines use revenue from change fees, and from passengers who don't use their tickets at all, to offset lower fares. I think goodwill is a better term. Some airlines think offering a fare adjustment as "goodwill" promotes brand loyalty.

Others think passengers look for the lowest fare. Passengers who expect fare adjustments need to book airlines like Southwest and Jetblue. The fact that you booked tickets without researching price adjustment policy suggests Continental is correct. Offering price adjustments may not motivate passengers to pay a price premium and book that airline.

First, no airlines have sided with the government in the pending case, and the defendant is DOT, not FAA, so your question is fundamentally flawed.

Second, while one can never be sure what a court will do, Spirit and Allegiant have put forward a detailed argument that even if DOT has the authority to adopt the rule, DOT failed to adequately document its reasoning, which would be a basis to invalidate the rule.

Third, I stand by my description of the rule. Even published in the Federal Register, it is not now in effect, and there's a chance that it never will be. Rather than explaining all of this in a forum not devoted to the nuances of federal rulemaking, calling it a "proposal" was an appropriate shorthand.

 

[Ed J]

Sorry for hi-jacking your thread lone girl, it won't happen again.

I also apologize to anyone I offended with my angry comment, I was wrong not everyone in this forum is angry .

 

[ExPirateShopGirl]

Not on domestic fares which, I believe, is what we're discussing here.

Not strictly accurate. While it is now almost unheard of for it to intervene in pricing, the U.S. Department of Transportation still does have some ability to regulate fares. For example, some agreements with foreign countries are "approval" regimes which technically require the governments to approve fares. Likewise, Title 49, Section 41510 of the U.S. Code still technically prohibits carriers from charging less than their "tariff" prices, although DOT has made clear that it has no interest in enforcing it.

In any case, the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 specifically prohibited states from regulating airline pricing, in order to prevent the states imposing their own laws to replace federal law. But deregulation didn't turn out quite the way it was expected...

 

[kaytieeldr]

Of course... I could just be pulling this info out of my refillable mug.

We're sorry. All refillable mug discussion is restricted to the designated 'sticky' thread on the Resorts Board (note: no debate allowed). This Board is for Transportation questions and answers only.

Earlier in the thread, somebody mentioned feeling like the only person who doesn't read the CoC. Not true. I usually don't read it - but I do know the restrictions associated with any plane ticket I plan to buy. That includes (lack of) refundability, possibility of upgrading at the gate for a price, etc.

 

[jsilvers]

I made a mistake. It is DOT not FAA

You also claimed that other airlines have sided with the government. Again, that is also wrong.

I didn't ask a question.

You posted a sentence that ended in a question mark. Given that you claim that my shorthand description of a DOT rule that has not and may never enter into effect as a "proposal" was wrong, denying that a sentence that ends in a question mark was a "question" seems a bit of a stretch.

Nothing is "fundamentally flawed".

You asked a question that was based on two premises that weren't true.

[...]

I don't recall anyone calling it a proposed rule between the time the rule was promulgated and the time it went into effect.

A quick search finds various websites that similarly, as shorthand, described DOT consumer protection rules as "proposed" between the promulgation date and the effective date. See, for example, http://www.independenttraveler.com/blog/?p=2910.

 

[goofy4tink]

OP here. I am a resourceful person in many areas of my life, though airline travel is not one of them (thus the admitted "naive").
Again, never expected to be handed a refund, so I was inquiring if there was any slight chance that I was not aware of.
I guess a business does not have to "care" for its customers but I like to think that maybe they should. Call me old fashioned. and naive. Thanks to those who shared your knowledge!

Wouldn't it be nice if they did 'care' though??? Unfortunately, they have us over a barrel. And because of that, they can pretty much do what they want, within the law.
I'm glad you came back. And pay no attention to those nuts who continue to 'discuss' the 'law'....they do that all the time.

Sorry for hi-jacking your thread lone girl, it won't happen again.

I also apologize to anyone I offended with my angry comment, I was wrong not everyone in this forum is angry .

That's very nice...thanks.

Not on domestic fares which, I believe, is what we're discussing here.

Yeah, like I'm going to argue with anything you have to say!!!

We're sorry. All refillable mug discussion is restricted to the designated 'sticky' thread on the Resorts Board (note: no debate allowed). This Board is for Transportation questions and answers only.
Earlier in the thread, somebody mentioned feeling like the only person who doesn't read the CoC. Not true. I usually don't read it - but I do know the restrictions associated with any plane ticket I plan to buy. That includes (lack of) refundability, possibility of upgrading at the gate for a price, etc.

Oooh, someone wants to be a moderator...... I would think that you can pretty much recite a lot of the CoC for many airlines. You are too funny!!

 

[jsilvers]

Not on domestic fares which, I believe, is what we're discussing here.

Even if we limit the discussion to the domestic context, DOT still retains some limited authority over fares. For example, current regulations limit how carriers may increase fares after purchase. This apparently can be a problem when a consumer puts down a deposit on a tour package, and the price of the airfare changes before final payment. It also was an issue when certain aviation taxes lapsed over the summer. The taxes later were restored retroactively, but carriers couldn't then go back and collect those taxes from customers unless certain language already had been included in their contracts of carriage. (The IRS effectively mooted the issue by waiving any uncollected taxes.)

 

[Lewisc]

A quick search finds various websites that similarly, as shorthand, described DOT consumer protection rules as "proposed" between the promulgation date and the effective date. See, for example, http://www.independenttraveler.com/blog/?p=2910.

That article goes on to say:

Here are the rules that have been delayed until January 24, 2012:

The author used correct terminology later in the article. The fact that you can find internet articles which make the same mistake you made isn't really relevant.

Sprint and Allegiant are the airlines which are going to court. \

I'm sorry I confused you with my question. I was asking if you think a court will side with Allegiant and Spirit. My point was other airlines have agreed (accepted) the regulations when they decided not to join Spirit and Allegiant in court. The other airlines have indirectly sided with the government when they decided not to go to court. The fact that I incorrectly typed FAA instead of DOT in my earlier post doesn't change the fundamental question.

The 24 hour hold wouldn't have helped the OP. Many (most?) airlines already have a policy to accommodate passengers who make a mistake (typo?) and need to make a change shortly after making a reservation. The new rule standardized the policy and slightly improves the terms for some airlines.

edited to add I'm not sure the 24 hour policy will require price protection. I suspect most airlines will do price adjustments. I could see Spirit trying to work around price adjustments. Refund your money but delay cancelling out your ticket so you couldn't immediately rebook at a lower fare.

 

[jsilvers]

The author corrected himself later in the article. The fact that you can find internet articles which make the same mistake you made isn't really relevant.

You suggested that no one else used the same shorthand as me. We may still disagree over whether the shorthand was appropriate, but your suggestion was wrong.

Sprint and Allegiant are the airlines which are going to court. I was asking if you think a court will side with Allegiant and Spirit. My point was other airlines have agreed (accepted) the regulations when they decided not to join Spirit and Allegiant in court. The airlines have indirectly sided with the government when they decided not to go to court.

And again you're wrong. Putting aside whether taking no action on an issue is the same as indirectly taking sides on that issue, Southwest has also gone to court under its own name (albeit on a narrower set of issues than Allegiant and Spirit). Moreover, both the Air Transport Association of America (ATA) and the International Air Transport Association (IATA) - the membership of which includes most U.S. airlines - are supporting Allegiant/Spirit/Southwest on an "amicus curiae" parties.

 

[Lewisc]

You suggested that no one else used the same shorthand as me. We may still disagree over whether the shorthand was appropriate, but your suggestion was wrong.



And again you're wrong. Putting aside whether taking no action on an issue is the same as indirectly taking sides on that issue, Southwest has also gone to court under its own name (albeit on a narrower set of issues than Allegiant and Spirit). Moreover, both the Air Transport Association of America (ATA) and the International Air Transport Association (IATA) - the membership of which includes most U.S. airlines - are supporting Allegiant/Spirit/Southwest on an "amicus curiae" parties.

I said using the termed proposed to refer to a regulation which is promulgated is incorrect. I certainly didn't mean to imply you're the only person who makes mistakes. There is no evidence the author in the article you linked used it as shorthand. He used the correct terminology later in the article. There is absolutely nothing in the article which suggested the word proposed was used as an indication a court might invalidate the rule.

Again the question is how likely is it Spirit and Allegiant will get the 24 hour courtesy cancellation provision thrown out in court between now and 1/24/12.

Leave Southwest out of it. You know the Southwest challenge has nothing to do with Spirit's challenge. You know the Southwest challenge is over a relatively minor issue. How to disclose taxes/fees which vary with the number of flight segments and which airports are used.

 

[jsilvers]

I said using the termed proposed to refer to a regulation which is promulgated is incorrect. I certainly didn't mean to imply you're the only person who makes mistakes.

And the fact that others use the same shorthand indicates that while you may consider such a practice a mistake, your position is not universally shared.

[...]

Leave Southwest out of it. You know the Southwest challenge has nothing to do with Spirit's challenge.

You said: "My point was other airlines have agreed (accepted) the regulations when they decided not to join Spirit and Allegiant in court." You did not limit your statement to the regulations specifically challenged by Spirit (and by Allegiant). And once again, you were wrong. (And I did note that the issues on Southwest's agenda were different.)

And since you say nothing further regarding ATA and IATA, I take it you concede that your position that other airlines have implicitly sided with DOT is not correct.

 

[Lewisc]

And the fact that others use the same shorthand indicates that while you may consider such a practice a mistake, your position is not universally shared.

[...]



You said: "My point was other airlines have agreed (accepted) the regulations when they decided not to join Spirit and Allegiant in court." You did not limit your statement to the regulations specifically challenged by Spirit (and by Allegiant). And once again, you were wrong. (And I did note that the issues on Southwest's agenda were different.)

And since you say nothing further regarding ATA and IATA, I take it you concede that your position that other airlines have implicitly sided with DOT is not correct.

The article you linked didn't use it as "shorthand". The correct term was used later in the article. You want speculation? The article was first written before the regulations were promulgated. The article wasn't correctly updated.

In this thread you were talking about the 24 hour hold. In the context of questions raised in this thread Southwest isn't challenging the rule.. There wasn't any reason to bring Southwest into the discussion. You knew it wasn't relevant to the 24 hour hold issue when you posted it.

Other airlines would be plaintiffs if they had serious issues with the DOT position, and thought they had a shot of overturning it. I'll go with my followup post. Airlines accepted the DOT policy when the decided not to go to court. Do you really think American Airlines would rely on Sprint's attorney's if they wanted to, and thought they could succeed, in blocking some (or all) of the regulations. I agree amicus curiae briefs suggest some in the industry don't like the rules.

Regardless such a policy wouldn't help the OP. Probably won't help very many DIS with respect to rate adjustments.