Naive airline question

[lost*in*cyberspace]

Wow. Does everyone except me read it?
We just refinanced our mortgage that came with a stack of papers thicker than any Bible and it would take us 10 years to read the whole thing.

Reading a contract of carriage or just briefly browsing an airline's website to get some idea of their policies hardly compares to reading mortgage documentation, although I personally think anyone who signs a legal document without reading it first is foolish.

I don't think anyone should be proud of being ignorant (not directed expressly to above poster) or think it's funny that anyone would want practice due diligence and actually read and understand what he or she is signing.

 

[jsilvers]

The article you linked didn't use it as "shorthand". The correct term was used later in the article.

So, in other words, the first usage was shorthand. Again, you're free not to like the usage, but your standards aren't universal.

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.

It's true that Southwest's challenge does not concern the 24 hour rule, but that's certainly not the only topic to have been discussed. Your comments didn't specify that only the 24-hour rule was your topic. Could it be, out of a desire not to gum up a thread with unnecessarily detailed explanations, that you were using ... shorthand!?

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.

And I specifically noted that Southwest's agenda was different. But don't blame me for your use of shorthand.

Other airlines would be plaintiffs if they had serious issues with the DOT position, and thought they had a shot of overturning it.

Unless you're somehow involved with those airlines, you don't know their reasoning. But generally speaking, there's no need for a hoard of plaintiffs if a small group can do the job, and (my own conceded pure speculation) other carriers may be happy to see Spirit and Allegiant take all the heat.

 

[Lewisc]

So, in other words, the first usage was shorthand. Again, you're free not to like the usage, but your standards aren't universal.



It's true that Southwest's challenge does not concern the 24 hour rule, but that's certainly not the only topic to have been discussed. Your comments didn't specify that only the 24-hour rule was your topic. Could it be, out of a desire not to gum up a thread with unnecessarily detailed explanations, that you were using ... shorthand!?



And I specifically noted that Southwest's agenda was different. But don't blame me for your use of shorthand.



Unless you're somehow involved with those airlines, you don't know their reasoning. But generally speaking, there's no need for a hoard of plaintiffs if a small group can do the job, and (my own conceded pure speculation) other carriers may be happy to see Spirit and Allegiant take all the heat.

The article you quoted would have been consistent if it was shorthand. The correct usage was contained later in the article.

The topic being discussed was the 24 hour refund rule. Southwest isn't contesting it so it's not relevant to this discussion.

You're right I don't know their reasoning. All I know is a business who has a real issue with a regulation goes to court. The issues Spirit is contesting goes far beyond what other airlines are objecting to.

I'll speculate one reason Continental isn't going to court to block the 24 hour policy is it already has a similar rule.

Continental’s 24-hour Flexible Booking policy allows the flexibility to make changes to your reservations within 24 hours of purchasing your ticket, without incurring change fees. This includes canceling your reservation and requesting a 100% refund of the ticket price.

 

[Alesia]

Nothing like a good battle over semantics to make me look like a liar. Thanks guys

 

[ExPirateShopGirl]

Let's limit our discussion to fares, as taxes aren't at all the same thing.

Also, most tour operators require a deposit equal to or greater than the airfare portion (if included) at the time of booking so the operator can guarantee that rate before the package was paid in full. I don't book tours for myself, but the last time I booked them for my children this was true.

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.)

 

[jsilvers]

Let's limit our discussion to fares, as taxes aren't at all the same thing.

Actually, the regulations that I mentioned aren’t limited to taxes, although that is why they received attention over the summer.

Previously, the rule was that an airline could raise its prices after a completed purchase, if it warned customers of that possibility in its contract of carriage. Apparently, no airline ever actually did that, but DOT’s recent batch of rules imposed stricter requirements on airline pricing practices. Now, after a completed purchase, an airline can raise its price only due to a tax increase (and, again, only if customers were warned of that possibility in its contract of carriage). But if a purchase is not complete – that is to say, the passenger only put down a deposit, as is often the case for tour packages – the airline can raise its price (but again, only if customers were warned of that possibility in its contract of carriage).

Airline “deregulation” has always been a bit of a misnomer. While a lot of rules were abolished in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s, there’s still a considerable amount of regulation left. For pricing they may be 99% gone, but not 100%.

 

[goofy4tink]

You know, I think the OP got her answer...and then some. Since we are no longer discussing her question, but have gotten waaaaay off track here, I think we're done.