crazy LAX-SYD on QF First $1200!!!!

[Oneworldplus2]

Why not, mistakes happen, $35 SYD-PER fares for instance:shock:

$38.48
Actually, the fare was $2, the rest was all taxes and surcharges.
LOL

 

[djfuzz]

Good luck to anyone who booked - would be curious to see the terms of sale, but I can't see how this wouldn't be an extremely commercially adverse error for AA/QF, and would think they'd be getting right on to correcting it (perhaps unlike the SYD-PHE one).

 

[Alanslegal]

We shall wait and see the outcome of this however given the lack of promotion / marketing of a 'super duper special' I would form the view that this fare is indeed a mistake. Someone must have forgotten to type in an extra 0 somewhere and thus we get $1,200 fare rather than the likely $12,000 fare I bet the in-house legal team at AA is pretty busy right now and we'll hear a response or outcome in the next 24-48hours I'd say.

 

[djfuzz]

We shall wait and see the outcome of this however given the lack of promotion / marketing of a 'super duper special' I would form the view that this fare is indeed a mistake. Someone must have forgotten to type in an extra 0 somewhere and thus we get $1,200 fare rather than the likely $12,000 fare I bet the in-house legal team at AA is pretty busy right now and we'll hear a response or outcome in the next 24-48hours I'd say.

True. But if they were really doing their jobs properly, they'd have had a solid E&O clause in their terms of sale that would provide some protection in such situations.

I absolutely can't believe QF doesn't have one, especially given some of the people who work for them.

[Edit] Speaking of which:

http://www.aa.com/i18nForward.do?p=/customerService/customerCommitment/conditionsOfCarriage.jsp

Fare changes

<snip>

If American increases the price for the transportation, an additional collection may be made for:
1. Any segments where you change your flight to a different time, date or routing from that shown on your ticket, and
2. Any segment shown as "open" on your ticket

Not rock solid, but there's some room to move there. The operation of the 'and' may create some ambiguity too.

 

[anat0l]

There may be some members on this board with an issued e-ticket for one of these fares...

If, hypothetically, there were, they may not want to draw attention to their exact circumstances in the event that that their genuine belief in the validity of the fare was to be questioned based on anything they happened to post on this site.

They would have a big smile on their face today though

Is that a guilty, attention-drawing smug smile on your face, Will, or are you just happy to see us? :mrgreen:

 

[Will]

Is that a guilty, attention-drawing smug smile on your face, Will, or are you just happy to see us? :mrgreen:

No comment at this stage

However, I will be able to keep the board up to date on any communications that may occur between AA and any hypothetical persons who may have purchased one of these fares...

$1.66 per SC... Paid first for the price of economy... nice deal

 

[Will]

Not rock solid, but there's some room to move there. The operation of the 'and' may create some ambiguity too.

Those T&C are pretty clear. If you stick with your booked flights, no additional collection may be made.

If any changes are made, they can force additional collection at that time *only*.

I think they will need to go outside of T&C to back out of this one...

 

[djfuzz]

Those T&C are pretty clear. If you stick with your booked flights, no additional collection may be made.

If any changes are made, they can force additional collection at that time *only*.

I think they will need to go outside of T&C to back out of this one...

They're pretty clear if they want to honour the fare, not so if they don't.

If the words 'any segments' were in the head paragraph, I'd agree with you, but as it is it's open to AA (or a court) to interpret it as a list of types of 'segments' rather than a set of conditions for the 'segments' - so at best, I'd say it's ambiguous.

But for the sake of certain hypothetical members, I do hope they let it go. I just can't imagine that they would for the potential exposure it opens them up to.

 

[Dave Noble]

They may decide , like BA with their recent error, not to honour the error fare which point there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth about how unfairly the airline is treating them .

Given AA will have to be paying QF for seats on the flight, I suspect that they may well not honour it, but time will tell and may also depend on how many cases there are

Dave

 

[markjb]

... Given AA will have to be paying QF for seats on the flight, I suspect that they may well not honour it, but time will tell and may also depend on how many cases there are

Dave

yeah cant see AA allowing this i am sure they are going over each ticket that is bought manually and calling people up soon and well sorry you cant have this but you can have this but you will be down the other end of the plane!

will be interesting to here if someone travels soon on one and turns up to airport to have Qantas ticket them in economy!

I am sure something will come out today about it.

 

[anat0l]

They may decide , like BA with their recent error, not to honour the error fare which point there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth about how unfairly the airline is treating them .

Given AA will have to be paying QF for seats on the flight, I suspect that they may well not honour it, but time will tell and may also depend on how many cases there are

I read a thread on the QFF board on FT last night about someone taking the p*ss to QF for being the world's worst airline over a bungle starting with an AS J award (or something like that - I'm not with AS so I don't know its intricacies).

I've also just read the thread about the whole debacle arising out of the latest Q1 HHonors promotion on FT.

I think there is a competition between Australians, Americans and the British as to who are the best complainers/whingers/cry babies etc.. I think the Americans take the cake on this one (not far ahead of the Australians).

I suspect if the ticket is not honoured there will be a lot of bashing of AA, QF and oneworld overall.

 

[thewinchester]

I suspect if the ticket is not honoured there will be a lot of bashing of AA, QF and oneworld overall.

Agreed, can smell that a mile off. You can hear the masses with a sense of entitlement, the same type who really got their panties in a knot over the DJ gold email fiasco, crawling out of the woodwork to spill forth their bile.

 

[medhead]

They're pretty clear if they want to honour the fare, not so if they don't.

If the words 'any segments' were in the head paragraph, I'd agree with you, but as it is it's open to AA (or a court) to interpret it as a list of types of 'segments' rather than a set of conditions for the 'segments' - so at best, I'd say it's ambiguous.

But for the sake of certain hypothetical members, I do hope they let it go. I just can't imagine that they would for the potential exposure it opens them up to.

They are also pretty clear if they don't want to honour the fare. Don't make any changes and they can't charge.

As for an interpretation of it as a list of type of segments the "and" actually makes that interpretation useless, as all "types" of segment would have to be satisfied in order to charge extra. If you have a confirmed segment that isn't open then if you changed it they couldn't charge extra as it wasn't a "change" of segment and an "open" segment.

 

[Will]

Agreed, can smell that a mile off. You can hear the masses with a sense of entitlement, the same type who really got their panties in a knot over the DJ gold email fiasco, crawling out of the woodwork to spill forth their bile.

No need to get rude before anyone has even said anything :!:

 

[markis10]

No need to get rude before anyone has even said anything :!:

+1 , pretty inappropriate comment given most of the lucky bookers would not even be based in Australia.

 

[djfuzz]

They are also pretty clear if they don't want to honour the fare. Don't make any changes and they can't charge.

As for an interpretation of it as a list of type of segments the "and" actually makes that interpretation useless, as all "types" of segment would have to be satisfied in order to charge extra. If you have a confirmed segment that isn't open then if you changed it they couldn't charge extra as it wasn't a "change" of segment and an "open" segment.

Not really - that was my point.

If [Condition A], then [Result A] for any segments of:
1. (Type A); and
2. (Type B).

Then Condition A requires segments that satisfy Type A and Type B in order to bring about Result A. This is what those who booked the fare would want it to say.

If [Condition A], then [Result A] for:
1. (Any segments of Type A); or
2. (Any segments of Type B).

Then Condition A requires either Type A or Type B to result in Result A. This is how AA should have drafted it in order to have a watertight response.

If [Condition A], then [Result A] for:
1. (Any segments of Type A); and
2. (Any segments of Type B).

This is the current wording and it creates a degree of ambiguity. It can be interpreted as inclusive as well as a qualification.

So the clause can readily be interpreted as a list of types of segments for which Condition A brings about Result A, just as easily as it can be interpreted as a requirement for segments to be of types A and B in order for Condition A to bring about Result A.

As I said - it's ambiguous enough to be read either way. It's only clear if you want it to be.

 

[mannej]

Agreed, can smell that a mile off. You can hear the masses with a sense of entitlement, the same type who really got their panties in a knot over the DJ gold email fiasco, crawling out of the woodwork to spill forth their bile.

Apples and Oranges really. The DJ fiasco was handled poorly (IMHO) by virgin. A sincere apology wasn't too much to ask for It could have been much worse for DJ if the media jumped on it but chose not to.

This AA/QF fiasco people have paid for a service at a price, and could be catastrophic depending on how this is handled.

The only similarity between the two is that I am sure someone is getting their backsides whooped in an office somewhere over these mistakes

 

[medhead]

Then Condition A requires segments that satisfy Type A and Type B in order to bring about Result A. This is what those who booked the fare would want it to say.

But it doesn't say that, that is how you've rearrranged the words. Of course if people don't change the ticketed flights then they don't care what it says.

Then Condition A requires either Type A or Type B to result in Result A. This is how AA should have drafted it in order to have a watertight response.

Not really. What about the case that one has multiple segments some are open and others aren't. Say I change one of my segments, and they charge me. Then I try to lock in an open segment, then we expect no charge because Result A only happens for Type A segments or Type B Segments.

This is the current wording and it creates a degree of ambiguity. It can be interpreted as inclusive as well as a qualification.

So the clause can readily be interpreted as a list of types of segments for which Condition A brings about Result A, just as easily as it can be interpreted as a requirement for segments to be of types A and B in order for Condition A to bring about Result A.

As I said - it's ambiguous enough to be read either way. It's only clear if you want it to be.

And I say it is not ambiguous and that was my point. As is, it is not an inclusive requirement. What is the meaning of the "for"

What it means is "If Condition A, then Result B for situation A and situation B" in other words:

If condition A then Result B for Situation A, and
If condition A then Result B for Situation B

To be an inclusive requirement is would have to say "If condition A, then Result B if Situation A and Situation B"

To further complicate this Segments of Type A and Type B are mutually exclusive. There cannot be a Open segment that has flight details on it. But an Open segment would have to be changed to a flight that is different to what is recorded on the ticket.

 

[djfuzz]

But it doesn't say that, that is how you've rearrranged the words. Of course if people don't change the ticketed flights then they don't care what it says.

I know - I was simply illustrating three different scenarios, and only the third is what is actually in the terms.

To further complicate this Segments of Type A and Type B are mutually exclusive. There cannot be a Open segment that has flight details on it. But an Open segment would have to be changed to a flight that is different to what is recorded on the ticket.

Fair point - I have to qualify all this by stating that I have no idea what precisely is meant by an 'Open' ticket - is it one that literally has no details other than the fare basis on it and no selected flights? I've had CX e-tickets that have flight details along with an 'Open for use' condition. Is that different to what you're describing?

Also, as I said earlier, I do hope this works out for the hypothetical lucky members who got in, as it's an incredible find (though my sympathy is limited for those that booked 6! ). But being realistic, I'd have to say that it may be wishful to think that it will stand as AA's exposure (as mentioned on the FT thread, likely in the tens of millions) is too great to simply wear it for the sake of avoiding negative publicity. Heck, when Dell does it they weasel out of their error sales for the sake of a hundred bucks each, so I can't imagine AA in their right mind (or with decent legal advice) wouldn't be getting out of it somehow.

And there was some mention on FT of it being similar to ID90 fares, which I'd also say is not entirely accurate - ID90 fares are offered on a space available basis, to eligible airline personnel and their limited nominees (on whom there are even more stringent conditions). They are on standby and not confirmed until after the flight closes, so there is absolutely no guarantee of a seat, and if a commercial sale is possible prior to the flight closing, the ID90 pax will always get bumped. ID90 sales are called 'non-revenue' for a reason - they represent nothing to an airline's bottom line, so fares so low that they only cover costs will never have priority over future potential commercial sales.

Anyway, medhead, I always enjoy these chats.

 

[trooper]

It will be an interesting ride for those who got in on it, that's for sure...

My experience is limited to the UA C deal to AKL... which was honoured without question..:mrgreen:

And the AC South America deal.. which was NOT!

Going to make for interesting reading!

P.S. I usually enjoy thewinchesters contributions on this board... but I too feel THAT comment was completely uncalled for...