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

[Danger]

Also, did you post to fora saying Quick, get in fast, QF have screwed up and you can get upgrades on the cheap creating a feeding frenzy?

No. I would have thought that was clear. And a feeding frenzy? I wouldn't have thought so!

 

[straitman]

Dave,

I have added a couple of words that I accidentally left out of the text you quoted in post #79.

I have no disagreement with your post, in fact I agree with the majority of it, however with words added your post has no context to my original post just as you have not answered the question I asked you.

 

[Dave Noble]

Dave,

I have added a couple of words that I accidentally left out of the text you quoted in post #79.

I have no disagreement with your post, in fact I agree with the majority of it, however with words added your post has no context to my original post just as you have not answered the question I asked you.

I have removed the quoted part since the quote has changed

As far as the question of would I be honest about undercharging, strangely enough as it happens, earlier this week I was having something to eat at a local place here and the cost of the food was $29.40. I handed over $50 expecting $20.60 change, but the person messed up and gave me $29.40 change by mistake. I did tell the person that they had got it wrong

Dave

 

[Maca44]

As far as the question of would I be honest about undercharging, as it happens earlier this week I was having something to eat at a local place here and the cost of the food was $29.40. I handed over $50 expecting $20.60 change, but the person messed up and gave me $29.40 change by mistake. I did tell the person that they had got it wrong

Dave

This is simply a matter of a person's honesty. You are either a thief or not, and larceny can be committed in many ways, one of which is "larceny by mistake". My conscience would not allow me to do it in any event.

 

[Lonely Flyer]

Its the old story I thought I was buying a Horse and he thought he was selling me a Cow.

 

[medhead]

I think all this talk about honesty is irrelevant to the AA situation. When selling or buying services there is no requirement for either party to get fair value. That is why we have caveat emptor.

AA offerred to fly people in first class for a price. Some people accepted that offer and paid up. The buyer has no way of determining what is in the mind of the seller. Hence they have no way of second guessing if this is a mistake or not. They can only accept that AA got the price right. These people also told their collegues "look AA has this great fare". IMO that is not a case of "lets screw AA". There are people on here all the time to tell us which airline has a great fare.

Having said all that once AA realise their mistake it is perfectly acceptable to try to correct the situation to mitigate their potential loses. None of the purchaser should have any reason to whinge about the subsequent retraction.

Has anyone been whinging about AA retracting the fare?

 

[samh004]

Find a mistake fare and try to take advantage , I would say (a) keep quiet since the less sold the less incentive for them to backtrack and (b) accept it is a win some , lose some situation in the shark pool

The only problem I could see with option (a) is that there’s always a power in numbers, and if only one person booked the fare, you might not even get $200 out of them as they could see you as easy to quash.

 

[Dave Noble]

I think all this talk about honesty is irrelevant to the AA situation. When selling or buying services there is no requirement for either party to get fair value. That is why we have caveat emptor.

There is not Caveat Emptor when dealing with a company; perfectly relevent for a private sale/purchase but not with a corporation.

AA offerred to fly people in first class for a price. Some people accepted that offer and paid up. The buyer has no way of determining what is in the mind of the seller. Hence they have no way of second guessing if this is a mistake or not. They can only accept that AA got the price right. These people also told their collegues "look AA has this great fare". IMO that is not a case of "lets screw AA".

Yeah right; AA was going to discount the $26000 fare down to $1200; perfectly believeable ; yeah absolutely.

Has anyone been whinging about AA retracting the fare?

Yes. See http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mile...98-fare-gone-aa-lax-syd-qf-first-1242-ai.html

There also seems to be little to suggest that people actually thought the fare was genuine

Dave

 

[Dave Noble]

The only problem I could see with option (a) is that there’s always a power in numbers, and if only one person booked the fare, you might not even get $200 out of them as they could see you as easy to quash.

If there was only 1 person is that the impact to AA is quite small if they did let it ride; large numbers of people make a huge impact; since the DOT determined in the BA fiasco that as far as they were concerned they just had to cover non refundable costs incurred not surprised to see AA take this approach and wouldn't be surprised if this becomes the norm in future cases

Dave

 

[haydensydney]

AA offerred to fly people in first class for a price. Some people accepted that offer and paid up. The buyer has no way of determining what is in the mind of the seller. Hence they have no way of second guessing if this is a mistake or not. They can only accept that AA got the price right. These people also told their collegues "look AA has this great fare". IMO that is not a case of "lets screw AA". There are people on here all the time to tell us which airline has a great fare.

I couldn't have said it any better medhead.

Quite frankly there needs to be some accountability from the airlines, especially when using the internet to transact business.

I look after a quoting/transactional based eBusiness system for a financial services company that manages hundreds of $mil worth of business a year. When we quote business and there is some kind of defect affecting price, it is commonly known and accepted that the business wears the stuff up (and corrects it accordingly) - the customer is not disadvantaged. I disagree with airlines that quote & sell tickets and then retract the offer of sale / impose pricing conditions. Its their stuff up & someone at the airline needs to get a wrap over the knuckles for their poor performance (probably similar to that DJ employee that sent the Gold email!) - its not the customers fault whatsoever.

 

[medhead]

There is not Caveat Emptor when dealing with a company; perfectly relevent for a private sale/purchase but not with a corporation.


Yeah right; AA was going to discount the $26000 fare down to $1200; perfectly believeable ; yeah absolutely.

Thanks for the link. It'll be interesting to see the basis of the whinge.

I think you miss the full range of meaning of caveat emptor. Yes when dealing with a corporation consumers are unlikely to get a dud or to not get fault things replaced. but there is also the question of value. Consumers have to protect themselves to ensure they get value from their purchase. i.e if they buy at company A they need to make sure company B doesn't sell a better product for less.

The same applies to a company, there is no legal requirement for them to make a profit on selling their products. A company is perfectly entitled to sell their products for below cost. Which gets to my second point, no matter how unbelievable a fare may seem, as a consumer I'm not required to second guess the reasons why an airline might set a fare at a certain level.

I'd also mention that while you might find the fare unbelievable, my mum (LTQP, flies a little bit NB-PS range) would not, such is her experience of such things.

 

[Dave Noble]

Thanks for the link. It'll be interesting to see the basis of the whinge.

I think you miss the full range of meaning of caveat emptor. Yes when dealing with a corporation consumers are unlikely to get a dud or to not get fault things replaced. but there is also the question of value. Consumers have to protect themselves to ensure they get value from their purchase. i.e if they buy at company A they need to make sure company B doesn't sell a better product for less.

The same applies to a company, there is no legal requirement for them to make a profit on selling their products. A company is perfectly entitled to sell their products for below cost. Which gets to my second point, no matter how unbelievable a fare may seem, as a consumer I'm not required to second guess the reasons why an airline might set a fare at a certain level.

I'd also mention that while you might find the fare unbelievable, my mum (LTQP, flies a little bit NB-PS range) would not, such is her experience of such things.

Caveat Emptor is purely related to the purchaser and nothing to do with the seller given that it means Let the Buyer Beware. This has no standing in a purchase from a company where statutory issues such as legal protections where item is not fit for purpose protects these days. In the case of a private purchase of 2nd hand goods, then it can apply

e.g. if buying a DVD player and it does not work as desribed, then there is a legal entitlement to return the goods and get a refund; no longer does the buyer have to beware. That is Caveat Emptor in its entirety

As far as the seller side goes, should it exist, then that would be Caveat venditor.


Dave

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Anonymous Crowd got it right on FlyerTalk.

(Fare Gone) AA: LAX-SYD in (QF) FIRST $1242 AI - Page 43 - FlyerTalk Forums

AnonymousCoward

Originally Posted by BigBopper
"It truly looked like a legitimate fare. If someone like me who's been Exp for 10 years and books numerous international premium flights on aa.com each year thinks it's a legitimate fare then how would the general public every think it's not legit?"

You are kidding right?

Which long-haul QF flights can you book, anywhere in the world, for anything close to $1000? None, zero, zilch. Even SYD-SIN return is A$6000 or so, let alone SYD-LAX.

Furthermore QF A380 first suites are the current premiere OW cabin - the newest and best hard product in the entire alliance. Having flown a few times in A380 suites, they are head/shoulders above anything else in OW currently. No one gives this away for $1000.

And lastly, which OW carriers do you book long haul F for those types of prices? I'm pretty sure you can't book BA or CX or QF anywhere for $1000 return.

There is no way that any experienced traveller - especially one who books in premium cabins - would think this is a legitimate sale fare. Every such person would know it's a mistake.

That's not to say that airlines shouldn't honour their mistakes.

But to claim that it looks like a legitimate sale fare is simply ridiculous for an experienced traveller to claim.

 

[Alanslegal]

If you rescinding tens (or maybe hundreds) of error First Class fares is wrong, you gotta feel sorry for this poor chap......


Punter's winnings dwindle from $12 million to $55

 

[Mal]

According to AA, bookings were in the in the very low three figures

KRALEV: Airlines refuse to honor mistake fares - Washington Times

(quite a good article discussing the situation from the journo I referenced earlier in this thread).

 

[JohnK]

What surprises me the most is that there are people out there who are constantly looking out for mistakes from airlines, hotels, reward programs etc.

Mal, I also agree with you about airlines having everything their way. If we make a genuine mistake then we have to wear the consequences of our genuine mistake.

Having said all that though I do not have any sympathy for those that got on to this mistake deal and no longer have it. The alternative deal and the compensation offered by AA is more than adequate for any inconvenience caused.

 

[medhead]

Caveat Emptor is purely related to the purchaser and nothing to do with the seller given that it means Let the Buyer Beware. This has no standing in a purchase from a company where statutory issues such as legal protections where item is not fit for purpose protects these days. In the case of a private purchase of 2nd hand goods, then it can apply

As I said the buyer (not the seller) has to beware that they are getting value for money. The seller is not obligated to provide the best price. If the buyer buys a product a store A and then sees it half price at Store B they can't take it back and get a refund from Store A. In that way caveat emptor extends beyond just faulty goods for the buyer.

Yes, sorry I gave the wrong impression that I was also applying this to the seller. Obviously buyer beware doesn't apply to the seller. But the reverse of the above does apply to the seller, they are totally free to sell their products for whatever price they choose, even at a loss. The buyer has no ablility to determine what the seller is thinking in setting a price.

 

[medhead]

Anonymous Crowd got it right on FlyerTalk.

(Fare Gone) AA: LAX-SYD in (QF) FIRST $1242 AI - Page 43 - FlyerTalk Forums

Actually Anonymous Crowd is only half right. They have put in a massive caveat:

any experienced traveller

Might be true. But an inexperienced traveller has no way of knowing all of the facts that the experienced traveller knows. The inexperienced traveller only has the option to accept that the airline knows their business and has got the price right.

 

[Dave Noble]

Might be true. But an inexperienced traveller has no way of knowing all of the facts that the experienced traveller knows. The inexperienced traveller only has the option to accept that the airline knows their business and has got the price right.

The inexperienced traveller is probably not hanging around a forum waiting for someone to make a mistake and then out to screw them over for making it.


Dave

 

[drewbles]

The inexperienced traveller is probably not hanging around a forum waiting for someone to make a mistake and then out to screw them over for making it.


Dave

Yes but if they happened to be booking a first class flight at the time, and purchased it?

I don't blame AA for doing what they've done as a response, and i'm sure a lot, if not all, of the people booking the fare knew the score, but there is of course a chance that someone who flys once every 20 years honestly didn't know, and booked it thinking it was a legitimate fare.

Sometimes you have to not play devils advocate, Dave