Winning Over The Customers?
- Thread starter BoeingBoy
- Start date
youngblood
Senior
- Jan 17, 2004
- 373
- 0
KCFlyer said:
Correction, there are some fares out of PHL that are $50 OW that are refundable and can be exchanged without penality. The problem is Rates has yet to implement simpler fares throughout the system. As I have said before, life without a change fee would be a dream. As well as simpler fares and a better system. Sometimes it can take me 15 minutes to reissue a ticket because SABRE can't read the old fare old and I have to do everything manually.
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 11,322
- 1,427
bobcat said:
At the same time, it is kind of sad to see the "rules are rules" crowd failing to recognize one thing...your COMPETITION out of PHL doesn't have the "change fees". Your COMPETITION out of PHL will allow someone to transfer the FULL AMOUNT of a non-refundable ticket to someone else, allowing those who know that they have a "minor" problem, such as a brain tumor, to transfer the amount paid to someone else so that this person can use the ticket to do something like...fly to the funeral. And your COMPETITION empowers their employees to "bend the rules" when they can. Also, your competition has a group who can look at a complaint letter...investigate it....and make a determination about what to do. I am sure that your COMPETITION is glad to see that you support the "rules are rules" argument. The COMPETITION's policy is apparently attracting enough people to fill their airplanes.
You know...the "restrictions" on tickets highly benefit one party in the contract. In any other contract, such a contract is called "unconsionable". Under the UCC, unconscionability focuses on the terms of the contract themselves, which are unreasonably, unacceptably, or unfairly harsh, and so one-sided as to shock the conscience. A ticket is nonrefundable, non transferable, changeable only after being subjected to a hefty "change fee". Basically it's you and you alone who can use an advance purchase ticket. Every term of that contract benefits the airline more than it benefits the consumer. It isn't even close to being a 50/50 benefit.
WestCoastGuy
Veteran
- Jun 27, 2004
- 813
- 0
Seems like for some of these people that dont like the rules of the fare...then dont play the game. I agree with Bobcat...if I see an item at a store on sale thats clearly stated as Non-Refundable...I think twice befoe I purchase it. I know that if I purchase that item, then I can not change my mind and exchange it for something else or get my money back. Buyers should always be aware of all the rules that go with any purchase. Just because Store "X" will accept returns, doesnt mean that Store "Y" will do the same thing.
ELP_WN_Psgr
Senior
- Nov 29, 2003
- 419
- 0
KC, it's good to see you agreeing on this even if we don't necessarily agree on the Nov elections.
If you'd use one of those RR tickets to fly out to El Paso we could sit by the pool and I could convince you of the error of your political ways...and if I didn't get you to agree, I could have the twins throw you in. (Don;t worry, it's heated).
You need to PM me with a mailing address so I can send some video tapes of yours back to you one of these days. I've only had them what---4 years?
But back to the topic at hand ---
1. Regardless of what an airline publishes as their terms and conditions, customers are not being immature to expect to be treated well.
2. The purpose of onerous change fees and ticket transferability restrictions are there to extract more money from the consumer.
3. Airlines charging more or penalizing hidden city ticketing should be illegal and subject to fine. If a passenger buys a Buffalo to Orlando ticket for $99, and gets off in Philadelphia and throws the continuation leg away, that should be his call. He bought the seat from PHL on to MCO. If he wants to let it ride vacant, that should be his choice.
4. Airlines are in trouble not because they pay their employees too much or too little, they are not in trouble because passengers are afraid to fly in the post 911 world, they are not in trouble because other airlines encroach on their turf. Airlines are in trouble, by and large, because they listened to Hillary say the 80s were the "decade of greed" and they all thought it might be nice to turn the 90s into a decade of greed. The things airlines did to passengers, simply because they could, to use KC's language, was unconscionable.
If you'd use one of those RR tickets to fly out to El Paso we could sit by the pool and I could convince you of the error of your political ways...and if I didn't get you to agree, I could have the twins throw you in. (Don;t worry, it's heated).
You need to PM me with a mailing address so I can send some video tapes of yours back to you one of these days. I've only had them what---4 years?
But back to the topic at hand ---
1. Regardless of what an airline publishes as their terms and conditions, customers are not being immature to expect to be treated well.
2. The purpose of onerous change fees and ticket transferability restrictions are there to extract more money from the consumer.
3. Airlines charging more or penalizing hidden city ticketing should be illegal and subject to fine. If a passenger buys a Buffalo to Orlando ticket for $99, and gets off in Philadelphia and throws the continuation leg away, that should be his call. He bought the seat from PHL on to MCO. If he wants to let it ride vacant, that should be his choice.
4. Airlines are in trouble not because they pay their employees too much or too little, they are not in trouble because passengers are afraid to fly in the post 911 world, they are not in trouble because other airlines encroach on their turf. Airlines are in trouble, by and large, because they listened to Hillary say the 80s were the "decade of greed" and they all thought it might be nice to turn the 90s into a decade of greed. The things airlines did to passengers, simply because they could, to use KC's language, was unconscionable.
So I guess you agree with me, since what can be more simple, clear, concise and easy to understand than NON-REFUNDABLE means NON-REFUNDABLE.PineyBob said:
Surely even you can understand that "non-refundable" means that if you don't use the product or service, you don't get your money back.
Don't get me wrong-- it may indeed be a STUPID rule (I'm not taking a position on that)-- but it is not a hidden or confusing one, so if you don't like it, don't buy it.
Its not particularly hard to change the penalties on a fare to have exceptions for the death or illness of a passenger or family member.
Piney,
While that block of fare rule text you quoted back on page 1 is certainly confusing to an average person, it is nothing but minimum stay provisions, all which will autoprice. So the only thing it is good for is explaining why the passenger qualified for that fare. And how often does one care to know that?
Piney,
While that block of fare rule text you quoted back on page 1 is certainly confusing to an average person, it is nothing but minimum stay provisions, all which will autoprice. So the only thing it is good for is explaining why the passenger qualified for that fare. And how often does one care to know that?
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 11,322
- 1,427
WestCoastGuy said:
Then again, if I see a pair of Jeans for $20 but they are non refundable, and a pair of jeans that are $40 but ARE refundable, it won't break the bank to make that choice. But let's say I need to fly from PHL to MCI on Tuesday, and come home on Friday. There is a "nonrefundable" fare for $428.30 . But I'm just not sure...I might be diagnosed with a brain tumor and can't go. What are my options for a refundable fare? Well let's see, there's a $962.70 fare...wait a sec...the outbound is non refundable. Dang. Better check the "no restrictions" box. There it is...$1,602. That's way different than it is for a pair of jeans. FWIW, the fully refundable round trip on Southwest is $439. Seems to me that your headquarters is hoping against hope that customers aren't aware of all the rules that go with a fare...particularly a fare that is within $10 of Southwest's fully refundable fare. Especially for a fare that is more than DOUBLE Southwest's fully refundable fare. And if they read those rules and find that a refundable fare on US is $1,602 - my guess is that they will have a powerful motivator to pick up the phone and call 1-800-IFLYSWA.
I always thought we should offer insurance when customers buy their ticket. Sure, they could buy a less restrictive, more expensive ticket, but many people don't have that kind of money for regular leisure travel. Offering them a chance to buy the cheap ticket AND insurance to cover any CHANGE FEES would alleviate this problem. I've been searching a lot of the new fares and like the one way no restiction fares (maybe not the actual fares. but the concept behind them). This concept in the GoFare markets is kind of like offering the cheaper fare with a little premium for the flexibilty to change. I see that in most markets though we still offer something EVEN CHEAPER by buying a round trip. Some of the tickets I've looked at this week incluse about $138 rt TPA-PHL and $132 rt TPA-PVD after taxes. These tickets NEED to have heavy penalties on them or why even offer them in the first place? I know no ones knows when something is going to happen, but that is where the insurance would come in. You can still buy the CHEAPEST ticket out there, and for X amount buy insurance to use on that ticket if you need to change it. I bet you most people wouldn't even spend $5-10 more to prevent the $100 change fee from being applied.
You should see the people at the cruise critic board crying about the same thing with a cruise. They refused insurance and then had to cancel because of an illness. While I have sympathies for anyone who needs to cancel because of an illness, there should be an alternative offered (insurance) and if its not taken advantage of, then the purchaser is left with the decision they made NOT to take advantage of a more flexible fare or to purchase the insurance.
Also regarding a doctors note. Do you know how many sick people we had flying back when this was still allowed? I have a very good doctor and I bet for a $15 office copay she'd be happy to write me a note too. Sure beats the $100 change fee.
(Actually too, I think the change fee should be lowered to $50 and not waived for ANY reason except death.)
You should see the people at the cruise critic board crying about the same thing with a cruise. They refused insurance and then had to cancel because of an illness. While I have sympathies for anyone who needs to cancel because of an illness, there should be an alternative offered (insurance) and if its not taken advantage of, then the purchaser is left with the decision they made NOT to take advantage of a more flexible fare or to purchase the insurance.
Also regarding a doctors note. Do you know how many sick people we had flying back when this was still allowed? I have a very good doctor and I bet for a $15 office copay she'd be happy to write me a note too. Sure beats the $100 change fee.
(Actually too, I think the change fee should be lowered to $50 and not waived for ANY reason except death.)
KCFlyer said:
All right we get it, Southwest good, US bad.
Dont keep beating those of us who can't change things over and over again. There are a LOT of rules that I personally don't agree with and think that are consumer unfriendly, but as usual, no one asked me my opinion. Write to the people with the power to change it please.
In the mean time, next time I get a nasty note from the company for a change fee I overrode, ticket I failed to collect monies owed on, or any other number of things they are watching us front line people on, I'll feel better knowing that I at least won't get mentioned in the paper.
longing4piedmont
Veteran
- May 19, 2003
- 1,291
- 6
A piece of cake....... a fully refundable "b" fare.PineyBob said:
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 11,322
- 1,427
whlinder said:
I would imagine that they "know" no more that a person buying a US ticket. The difference is, the first time they have to change on Southwest, they'll find that they don't have any change fees. And if a situation like the one cited at the start of this thread came up, the absolute WORST thing they would hear is that while they can't refund the ticket, they can "credit" the amount paid for a new ticket for anybody else who wants to use it. So they can either give it to a family member, or...maybe find someone in a church group or some other social group, who would be willing to buy the credit from the person who couldn't use it, making them "whole" and letting someone else use the ticket.
But let me ask you this....what do you think the US passenger who checked around, found that SWA was $439 and US was $429 on a PHL-MCI ticket, then found they couldn't go, only to discover that the ticket is non refundable, and if they change anything, there is a $100 penalty. And do you think the average US passenger reads the verbage that Piney posted above?
longing4piedmont
Veteran
- May 19, 2003
- 1,291
- 6
KCFLYER
Do you post on flyertalk under the handle www.iflyswa.com by any chance? :blink:
Do you post on flyertalk under the handle www.iflyswa.com by any chance? :blink:
