Profile: travellingprin
This is travellingprin's Profile page. Use it to view travellingprin's comments, other users' replies to these comments, and comments travellingprin has endorsed.
What's Happening Now
That’s an interesting point. Many major airlines seem to have the policy that for customers canceling a non-refundable ticket, the entire cost, including taxes, is applied as a credit to future ticket purchases. They will, however, include a cancellation fee (approx. $100-150). This is true for JetBlue, United, and US Airways. Do any contributors know of airlines that do not allow the cancellation of non-refundable tickets to be used as a credit like this?
Southwest says they apply 100% to a new ticket but there always seems to be a price increase or that price ticket is not available or some other excuse so that you always have to pay more. Also the ticket expires in one year, so you fly or you lose it.
No comments
Any and all fees potentially associated with a fare should be disclosed in full, in a clear and concise manner. This should include differentiating between which charges originate from an airline and which don’t, and should also include a clear explanation of the differences between what rights you have at different fare levels.
The astronomical airport taxes levied at some international destinations spring immediately to mind as one charge that is mandatory for all fares, fixed, and something that will not vary if a consumer goes to shop with another airline.
As far as post-purchase price changes go, they should be considered fraudulent. It would be one thing if the airlines automatically refunded you money when they re-price a flight below the price you paid at time of purchase, because… more »
I’ve (knock on wood) never had to cancel a flight after purchase, but that blows my mind. LHR, the last time I flew there, had $400 in taxes on each ticket. If I’d cancelled, the airline would have kept the airport’s money? That’s insane!
No, no, no, no, no to a less-than-complete ban. If it’s not an outright ban, the airlines, hotels, and tour operators will quickly concoct schemes to give themselves the right to do whatever they want to their prices after the fact.
I feel for people with severe peanut allergies (and parents of those with such allergies); it must be terrible trying to avoid such a prevalent product. I don’t see how creating a peanut-free “buffer zone” around pre-registered allergic flyers is going to be genuinely effective in planes due to the recirculating air, and seems likely to cause conflict between airline employees and the non-allergic passengers being affected. An outright ban of peanut-containing products on board airplanes, whether they’re provided by the airline or brought on board by passengers, might be in order. That would likely also have to be coupled with a ban on the sale of peanut-containing products in airports. If we’re addressing hazards to the health of passengers from products that the affected… more »