Okay. While it's a different jurisdiction I'll bite, for now.
I'm well aware of the decision and it's on that basis that I can state your assertion is that ". . . the Rangoon passengers knew . . ." is wrong, as you yourself highlight later when you water down your statement. That is:
Which is quite different to:
In round one, yes, I was confident that the fare was an error. Because of that I waited a month before making non-refundable arrangements to get to RGN. But, by round three, it was getting ridiculous to suggest that it was an error, particularly when IATA had counselled members on the matter several months prior.
Airfare pricing is highly sporadic and subject to a multitude of factors and is very much opaque in favour of the airlines. This is different from, say, a litre of milk. The consumer knows that on any given day one can expect to pay a $1 a litre at the big two and maybe double that at a corner store or a 24 hour servo. But when it comes to an airfare from, for example, Perth to Singapore, one can pay anywhere from $89 one way to $700 one way. The price variation is so great that the consumer should not reasonably be expected to know what's a mistake and what's not.
I agree.
And there again you highlight what the CTA found, which is quite contradictory to your earlier statement. It's also false to state the CTA is a court. It is not; it's a quasi-judicial body.