Mel-lax oct/nov rt from $444 us qantas

[blackcat20]

Curious to see how this place given people have a contract with the OTA and not with QF directly. As I see it, surcharges have been cut and the fate paid is correct (and no I didn't book despite having the opportunity).

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Curious to see how this place given people have a contract with the OTA and not with QF directly. As I see it, surcharges have been cut and the fate paid is correct (and no I didn't book despite having the opportunity).

The travel agent is an agent for the airline, not the passenger. In the Rangoon Swiss cases, the issue of on-line agencies and contracts didn't come up - it was a matter between the passenger and the airline.

 

[opusman]

An update for you savvy AFFers celebrating Xmas in July with these mistake fares: they’re not valid and have been removed from sale. We’re currently following up affected bookings.

I hate to say I told you so, but...

 

[smit0847]

Curious to see how this place given people have a contract with the OTA and not with QF directly. As I see it, surcharges have been cut and the fate paid is correct (and no I didn't book despite having the opportunity).

OTAs would be crazy not to have a mistake fare clause in their ts and cs given how regularly mistake farea happen.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

OTAs would be crazy not to have a mistake fare clause in their ts and cs given how regularly mistake farea happen.

I'm not sure this is relevant? My understanding is that third parties file fares on behalf of airlines, and travel agents sell them. It's not a case of travel agents making up the fares. But that's all something that would need to be explained by the airline seeking to cancel these.

 

[Shanye2233]

Anyone affected by a purported cancellation should contact Consumer Affairs in their state, or seek legal advice. Just 'because' an airline tries to say they aren't valid doesn't mean that is the case!

Easy tiger !

 

[DC3]

Mistake? I feel another PR fiasco coming.

 

[yohy?!]

....redroo is being way too diplomatic...because they have to be!!...but for all you people who did fall for this...don't blame QF (or any other airline involved)...these fares appeared on a 3rd party website...out of the affected airlines' control...but now the affected airlines are left to clean up the mess of the 3rd party!!!!

B.S.

That is all

 

[SeatBackForward]

Maybe the Qantas IT winter industrial experience kid put in the Seat Cost field rather than the Seat Revenue field?

 

[GalaxyNexus]

But isn't it Qantas (the airline) who does all the fare filing? The 3rd party just show what they've got through GDS, no?

 

[amaroo]

Enjoy threads like this one....

 

[russ]

Looks like Qantas has developed a new M class fare

F = First (nice bed)
J = Business (reasonable bed)
Y = Economy (seat)
M = Mistake (nothing at all)

 

[MEL_Traveller]

But isn't it Qantas (the airline) who does all the fare filing? The 3rd party just show what they've got through GDS, no?

someone with more knowledge will chime in here... but on the Swiss Rangoon fares, there was a third party... APTCO (or something similar to that) that was responsible for filing all the fares onto the system.

IIRC, in that case Swiss initially argued they could avoid the fare because their fare tariff allowed them to exempt mistake fares on the basis of a technical error. The CTA (Canada) wasn't satisfied that was the case (ie technical error) and the initial 7 passengers were successful against Swiss (although that is currently subject to appeal). But that was the wording of the Swiss tariff, and different airlines have different wording.

swiss later argued there was in fact no contract because of the mistake element. no contract = no fare tariff, and general contract law applies. The CTA agreed it was a mistake, on the facts of the case, and subsequent claims were denied (somewhere in the region of 85 people).

DOT is different again, it has consumer protection overriding both of the above... now perhaps limited... except the airline still has to prove it was a mistake.

 

[Cool Cat Phil]

I must admit I was extremely tempted by some of today's mistake fares, but the age old saying came to mind :
" If seems too good to be to be true, it probably is".
Glad I didn't book

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Some timely reference information:

Yes, but, the airline still has to prove it was a mistake. That information may be valuable for people potentially bringing action here in Australia.

 

[opusman]

Would be nice to see QF come through with some points or maybe a discount on a future booking for those who did book one of these.

 

[zainman]

I must admit I was extremely tempted by some of today's mistake fares, but the age old saying came to mind :
" If seems to be good to be true, it probably is".
Glad I didn't book

Why not book and then wait to see what happens? Worst case scenario they cancel and there is no penalty for cancellation.. why glad not to book? Lol I'm certainly glad I booked and looking forward to what the outcome is. No harm done.

 

[PLANT]

They looked like staff travel with Qantas TAX fares to me....

 

[JohnK]

Is there a single person out there that didn't think these fares were a mistake? It's all over the internet. I was even tempted to book to BKK but didn't want to tie up my money for a few hundred dollars saving that is not likely to be honoured.

Good luck if they are honoured but I wouldn't be holding my breath.

 

[adrianb]

Nearly booked but figured it was too good to be true so we didn't. Now reading this thread potentially glad we didn't - trying to get a refund from CheapoAir who had the price mentioned isn't something I imagine I'd have enjoyed!