Virgin fare rip off

[jneufeld]

It would appear the issue has been fixed. With a couple of dummy booking that I just did balancing out.

 

[webslave]

It was caused by a Sabre upgrade and allegedly was around since last Tuesday. It was set to be fixed today.

The message at the top of the page was indeed in reference to this issue. The problem is that the fares being displayed by Sabre were having taxes calculated using a different (incorrect) method to that used by the VA website (in generating the total).

 

[love_the_life]

I thought the view was that the problem has been around a lot longer than last Tuesday though I had never noticed.
At least it is fixed now….wonder what the next glitch will be???

 

[eastwest101]

I think it was fixed/patched in 2013 but reappeared anout the same time that medhead noticed.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

I think it was fixed/patched in 2013 but reappeared

Let's all hope they patch their planes better than they patch their computer systems.

 

[medhead]

I think there may be 2 issues. The current round was only a couple of dollars different on both saver and flexi fares. Whereas the first issue I had was about $17 different that was not explained by the difference between the outbound and return legs.

 

[Journalist]

HI there
Did anyone capture screenshots of the error? If yes, can you post it here so I can see what you mean?

Ta

 

[ethernet]

It would appear the issue has been fixed. With a couple of dummy booking that I just did balancing out.

The blame lies with the manager who approved the testing.
And the manager above him who ticked 'go live' - with a history of ooops.
Cutting corners and costs by cutting testing or having the testing team dumbed down will do it.
Sometimes 'good enough' becomes 'production', and in this case they were agile enough to fix it on a live system, again.

If it was an incorrect tax calculation, then the preparation tab on the script is still deficient - or more likely cloned blindly from a test script somewhere else. The IT provider is probably not Virgin, and the multinational team responsible will not be happy, as these boo boos will come out of their meager profits. The relationship is probably getting quite poisonous.

 

[Mattg]

HI there
Did anyone capture screenshots of the error? If yes, can you post it here so I can see what you mean?

Ta

I thought I had taken a screenshot. Turns out I didn't (which is surprisingly as I tend to take screenshots all the time) but to show you what we mean, here's an example of the booking page for CBR-SYD return:


Earlier in the week (until the glitch was fixed) it would have looked like this EXCEPT that the return flights (only) in saver lite were showing as $126.21. But when the outbound flight for $129.00 and the return flight for $126.21 were selected, the Total came to $258.00 - same as on here.

 

[medhead]

Here are screen shots of the most recent that I got. Journalist If you are a journalist, I'll note there is an area on the forum for official media requests.

Out bound price $129
View attachment 34474

Return $126.99, but full price $258 (2x$129)
View attachment 34475

 

[Deleted member 29185]

The relationship is probably getting quite poisonous.

Now that's something you really want when your whole operation is 100% reliant on IT!

 

[pauly7]

It would appear the issue has been fixed. With a couple of dummy booking that I just did balancing out.

Good that it is fixed.

Wonder how Virgin will go about refunding everyone?

VFF rep......?

 

[webslave]

Wonder how Virgin will go about refunding everyone?

What refund? You still paid the correct airfare, even if in one place it was displayed incorrectly. To claim damages you'd have to know how much your loss was, and if you knew how much your loss was then you couldn't claim damages...

 

[mannej]

What refund? You still paid the correct airfare, even if in one place it was displayed incorrectly. To claim damages you'd have to know how much your loss was, and if you knew how much your loss was then you couldn't claim damages...

Is that correct in consumer law though?

 

[webslave]

Is that correct in consumer law though?

Yes and no. No in that you are not meant to drip price (although whether you could successfully argue they were is a matter of some debate). Yes in that if you know how much your loss was then you were not deceived by their representation of pricing.

 

[woodborer]

Is that correct in consumer law though?

When you selected your flights, the total price (subject to your view on credit card fees), was displayed correctly on the very first page. It would be interesting to listen to lawyers argue their cases (or maybe it would be me to tears)

 

[medhead]

What refund? You still paid the correct airfare, even if in one place it was displayed incorrectly. To claim damages you'd have to know how much your loss was, and if you knew how much your loss was then you couldn't claim damages...

Yes and no. No in that you are not meant to drip price (although whether you could successfully argue they were is a matter of some debate). Yes in that if you know how much your loss was then you were not deceived by their representation of pricing.

Did you look at the screen shots? That is clearly a deception. I only realised about the price difference after I updated my spreadsheet and found prices didn't add up. I was told that the fare was $129 + $126.99= $255.99 I was charged $258. Sorry but no I was not charged the correct fare. The correct fare is $255.99, precisely as advertised. It is clearly a misrepresentation and deception if 2 prices are advertised and the total is more than the sum of those 2 fares.

Then there is the example I had earlier in the year when I was charged $17 more than the 2 individual fares, and the difference between those 2 advertised values was only $5. In that case they alleged correct fare cannot even be determined.

 

[woodborer]

Did you look at the screen shots? That is clearly a deception. I only realised about the price difference after I updated my spreadsheet and found prices didn't add up. I was told that the fare was $129 + $126.99= $255.99 I was charged $258. Sorry but no I was not charged the correct fare. The correct fare is $255.99, precisely as advertised. It is clearly a misrepresentation and deception if 2 prices are advertised and the total is more than the sum of those 2 fares.

My undersatnding of the law is that it is the single total price that must be correct. Was the displayed single total price $255.99 or $258?

 

[webslave]

Did you look at the screen shots? That is clearly a deception.

Is it deception or an error? Two very separate legal principles.

Sorry but no I was not charged the correct fare. The correct fare is $255.99, precisely as advertised. It is clearly a misrepresentation and deception if 2 prices are advertised and the total is more than the sum of those 2 fares.

And, again, what we are talking about here is drip pricing vs deliberately misleading conduct. The total shown is what you paid; albeit not in the way it was itemized.

 

[medhead]

My undersatnding of the law is that it is the single total price that must be correct. Was the displayed single total price $255.99 or $258?

In that case the displayed total price was $258. As per the screenshot above. That total price was supposed to be made up of $129 and $126.99, $258 is incorrect.