[HoustonFlyer]

The original fare was $280. Strange how you mistakenly use it as $230 and yet end up with the $101 that he has to pay. After charging the $75 change fee, the airline cannot be forfeiting part of his unused fare while still charging him $101. That is manifestly unfair and AC would have to show that this was made clear to the passenger and he accepted it when he purchased the ticket. Perhaps you would care to quote the judgment where this math was "held up by the courts". Yes, please quote the judgment - case number, etc. If it was me I would surely test that one in small claims court.

[Survivor]

I was hoping through the illustrated math you might understand why two amounts would have come in the customer’s phone discussion.

From the OP
Then, through a series of complicated math computations---involving taxes, etc, she found a cheap ticket--the 193, but wanted something closer to my original ticket (around 230) so tried to bump it up.

I can’t control the improper use of terms – and I can’t control you holding onto that perception. The OP has a left over ticket and as such I have tried to illustrate the required math.

I have yet to discover in conversation anyone who speaks “exactly”, in terms of value. I’m sure you don’t boast “I just bought a car for 10581.61!” you would probably round that off to some amount you are sure will create the desired effect for you. I can’t produce precise results from general discussion but I have shown you how a “credit, voucher, unused portion, left over money” is applied to a new purchase.

I thought by posting the rule of purchase you would see where the customer is informed you can end up losing money when a lower fare is used.
From the rules post (or view on the Air Canada website)

Changes can be made up to 2 hours prior to departure. Cancellations can be made up to 45 minutes prior to departure. Provided the original booking is cancelled prior to the original flight departure, the value of the unused ticket can be applied within a one year period from date of issue of the original tickets to the value of a new ticket subject to the change fee per direction, per passenger, plus applicable taxes and any additional fare difference, subject to availability and advance purchase requirements. The new outbound travel date must commence within a one year period from the original date of ticket issuance. If the fare for the new journey is lower, any residual amount will be forfeited.

I would have also thought by showing you the variations in taxes and the variation in fees that there is a need to ask all those seemingly inane questions. There are a number of factors that will affect and vary the final amount owed when the ticket is changed.

Your purchase has to be itemized. It’s the only way to determine what is airfare, what’s an airport, Navcan – etc so everyone knows what was paid for and everyone can rightly claim what is theirs. It has to remain that way through every alteration.

If you really want a case number I can find one sighting where the customer lost the case dealing with the loss/forfeit of value. For the not having to pay the increased tax – I can’t help you with that, it’s between the customer and Revenue Canada.

[Survivor]

Well... I checked with legal and I guess I'm wrong! None have made it to court. Since the language is legally precise any challenge has never made it beyond the complaint stage (I guess that's why its still in there). I'm only posting this cuz I said I would find a case.

[HoustonFlyer]

Survivor that's good that you can start admitting, but you still need to admit a bit more. See if you are willing to admit that is it unfair that someone with an unused ticket for $284 who has to pay a penalty of $75 for the change is buying a replacement ticket for $191 with additional taxes of $17.51 and $9 by your calculations, still has to pay $101 to the airline. And you may want to ask legal if in disputes between merchants and service providers on one hand and the consumer on the other hand, Courts or consumer commissions and tribunals do not regularly strike down even written provisions of the merchant where they are unfair or weighted in the merchant's favor.

[Survivor]

Sure I admit its unfair that these provisions apply. I don't like the fact you can't get your money back when I book a cheap hotel online or that parts dealers charge you restocking fees for certain parts. Like you say - as long as the provisions are there in plain view then what excuses do I have if I make the purchase when I have acknowledged I understand what I'm buying. Thanks for your patience (more like perseverence) in this discussion

[Survivor]

Ouch - didn't mean to sound like I was shutting down the discussion - just "thanks" for staying with this.

[HoustonFlyer]

Surveyor I didn't know you had to thank me for staying with the discussion, but nevertheless you're very welcome.

Some cheap hotels do refund or not charge your card if you give sufficent notice of your cancelation. And for those that don't it's not necessarily unfair as the hotel must be able to plan and they may be turning away reservations because of your own reservation.

But what is unfair comes from this line you quoted from AC's website

Originally Posted by Survivor

... the value of the unused ticket can be applied within a one year period from date of issue .... If the fare for the new journey is lower, any residual amount will be forfeited.

The ordinary man in the street will not necessarily interpret this as you have so as to cause the OP to be charged an additional $101 when he is putting an unused ticket for $284 to buy a ticket of $191.

I myself would interpret it and so did the OP, as he can tender the value of the unused ticket towards whatever he has to pay for the new ticket, and then if he does not use the entire value, he will forfeit the difference. In this way he will add the change fee and the additional taxes to the $191 and if it is less than the $284 the difference which is minimal will be forfeited.

You on the other hand are interpreting it to mean that you deduct the $191 from the value of the unused ticket of $284 and tell the customer he loses the difference of $93, and then say to him, now you pay the $75 change fee plus any additional taxes. If you are pocketing his $93, there is no reason why the change fee and additional taxes cannot come from that, and the words on the website can be interpreted to allow it.

The words on which you rely are not necessarily interpreted as you are attempting to and since it is AC's website, any unfair interpretation is resolved in favor of the consumer.

[Survivor]

The hotels was a bad example - but the sentiment unfortunately is similar to how a lot of businesses impose refund restrictions. I agree not everyone interprets it the same and we are working extremely hard towards finding a solution that fits into the corporate technology to give all credit where it is due. Until that happens the 'forfeit' aspect remains in the rules. Itemizing the value ensure we are not diminishing it more than necessary and I don't know how many times I have told customers even though you see a cheap rate online I am going to keep the purchase at its original value or talking someone into holding it until they will get the full value out of it. Somedays - it just doesn't work!! The impact is a loss of 39 not 93 because we salvage previous tax - but it is still a loss all the same!

[jimworcs]

The truth is.. the value cited by AC was not available to the customer, because AC has interpreted the wording in their own favour and not in they way the average person would interpret that wording. It is almost deliberately misleading. I absolutely believe that a court would find in favour of the OP in this case...

[Survivor]

The real problem in interpretation is the medium in which people choose to buy. The virtual age and the self service mentality of both customer and business leads to constant but legally binding misinterpretation. (start typing cop-out now)

The interface between you and your purchase used to be ME. With “me” understanding “how the rules work” you don’t have to read all the conditions and stare blankly at the screen. I would explain to you by illustration the extremely important highlights of what your actions will lead to and how that will affect you monetarily. You would know what you are buying when you are done. Yes – there is still misinterpretation but “less”.

Now, you can be your own travel agent and book your own flight AND be legally responsible for your action because all the court wants to know is – “Did you buy it online and did you (in any of the hundred ways the button is worded) acknowledge you knew what you were buying”? It is proving to be any businesses “best sales person” because they don’t have to utter a word – all you have to do is click “yes I understand”. This is cruel and belittling; its conniving and misdirecting and most of all de-humanizing; but right now it’s the #1 way to be prosperous and it lets the business off by making “you” responsible for knowing what you bought.

By the way – if you didn’t catch the drift I detest internet based sales: I detest internet based sales!!

[jimworcs]

We almost agree.... the internet certainly does create problems, but there is nothing inherently wrong about internet sales. However, the convoluted logic employed by AC is designed to mislead their customers, there is no other explanation for them adopting this interpretation.

[Survivor]

I don't know if I can agree with that; I believe we are coming down to the use of the term "forfeit" in the T&C and I can confidently say the term has been used here in North American for well over 3 decades in relation to discount fares and how the value is used..(there I just dated myself). It has been well entrenced in IATA ever since I started in the business and its a recognized "term of use" around the world in rules and regulations in virtually every airline that has been in existance. The only issue is peoples level of understanding and application - there is no room for misinterpretation in law.

[HoustonFlyer]

This is not a misinterpretation of law. This is where the airline has worded something that is subject to misinterpretation. The airline is responsible for the words it uses. It can word its provisions for the unused ticket more clearly. It is up to the airline. The consumer is not responsible for wording of anything. Once the airline's words allow a certain interpretation to the consumer, a Court will not allow the airline's words to be interpreted in another manner unfair to the consumer. If the airline wants a provision to be binding on the consumer, the provision must be crystal clear for it to be said the consumer agreed to be bound by it.

AC wants to have a provision that a $284 ticket cannot after a $75 change fee be used to exchange for a $191 ticket. That is an unfair position to the passenger. You need to word the provisions to very clearly spell out that.

[Survivor]

Everyday I cancel reservations for customers who don’t know when they are going to travel next. They will ultimately ask how much of a “credit” they are due and I have to tell them the value as it exists at the time of cancellation – I can’t say “I don’t know – you haven’t made up your mind yet”. I also explain that it’s a minimum $75(x how ever many time it applies) to reuse their credit plus tax, plus any additional difference in fare and taxes based on where ever you choose to fly next. Your next trip needs to be at least (the airfare) otherwise you will lose the difference, the taxes are adjusted based on where you travel next. Is that too hard to understand? The same refrain is used by everyone around me. I cannot effect how much the person at the other end is going to retain. The OP is granted 100% credibility that this type of discussion never took place, when I am convinced it did since I listen to it repeatedly every day. People retain what agrees to them and dismiss what does not – simple human nature.

I can't think of a more precise way of explaining you are losing the difference other than forfeit. If it's the fact that the principal is used in a business transaction at all then you are really saying that airlines have no say in how they run their business.