Due to an unexpected complication from minor surgery that arose two days before I was due to leave on vacation, I had to cancel my vacation, including the flight on Delta. In the past, you could re-use the ticket within a year by paying a change fee and any difference in price. Well, when I called to cancel this flight, I was informed that, if I didn't re-book by midnight the day my flight was due to leave, I would lose the value of the flight. Of course, I was in no position to plan another flight--I don't know when I'll be OK to fly again, nor do I know when I'll be able to get time off again. As a reason for this policy, which apparently was put in place around the first of the year, I was first told that it was a response to customer complaints about being bumped (!!!!). When I pointed out one of the many falacies of this reason--most passengers who have to cancel at the last minute are not in a position to re-book, and therefore have no incentive to even bother to tell the airline they're not coming--they switched to "it's because of 9/11." Having registered how offensive I found this statement, they assured me it had nothing to do with security, but with economics. In other words, after taking my fare money, and taking my tax dollars to stay afloat, they are now trying to swindle me by taking my money and giving me nothing in return. Delta's response? "All the major airlines are doing it." Funny, all the major airlines are in Chapter 11, hovering close to it, or living off the largesse of the taxpayers. Or some combination thereof. In the meantime, people like me (until my recent problem, I traveled about once a month for business) are taking JetBlue, Midwest Express or even Southwest, because their policies treat their customers a little more like customers (at least compared to the "major airlines&quot, rather than much-hated cash cows.

To be fair to Delta, after I spent about two hours on the phone, they did "allow" me to go under the old policy. With a note from my doctor, of course. But I'd rather fly with an airline that doesn't treat me like an exploited fifth-grader.

All airlines have this policy and it was pretty well publicized that they are all doing this. Rare that you will find a US carrier that is not doing this. Doctor's note will normally work and they will understand.

Just one question. If you were flying once a month on JetBlue, Southwest, Midwest Express(which by the way are also almost in bankrupcy), why did you decide to fly Delta this time? With all that flying, didn't you have some free tickets on your regular carriers?

Hope you are feeling better!

I can't manage to fly often enough on one airline to get enough points. I work in the nonprofit sector, and have a tight budget.

And, the funny thing is, I recently had to cancel on Midwest because my meeting was cancelled, and it does not have this policy. So it's not all airlines: only the "majors", which are the ones that are asking the taxpayers to subsidize their hostile treatment of their customers.

There are fare classes that allow you to have the flexibility to cancel or change your reservations, but they are costly. The bottom line is that "non-refundable" means it is non-refundable. "You pays your money and you takes your chances", as they say.

Not ALL airlines have this policy,called the "Use It or Lose It" rule, in place since last fall.It supposedly was implemented to "strenghten economic viability",whatever that means....I agree that it is cumbersome unnecessary and not traveller friendly.But it is what it is.Sorry to hear about your malaise...

My question is, why are we rolling over and accepting this kind of thing? What other industry imposes customer-hostile rules, then expect the government to bail them out when the customers understandably bail on them? And, rather than improve customer service, imposes rules that are even more customer-hostile? That's why we should patronage the more customer-oriented airlines, and let our members of Congress know that, before they toss more of our money at this increasingly perverse industry, they should require that industry to treat their customers reasonably. There aren't too many businesses left that can afford the outrageous walk-up fares, and the airlines are already seeing the effects of the desertion of those cash cows.

I don't see this restriction as being imposed. You can buy all the tickets you want without the restriction. The airlines are offering a lower rate for those people that are willing to accept the limitation.

Keith

Sure, at usurious rates. better for them to price in the middle and offer some flexibility to all than to have radically varying rates. No one who must answer to a constituency or stockholders can pay $1500 for a flight when a $350 flight is available. The airlines need to find a middle ground to keep their business, rather than keep going back to the trough of tax dollars whenever the public starts to reject their ludicrous business practices. It's time we, the flying public, start fighting back rather than accepting policies that no other industry could get away with.

Crys; I couldn't agree with you more. I think this policy is quite unneccessary. The airline is going to charge me $100 to change my ticket, I don't think it should make any difference WHEN I make the change. These tickets are NOT non-refundable tickets as stated in the above post, they are tickets with a change allowed for a fee. This is the current ruling for any ticket short of a complete full fare Y-class coach ticket. The idea that I must decide immediately when I will be able to use the ticket is put into place specifically as a stumbling block for customers. I can't imagine the number of tickets that are now put into forfeiture due to this rule. A tidy profit for the airline.

I found it interesting this week that Northwest Airline reported a profit of nearly the exact same amount as they received in government aid. Hmmmmm! Do they pay back the bailout money then???

crys,
I agree with you that the 'choice' between paying $1500 for an unrestricted ticket when a $350 restricted fare is available is a bit ridiculous. How many people really have that choice?

Part of the appeal of carriers like Southwest and JetBlue (apart from the low to no change fees) is that they have reasonable walkup fares. Some of the majors are starting to do this as well but only in very limited markets. Perhaps these are tests for some kind of price restructuring in the future? I certainly hope so.

The good news is that Delta, along with several other "major" carriers, reversed this policy last week. Apparently, it does pay to complain when an airline has gone too far.

crys -

See post further down "American changes rules" or something like that.

They now allow a full-year from date ticket issued to rebook non-refundable tickets for a fee, if original ticket cancelled prior departure.

Usually, "as goes one carrier, so the others follow"

Question: What happens to the taxes you pay as part of a non-refundable ticket that is subsequently never used? It seems to me that these taxes ought to always be refundable no matter what the agreement between the buyer and the airline. Since the travel never occurs, there shouldn't be a tax on it.

Wimpole - you ask a very good question. I wonder what the IRS position on this is.

Awhile back, I accidently was a no show for two different hotels. I didn't dispute the hotels' lost revenues, but thought I should have disputed the occupancy taxes, since no one occupied those spaces.

rb_travelerx,

Since they charged you for a room, it seems they would have to give the city their tax on it.

Keith