Years ago I had to go overseas because my mother had terminal cancer. This was pre-internet ticketing days so I got my ticket from a travel agent. I never thought to ask for anything special except maybe the best possible price. About a month later I decided to return home as the family decided that my mother could linger on. As the plane was landing in Tokyo, I was paged to go to their desk. I identified myself and they gave me the message to call the US and they then offered their phone so I could call my husband in New York. My mother had died almost just as my flight took off from Manila. The airline then arranged to immediately book me on a return flight back to Manila. Again, I did not ask for anything special. I eventually learned I paid almost as much for the Tokyo-Manila roundtrip segment than I did for my original international ticket. But, I was in first class as that was the only seat available on the first flight going out. I also knew from experience that this route was always fully booked so I know I wasn't really gypped. Maybe, I could have bargained down the price but at that time I couldn't care less. The fact that the airline was willing to locate me, get me paged, offer a free call to the US, get a me an English-speaking agent to deal with, book me on the first flight out, direct me to their first class passenger lounge and feed me while I was waiting more than compensated for the expensive fare. Maybe my husband was lucky in getting a good agent and an understanding supervisor when he first called to get their help. But I do believe that the airlines do try to be assistance. The airline was Northwest.

An addendum to to saga above. The airline was even able to retrieve my luggage, tag it and store it in Tokyo so that I could pick it up my way back to the US. And you know what? My luggage didn't get lost, wasn't tampered with and every office and agent I dealt with made sure that the luggage was tagged and ready to get on my return flight.

I just checked this thread this out of curiosity after seeing the number of responses it had garnered. I've skim-read most of it, so if I'm repeating someone else's take on this, I apologize.

I simply do not understand those who take the position that the airlines don't "owe" a bereavement fare. Airlines fare structures penalize those who don't plan ahead...businessmen whose company is paying anyway, or those who have enough $$ that it just doesn't matter to them. The bereaved have absolutely no control over their circumstances...why should they be penalized for not having planned? Why should they be forced to pay the same fare as that businessman who suddenly plans a trip to Chicago for next week? He could easily have foreseen the need in most cases. No way could the bereaved.

Be glad the fare even exists today. My Dad died unexpectedly December 23, 1987. There were no bereavement fares then. My rt Dallas->Hartford ticket cost $1,200!!! For my husband and 2 teenaged children to accompnay me would have been another $3,600, something we just couldn't afford. DH made my flight arrangements, and I, like the person saving absurd items from a house fire, went grocery shopping for Christmas dinner ingredients they would need, then wrote up our traditional recipes so they prepare them. Hours later I was on the flight to Hartford, in a plane full of happy travelers headed home for the holidays (all of whom had planned well in advance and paid a fraction of what I had), overhead bins full of gifts, festive mood. To add insult to injury, of course they ran out of my preferred meal before getting to me in the back of the plane and I ended up with a gravy ladden piece of inner sole....for my $1,200. That's when the tears came..finally, (and stupidly) for the first time since that morning phone call.

Someone asked if hotels owe you a discounted rate for having to stay after a house fire? Hotels don't have rate structures that penalize you for not planning ahead, as airlines do. You are paying the same rate as the person who made their reservation 3 weeks ago. The lack of understanding here absolutely baffles me!! It seems so bloody simple.......

If, after reading of Mrs. Oyl's experience when her dad died, you're not totally onboard about a new airline attitude on bereavement fares, check your heart rate ... somebody may be coming to see you off soon and need that very change. Ciao

Sorry, Olive.
While I understand your arguments from a humanistic standpoint, from a business standpoint they don't hold water.
A business can set its rate policies in any (legal) manner deemed appropriate.
Businesses are not obligated to look out for anyone's social interests beyond the contract of service.
I can't fathom how you think an airline OWES anyone who is bereaved.
As I've said before, the cab driver and AMTRAK don't OWE the bereaved. Yes, I read your comment about being penalized for spur of the moment booking. But that's not the airline's fault that you can't predict a death. If your husband suddenly dies and you have to immediately sell the house and a car, etc you can't anticipate those things either. Can't 'get the best price' because you don't have the luxury of time to bid them out and compare. Is that the prospective buyer's fault? Do they owe you a 'good deal' because you're bereaved and time constrained?

You want what is 'right'. You're speaking what we all feel...you want sympathy and compassion during a time of pain and crisis. All I'm saying is that no one else OWES you that. Praise to them if they give it to you....but you can't MANDATE or legislate that kind of consideration in this country.

Grip, perhaps we ought to expand our perspective realistically to go beyond what is evidently your necessarily limited, business-oriented view of "contract of service" and "social interests."

Since we are discussing the interplay of bereavement and business decisions about pricing, perhaps it might be useful for someone knowledgeable about state and federal regulation of funeral industry practices to weigh in. Funeral directors also believed they were free to operate a strictly market-oriented pricing system as long as it upheld their view of a contract of service. Sounds likes airline companies, doesn't it?

Courts and regulatory bodies viewed their pricing and market tacitcs with the bereaved to be of less standing than the special social care that must be taken with the bereaved during those special times. The bereaved were of course vulnerable to predatory tactics, and of course we're talking about price gouging and phony pricing tactics.
Government stepped in to legislate and regulate marketing practices and how pricing structures were imposed on the bereaved. Gee, doesn't this sound even more like what ought to be occurring with airlines?

I will leave you to draw the parallels, and please, do not retort that none is extant. My point is a simple one: sometimes there is a higher, more important social interest that will supersede the notion that contract of service is the determining factor when companies deal with their customers. And when airlines act in identical fashion, it does raise some other issues as well, such as collusion to unfairly inhibit one group's access to travel in favor of another more willing and able to adjust to predatory pricing practices under the guise of free enterprise. Ciao

Leone:
I agreed with most of your posts up to the 1:45 PM one. Quit your rambling, son. Did you start drinking a couple of hours ago? My head hurts trying to follow your reasoning.
Grip:
I have a notion you have never lost someone near & dear, or you wouldn't be so adamant in your stance.
Adieu

Hey, ZZZZZ, I'll just overlook the drinking slur ... you demean yourself with that stuff, not me. Okay, my point: you may believe in what Grip says, and if you do, it means you think business has the final say in pricing. The funeral industry history is a perfect example of why that belief can be turned on its head anytime government decides that a social issue takes precedence over free enterprise. The commonality is of course the need for a family member to transact a business decision in the midst of a personal bereavement. Funeral directors, sales staff were taking advantage, so gradually they were no longer strictly unregulated. It is not beyond possibility that airline practices in similar circumstances might attract similar regulatory attention. Perhaps the linkage doesn't work for you, but at least I've tried to move the discussion beyond merely reciting personal horror stories ... which, do not get me wrong, are fine, and necessary, to illustrate a larger issue ... and when that larger issue has been articulated, you then have the basis for debating a change in social policy, and the tools that make that change occur ... laws and implementing regulations. And that, based on a lot of very hard and specific personal experience, is one way in which American society changes. Please remember ... that's in simplified form. And it is hardly an argument you'll overhear in a bar. I'm sure you meant your jest in jest anyway. Ciao

L:
RE-READ my post. I AGREE WITH YOU. Just keep it short(er).

Good analogy, L. Wish I had thought of it.

To Grip: I think you're a little behind the times. The government constrains business with regularity when it comes to consumer protection and issues of compassion. Honestly! Long ago, if someone stole my credit card and ran it up, that was my problem. No sympathy from the credit card company regardless of hardship. A contract is a contract, after all. But for social reasons, the government said they can't charge me more than $50.

Other examples of "compassion" overriding the business' right to charge what they wish abound: telling hospitals they can't throw out people who can't pay. Telling HMOs what they have to cover. Initiatives to prevent gouging following natural disaster.

I see no difference with bereavement fares (other than I think the government needn't step in and public pressure ought to be sufficient).

Oh, and while I'm on the subject, airlines voluntarily assist "bereaved" family members when there has been a crash. Free lodging, flights, food, counseling. They do it because they got bad press a few crashes ago. Bad press can accomplish a lot.

Grip, you are missing my point, sorry. I do agree with your first two paragraphs. I don't feel anything is *owed* me, truly. (And by the way the last thing in the world I wanted that day, or any day, would be *ANYONE* feeling sorry for me!)

Do you agree that pricing on fares for flights where reservations are made just days in advance is a form of a penalty for waiting to book? These late-comers throw off scheduling of planes, fares (available discounted), and personnel and they pay (owe?) for it.

All I'm asking is that I be allowed to pay the same fare *I would have paid* had I been able to book this flight 2-3 weeks out, as I would have done under any other circumstance but this one. Nothing more. No half off the lowest fare. And in my particular case, even that lowest fare would have been exorbitant as it was jacked up Christmas pricing. Just give me the (gouge) fare I would have been eligible for had not life's MOST unpredictable event stepped into my path, demanding that I leave immediately, not one, two, or even three, weeks from now. If the rest of my family still can't afford to fly with the advance purchase fare, so be it, but don't penalize me for *having* to book the same day as my father's death!!

I agree with ZZZZ...if you had EVER found yourself in this situation, you would not be wearing the blinders you've got on today.

Can I add a good bereavement fare experience? About 5 years ago my mother dies and I had to fly from Denver to Amsterdam. I had a really wonderful travel agent at the time, who went out of her way to find me a good fare. I ended up flying Delta for a very reasonable price and first-class treatment. The ticket was coded in a way that showed it was a bereavement ticket, and I didn't have to wait in line anywhere and my luggage was first on the carousel at every stop. I was so impressed that I sent a letter to Delta complimenting them on their wonderful service.

Olive:
I completely agree with your last (qualified) statement. I believe it would be REASONABLE for airlines to be required to offer bereaved persons an advanced booking fare (something the average flier could have obtained earlier). I doubt the government would ever enforce this type of policy, partly because fares change so frequently on many carriers/routes (based on demand/season etc) that determining a single 'advanced booking fare' would allow for plenty of wiggle room on the carrier's part.
But you're one of the few who has specified that the requirement should be ONLY to remove the late booking 'penalty'. Most posters above are simply arguing that the airlines 'owe the bereaved because they're bereaved', implying that they deserve some type of special treatment not due other customers.

Leone:
Your examples about social interest vs business pricing are almost inverse examples of the bereavement situation with the airlines. The government stepped in to regulate the funeral industry because there was sytematic abuse targeting virtually all those requiring funeral services. (Same with the 'hospital dumping' issue in which ER's were sending indigents away for lack of ability to pay).
The airline industry is clearly making infinitessimally small amounts of money (percentage basis) from the bereaved. Nothing systematic and I seriously doubt that it's intentional in any way.
So why don't they just give the bereaved a break? I believe they fear the slippery slope. Make it difficult for people to obtain bereavement fares and only the truly bereaved will bother making the effort to get a reduced fare.
Make it policy that any death certificate or funeral contract entitles one to a reduced fare and within 48 hours there will be a new internet niche industry cranking out phony facsimiles for people to download and copy.

Well, Grip, your analysis of why the gov't. stepped in to regulate the funeral industry fits what airlines are doing. The elements you cite: systematic ... abuse .. tageting virtually all needing a specific service. One could make the case that the bereaved traveller seeking to purchase a non-gouged ticket faces exactly that situation. With ER's and indigents, there are major difference: many local jurisdictions specifically provide a general hospital that handles those without funds, and many other hospitals do so as well, even knowing they will take a loss. I know this firsthand through trauma center studies. That is a huge problem and it is in every town and city. Most of the indigent do receive care, albeit under difficult circumstances. There is no such relief for the bereaved airline passenger. This debate is all about finding ways to give that relief. For you to say the denial of a reasonable fare is not systematic is to fly in the face of all the other comments - it is becauase it is so widespread and painful that people are upset and commenting on this website. That the airlines make a small amount of their money from the tickets they sell to the bereaved is simply irrelevant. They sell a cheaper ticket to those who reserve in advance because it benefits the airline's operation. As far as a slippery slope, in the time of internet communication, there are ways to ensure that phony funeral home documents do not plague the airlines. People defraud all types of companies ... to refuse to sell a cheaper ticket to bereaved on those grounds is to suggest that any business who is defrauded should immediately close its doors and cease providing that service. Giving a break in fares to the bereaved is an ideas whose time has come ... what amzaes me is that change has not already taken place. Ciao