Air Canada
I’ve always brushed off suggestions that airline websites are deliberately programmed to increase the fare if you don’t take their initial offer immediately. But I’ve become suspicious since Air Canada’s site recently jacked up a ticket price on me by hundreds of dollars in seconds, even as its lowest published fare and the flight inventory remained unchanged.
Airlines have gone to great lengths in recent years to encourage customers to book tickets on their websites, and that can certainly save travelers time and hassle in the event of any changes to a ticketed reservation. However, to their utter shame, many carriers haven’t built reliable and user-friendly sites.
In fact, some airlines, such as South Korea’s Asiana, have outsourced their entire online booking process — at least in the U.S. market — to a third-party travel agency, which charges its own booking fees. And some of us thought a carrier’s own website was the one place we could go to avoid fees.
Other airlines have made their sites so difficult to navigate that one needs a day off to figure out basic booking features and frequent-flier program rules. Not to mention that many, such as Qatar Airways, never display the most important element of a reservation: ticket numbers.
And then there are those carriers whose sites look all modern and dandy, only to go nuts on you once you begin using them. A case in point is Air Canada’s site, which went out of control last month when I tried to price out a trip from Washington to Tokyo via Toronto, as part of the research for my forthcoming book.
At first, I got a total of $1,014.82, booked in L class on all four segments. The site cancels the pricing page automatically after 10 minutes if you don’t make a purchase — I didn’t — and sends you back to the home page. I thought I’d simply rebuild the same itinerary.
To my astonishment, this time the site broke the fare into W and S classes, producing a total of $1,611.82. I checked the tariff and the inventory on ExpertFlyer.com, which I use to access raw real-time airline data, to make sure nothing had changed in the past 15 minutes, and it hadn’t. I also called Air Canada to verify that. There was no reason for the site’s odd behavior.
I started a new search with the same elements, and a new surprise followed just seconds later. Now the booking classes were M on the outbound and L on the return, for a total of $3,794.82. I tried again, and this time I got a through M fare on the outbound and broken S/W on the way back, for a total of $4,088.82.
I’ve been skeptical about suggestions that airline deliberately increase prices on unsuspecting customers because I know how airfares work. For a particular fare to change, one of two things has to happen: a change in the tariff or the inventory. If they both stay the same, there is no reason for the price to jump by hundreds or thousands of dollars within seconds. That was the case here.
So what was the Air Canada website doing? Did it remember my data and play tricks on me? I tried closing my browser and reopening it, but that didn’t help. I checked back a couple of days later, and the same shenanigans repeated. In another couple of days, I rebooted my computer, and I finally got the initial and proper fare — at $1,015.29, it was 47 cents higher because of currency fluctuations.
I decided to do the same experiment again and performed three additional searches, just a couple of minutes apart. Sure enough, the fare came back higher every time: $1,612.29, $3,795.29 and $4,089.29.
I called Air Canada and spoke with a very polite reservations supervisor named Monalisa. At first, she thought I was doing something wrong and confirmed the $1,015.29 fare on her system, and also verified the tariff and the inventory, which still showed nine seats in L class. Then she went to the website and did exactly what I’d done — she was as surprised as I was to see those outlandish prices. She promised to report the problem to the appropriate department.
It could be just a software glitch — after all, the fare difference should be more subtle than $600 if deliberate — but it certainly looks suspicious. If Air Canada doesn’t want to drive customers away and into the arms of third-party sites, such as Expedia and Travelocity — or worse, other airlines — it should offer a much stellar booking experience on its own site.
But that wasn’t Air Canada’s only problem. I noticed that the penalties for changes and cancellations displayed under the priced itineraries were unusual for heavily discounted international tickets. Moreover, they never changed even as the fare kept going up.
They said the tickets were refundable for C$200 — there is currently near-parity between the U.S. and Canadian dollars — and “cancellations can be made up to 45 minutes prior to departure.” Changes could be made “prior to day of departure” for $100 each way, “plus applicable taxes and any additional fare difference.” On the departure day, changes were permitted at the airport for C$100 “plus applicable taxes (no charge for fare difference) for same-day flights only.”
I didn’t trust what I saw, so I checked the actual fare rules on ExpertFlyer, which are published by none other than Air Canda. As I suspected, the L fare was nonrefundable, and the change fee was $250. I went back to the carrier’s website and discovered a hardly noticeable link at the bottom of the page to the proper fare rules, which matched the information on ExpertFlyer.
These were big discrepancies, and I suspected they were causing serious problems, so I mentioned them to Monalisa. Unlike the fare-rising problem, she was aware of this one. “I’ve made several complaints in the last several months [to the website people], but they apparently this isn’t a priority for them,” she told me.
She also explained that the rules shown on the Air Canada site are typical for domestic Canadian tickets, and they use the same template for the much more diverse international rules, instead of creating new content. If a customer who has booked a nonrefundable ticket on the website wants to cancel it, Monalisa said they will honor the incorrect rules displayed on the site.
So until they bother to fix the problem — perhaps that would be more expensive than refunding tickets — travelers will keep taking advantage of the mistake. If you are one of them, make sure to print out those made-up rules.
Similar examples can be found on many other websites. Delta Airlines, for instance, has put the following text on a page titled “Ticket Changes”: “For travel outside the United States, the change fee is typically $250, but can vary based on location and type of fare. Changes are usually permitted only to the return portion of an international itinerary.”
No issue with the first sentence, assuming travel originates in the United States. As for the second, I can’t even imagine who and why came up with such a misguided blanket statement. All you need to do is read the actual rules of any international Delta fare to realize that, if any changes can be made, they are in fact allowed on both the outbound and return portions.
Related stories:
Airlines find new way to overcharge fliers
US Airways hears feedback, fixes website
Openness rattles airline industry
Is India going too far in curbing airfares?
Continue reading about When airfares jump on you for no reason
Why have corporate travel managers become so prone to inertia and averse to innovation in recent years? Why are numerous companies spending millions of dollars more on travel than necessary? Is it time for the travel manager’s job description to change?
I’ve been trying to find answers to these questions since I dedicated myself to travel education and training this summer, through my “On the Fly” Seminars and the Kralev International advisory services.
But it was a post by Scott Gillespie, who writes a blog on procurement and corporate travel management, that prompted me to air my thoughts in public. Although my arguments aren’t quite what he had in mind, I was happy to see that others share my concerns about corporate complacency.
Why do I feel qualified to pass judgment? Because I almost always pay the lowest coach fares, but I haven’t sat in coach since 2002 — and I’ve flown nearly 2 million miles and visited 38 states and 82 countries. And because this year, I’ve flown 100,000 revenue miles, for which I paid a grand total of $747. I’ve never admitted this publicly before, although friends have repeatedly urged me to use it as a selling point — I just didn’t think anyone would believe it. That’s why I’m writing a book, so I can explain it.
I’ve been shocked by how many companies still rely on large travel agencies without almost any meaningful supervision. I’m not suggesting that they stop using travel agents, because this may be the only way to handle high volume. The problem is that, in many cases, they are not getting the cheapest available tickets — but they don’t know it.
Why does that happen? One reason is that many travel agencies have lucrative contracts with certain airlines that encourage them to send more business their way. If your agency receives its biggest commission from American Airlines, it will likely book you on American even if United Airlines has a lower fare. Did the agency disclose any of this before you signed a contract?
The other reason is much less obvious, but hopefully this column will change that. While technology and automation are enormously useful and efficient, they discourage us from using our brains. Automation is no doubt vital for the travel-booking process, but the extent to which travel agents rely on computers to tell them what to do is stunning — and it costs your company a lot of money.
Let me give you an example. Last year, my former managing editor at the Washington Times had to go to Mongolia at a week’s notice and asked if I could find an affordable business-class fare. The cheapest ticket from Washington to Ulan Bator we could find — both from a travel agent and online booking engines — was about $8,700, which was out of the question.
So I started thinking outside the box and decided to try splitting the fare — if I could get a much lower business-class fare to a northeastern Asian city where one would connect on the way to Ulan Bator, I’d book the short haul in coach. Sure enough, I found a $3,250 business-class ticket to Beijing on Air Canada, and coach on to Ulan Bator on Air China for about $550. Both carriers are members of the global Star Alliance.
While any company most likely would have paid $8,700, I saved almost $5,000 — and it took me 15 minutes to do it. When was the last time your travel agent did that? I’m not suggesting that splitting the fare makes sense every time, but there are other creative — and legitimate — ways to save money that computers are not yet fully capable of mastering.
There are also things you can do to help your travel agency save you money. One of the services I offer is strategic travel planning. What does that mean? If you have more than one trip coming up, why not plan them at the same time? You don’t have to take them together — in fact, they can be months apart.
Several months ago, I had a client in Washington who wanted to go to Paris in the spring and to Buenos Aires in the fall. I knew that coach fares from Europe to South America are generally lower than fares from North America, so I suggested an unconventional way of booking two tickets simultaneously — one originating in Washington and the other one in Paris — and the savings exceeded $800. I won’t bore you with further details here, but send me a message if you’d like to know more.
How do you think most travel managers respond when I offer to train them and anyone in their company who might book travel directly? Some say their travel agency already takes care of all their needs and there is no reason to rock the boat. Others are unhappy with the travel agency, but they don’t have money to invest in learning how to save much more money. Yet others don’t seem to understand what exactly I can do for them.
Last week, a friend in Phoenix recommended my services to his company’s travel manager. The response was that, “due to budget cuts to travel budgets and their departmental budget, they felt that they could not justify the expenditure right now.” No comment.
In June, a business-development specialist from a Washington law firm took one of my seminars and saved $500 on her first ticket, so she recommended to the firm that I train their executive assistants who book travel for the attorneys. Management, however, saw things differently. “We have an agreement with American Express, so bringing you in would conflict,” they said.
I asked how exactly that would represent a conflict, since I wasn’t offering to book tickets for them, but I never received a response.
Nor did I hear back from the Association of Corporate Travel Executives, having contacted Megan Costello, then-acting executive director, Kate Farrell, senior director for global education, and Amber Kelleher, director for global education, three months ago. I suppose they have better things to do than listen to new ideas that can actually benefit their members.
Related stories:
Announcing Kralev International travel advisory business
Time for travel school — you are invited
Continue reading about Corporate travel’s lack of innovation
As U.S. and other NATO troops continue to die in Afghanistan, one of the main questions being asked in foreign policy circles is this: How committed are Arab governments to defeating al Qaeda and the Taliban? The United Arab Emirates showed last week that fighting violent extremism is less important than its commercial airlines’ well-being.
Most governments around the world help their carriers in various ways, not only out of national pride, but because a strong airline has a positive impact on a country’s economy. One of the missions of every U.S. embassy is to promote trade and commerce that benefit American companies. That has become an organic part of modern diplomacy.
The UAE, however, has gone farther than most countries do by kicking Canada out of Camp Mirage, a military base used to support operations in Afghanistan. Why? Because Ottawa refused to succumb to the tremendous pressure Abu Dhabi applied in the last several months to secure a significant expansion of flights to Canada for the UAE’s two largest airlines, Emirates and Etihad.
By doing so, the UAE has not only shown that its carriers’ profitability is more important than maintaining good foreign relations — it also risks harming the security of NATO members, and in fact regional and global stability.
The UAE’s ambassador to Canada, Mohammed Abdullah Al-Ghafli, expressed frustration with Canada’s rejection of his government’s demands, saying that “will only negatively impact the populations and economies of both countries.” His prediction may be correct, and some Canadians no doubt share it. Among them is Calgary Mayor David Bronconnier, who said in February that “airlines such as Emirates have an enormous ability to add to our economic vibrancy, business and tourism activity.”
Both Emirates and Etihad have an excellent reputation, and many travelers are happy about their success and wish them no ill. Their well-being is actually good for consumers, because it boosts competition and pushes other carriers to improve. Their competitors, on the other hand, feel differently, accusing Emirates and Etihad of receiving unfair assistance from the UAE government.
However one feels about the two carriers’ growth, holding defense and security hostage to commercial aviation is questionable at best.
The UAE sought to increase the current three flights a week to Toronto by both Emirates and Etihad to daily, and to add flights to Calgary and Vancouver. Air Canada naturally objected, though other airlines would have been affected, too. Many passengers traveling from the Middle East and South Asia to North America now fly first to Europe on Air Canada’s Star Alliance partners Lufthansa, Swiss International Airlines, Britain’s BMI and Austrian Airlines, and some of them connect to Air Canada.
Related stories:
When ‘open skies’ aren’t really open
U.S. has ‘no desire’ to ease airline ownership rules
Continue reading about UAE mixes aviation and foreign policy
Singapore Airlines topped yet another industry ranking this week, and while it usually deserves the awards it wins, there are a few aspects of the way it does business that drive some customers and partner-carriers crazy. Still, don’t expect those practices to change anytime soon.
The latest awards were bestowed by Britain’s Business Traveller Magazine. Singapore was named best airline overall and also won best economy and business class. Best first class went to Emirates, probably because of the shower on its Airbus 380 aircraft.
I have yet to meet anyone who has flown Singapore and didn’t like it, regardless of which cabin they were in. It has long been the world’s leading carrier in hard-product innovation and luxury, often years ahead of its competitors. One of my favorite features is the “Book the Cook” service, which allows passengers to order meals from a long and diverse menu as soon as they buy a ticket.
Many travelers point out the incredible attention to detail that Singapore flight attendants pay, but that is not uncommon among top Asian airlines, such as Asiana and All Nippon Airways. What has impressed me the most is that, in first class, the flight attendants anticipate your next need or wish and are ready to satisfy it before you even ask.
Once during a flight, I stood up from my seat to go to the lavatory, which was behind me, and when I turned around, I saw a flight attendant dashing toward the lavatory to open the door for me. I had just enjoyed black caviar as part of a five-course dinner I probably couldn’t afford on the ground, and I loved the bedding of the fully flat seat, but for some reason that gesture meant more than the luxuries.
The trouble with perfection is that it’s impossible 100 percent of the time, and most of Singapore’s policies are written for a perfect world, which is also impossible in the airline industry. Employees of every airline must follow certain rules, but Singapore’s staff has almost no flexibility in making exceptions or bending the rules to respond to a specific case or situation.
A couple of years ago, I flew from New to Singapore, with an hour-long layover in Frankfurt. Even though there was no plane change, all passengers had to get off and re-board. As soon as I reached the gate area, I realized I’d forgotten my cell phone in my seat pocket. I wasn’t allowed back because the cleaning crew had begun working, but a gate agent went to look for the phone. She came back and said it wasn’t there.
I was the last first-class passenger to deplane, and coach and business class passengers weren’t allowed in the first-class cabin, so most likely the phone was stolen by a cleaning crew members. But after a lengthy process that involved more paperwork than I’d expected, the airline refused to offer any good-will gesture or compensation.
There is no question that Singapore has some of the best premium products in the sky, but it may be overvaluing them a bit too much.
Let’s say you’ve paid more than $10,000 for a Star Alliance round-the-world ticket in business class. If you want to fly between Singapore and Los Angeles nonstop, you have to pay an additional $900 surcharge just for that one flight for the privilege of enjoying the “new” business class seats, which are now almost four years old. Charges of $500 and $600 apply to most flight between Singapore and both Europe and North America.
In addition, Singapore often blocks access to those flights by zeroing out the inventory in D booking class, which is the one required for round-the-world tickets.
It’s no secret that Singapore thinks the current round-the-world fares are too low. There are suspicions that it’s one of the driving forces behind the drastic increases in those prices in recent years, although there is no way to know this for a fact, because the Star Alliance uses a blind process based on input from its members to determine the fares.
Even more maddeningly for customers, Singapore bans members of the frequent-flier programs of its partners in the Star Alliance, such as Lufthansa, Air Canada or United Airlines, from using miles on flights with the “new” business-class seats. While the seats are the most spacious in the industry, the ban makes redeeming miles to Europe and North America virtually impossible — there are only two flights with the old seats.
Relations between Singapore and some of its Star partners — especially United — have long been sour, mainly because Singapore thinks it’s superior and doesn’t hide it. I’ve always been amazed that Singapore doesn’t code-share any of United’s flights, but it does code-sharing with US Airways.
There have been rumors that Singapore wants to leave the alliance, but so far they are just rumors.
Related stories:
Round-the-world fare mysteries revealed
What to do with empty premium seats?
Airlines require credit cards at check-in
Airlines want budget, premium fliers
Continue reading about Singapore Airlines’ maddening perfection
This was supposed to be a column critical of US Airways’ rather peculiar Web site, which is unable to perform basic functions, such as retrieving valid and active tickets. But it also became an appreciation of the carrier’s willingness to explain some of those issues and even try to resolve them.
Every airline’s Web site has limitations and various quirks that annoy travelers — some offer odd routings when you search for flights, others show confusing or even misleading prices, and yet others try to get you to buy things you don’t need instead of taking you straight to the final purchase page.
However, if you simply want to display your itinerary by providing your reservation or ticket number, no major carrier will fail you. Except US Airways. In the past couple of years, I’ve had several tickets with flights on that airline that its Web site was unable to find…
