AC screws over voucher from other ticket
 

I had leftover money from a canceled ticket--totaling $280. Called Air Canada to make a new reservation, to use the voucher money. The first service person, after taking a lot of information, put me on hold to figure out the difference...and after a long hold, another person picked up and she didn't know why I was on the line. He apparently, it seemed, dropped the call.

So we started over from the beginning. Annoying, but not bad. The new ticket I wanted was $191...plenty far from the $280 I had. She informed me that there would be a $75 fee to change the ticket, and I said, cool--thinking I was still in the range of equity with the voucher dough.

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 thought this weird, but didn't say anything. After her calculations, she said "Today, I will collect from you $104." I said--WHAT? How does a ticket at 193 subtracted from a voucher of 284 become a ticket suddenly worth $388???

She liked to yell over me, tell me to "pay attention" and that the problem was that I couldn't understand the math. She talked about the fee of $75, but that doesn't add up to an increase of $200! Even taxes wouldn't take that into consideration... since the original $284 was including the taxes I paid.

I have this sneaking suspicion that they outsourced their HOLD calls to another location outside of Canada, and that this overcharge is their fee for picking up the call...

I did not make the reservation. I asked for her manager. There are no managers, she said, on Saturday. "So I can't even talk to your manager?" She offered to connect me to a lead, but after 10 minutes of hold time, she came back on, and said that the number was busy. But that they would call me.

I immediately wrote to Air Canada customer service, explained the problem, and asked for either my money back, or the ticket I want. There's no way that I should have to pay so much for a ticket that's covered by that voucher. That $191 dollar ticket would end up costing me $388 bucks...

Any thoughts? Any other people treated this way?

This is the hardest part of understanding the conditions of purchase. Regardless of what you originally paid, the change fee is paid outside the cost of the ticket. 75CAD rapidly becomes 84.75 of the total of 104CAD leaving 19.25 being collected most likely in a tax adjustment (could be GST,HST,Airport Imprvmt, Aviation Insurance, NAVCAN). The Goverment ensures they get their share by making the tax nonrefundable/non assumable when you buy a non-refundable ticket so even when you have paid enough - you still pay more.
It does seem wierd to keeping the fare closer to your original amount; this is because you take the loss if your fare is reduced. The difference between the 230CAD and 193CAD is lost to you and is not useable towards anything else. You might not care about that at the time. But if you cancel and try to travel again - you are now starting with a "credit" of 193CAD; not 230.

I realize anything I post here will not be well taken and I know even this will still be hard to swallow. This is a simple explanation with not nearly enough info - but this is the jist of the math.

It was well taken except that I did not understand your math. Don't forget that if a passenger takes it to court, the airline has to put it in such a way as to make sure the Judge understands the "jist" of the math.

That explanation is so ridiculously incomprehensible it is laughable.... I would love to sit in court and have that explanation put forward.

Of course this is ridiculous, there are no specifics here. If you want a totally absurd answer tell me when did you buy your ticket (exact purchase date) what were your original travel arrangements (cities,dates etc) and now when did you want to use it and between where?

Survivor, the OP said he had a voucher for $284. How can it be relevant when he bought the ticket or between what cities? It's like if I take a $100 bill to pay my taxes, in order to assess the value of my $100 the cashier asks me when and where I got this $100 bill. It cannot matter whether I got it from my employer or whether my granny gave it to me. It says $100 and that's what it's worth.

An Air Canada voucher for $284 must mean exactly that - $284 value for air travel. The history of when and where it came from has come to an end by the issue of the voucher.

Air Canada would need to explain why he cannot use it to purchase a $193 ticket

All that is done is the Electronic ticket is set aside in its original state, it is not a single value "voucher". It is then exchanged as a ticket for another ticket, each component having to match up fare for fare, tax for tax, fee for fee based on the basis of being refundable or not. What ever terms are used - credit, voucher, bank etc. its still an IATA ticket subject to IATA guidelines and participating country tax rules. The lingo is not the reality.

If a merchant wants to impose this kind of thing on a customer, the details, the "jist of the math" as you call it, must be posted somewhere in an intelligible manner accessible to the customer. But when the explanation of how the voucher works borders on gibberish, if he took the airline to court I don't think any Judge would have any difficulty in Ordering the airline to give him the full value of the voucher and leave you and your math out in the cold.

There is no voucher, this discussion is stuck on a "term of reference"! This is a Virtual/Electronic ticket. In the absence of any "real" document people call it what ever they desire, hence voucher, credit, credit bank - what ever works when they think of it. The money left over is governed by the conditions of the airfare it was bought it under (Tariff, Rules and Regs, Contract of Carriage, Conditions of Sale - they are all the same thing). The details are all on the purchase receipt which can be printed at the time of purchase and anytime the purchaser requests.

AC have chosen to wildly overcomplicate the process in order to discourage them actually being redeemed. Other airlines don't do this, so it has to be legally possible. I would take my chances in small claims...

Exerpt from BA conditions of purchase for a £34 fare:
Changes
Time/date changes permitted at any time before each flight departure for a change fee of £ 60 or an upgrade fee of £ 60 plus any difference in fare. Changes subject to availability. Fees apply per ticket
If you want to cancel your flight
There are no refunds except for any government & airport taxes

The principal is no different!

The link to BA has no relevance to this topic. If AC wanted to tell the customer clearly that there is no refund of a non refundable ticket, then they could be as clear as BA and state it in black and white. That is not what happened here.

Do you receive special training at AC in obfuscation?

These are the facts:

The OP had a credit or voucher to the value of $280.

The OP sought to purchase a ticket for $191.

AC, after applying the "voucher" managed to contrive their "special maths" to demand an additional $104.

If the OP had a voucher for $280 and had to pay $104, then the ticket is costing him $384 in the real world.

Let me explain how this works, as it is clear that AC operates in a parallel universe. You add the $104 to the existing credit of $280. This equals $384.

As the ticket is on sale for $191, this means that AC has levied charges of $193 on the purchase of a $191 ticket.

It is ludicrous. AC would have to defend in court how they can justify either:

Misleading the OP as to how much the "credit voucher" is worth

OR

Explain the parallel universe maths applied in your "clarification".

Either way, it is bonkers

Survivor, the "principal" is completely different.

I will repeat that a merchant cannot impose on a customer something it has not made clear. When the consumer goes to court, any misapprehension on his part will be resolved in his favour unless the merchant can show that it has made its position clear and the customer knew or ought to have known the position. British Airways is here making something clear about the non-refundability of a certain ticket.

In the OP's case, he got a refund and it matters not whether it is a paper voucher or an electronic credit. When he went on the phone to try to use it the agent appeared to acknowledge that he had a credit. The airline is not allowed to use any kind of mathematical gymnastics to say a $280 credit is not worth $280 unless it can show that this was made clear to the customer either directly or on its website.

Can you show that the "jist" of the math is posted somewhere accessible to the customer, e.g. on the AC website?

Thank you for pointing out the clarity of what BA is doing with their "ticket" - now if that BA customer incorrectly referred to it as a "voucher" would that clarify the situation here?

AC rule for a 239.00CAD Tango fare:

• Tickets are non-refundable and non-transferable.
• Flights can only be used in sequence from the place of departure specified on the itinerary.
• Customers who no-show their flight will forfeit the fare paid.
• Same-day standby is not permitted.
• Change fee per direction, per passenger, is $75 CAD plus applicable taxes and any additional fare difference.
• Airport same-day changes are subject to availability and are permitted only for same-day flights at a fee of $150 CAD/USD per direction, per passenger, except for passengers travelling on a flight between Toronto and Montreal, or Toronto and Ottawa (connecting flights excluded), for whom the flat fee is $75 CAD/USD. Same-day flights only.
• 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.
• Read complete fare rules applicable to this fare.

Here is what is presented 3 times during the purchase process, printed with the purchase receipt and itinerary. This person does not have a "voucher" - tickets are not turned into vouchers when they are not used. If you still persist in clinging on the "incorrect reference to a voucher" there is no sense continuing.

Or send Bearyukon to small claims to be advised in discovery what he has is infact - the unused portion of his purchase (ticket) - governed by the original purchase contract..

This is the only part of the excerpt that is relevant.

The OP said he was prepared to pay the change fee which was quoted to him as $75. There was no additional fare difference, in fact the fare was $191 and lower. No other charges are mentioned apart from taxes.

I have been reliably informed that both in the US and Canada, neither Federal government nor State or Provincial government collect taxes when there is a refund and this applies to all merchants. The merchant's accountants periodically file returns showing what taxes they collected during the period and pay these over to the relevant authorities. If they have given a refund, they are allowed to deduct the taxes from the period when the refund is made so the customer gets his refund including taxes.

Everyone knows full well that if you deal with a merchant and you return goods for a refund, the store returns the entire purchase price.

However even if the airline was charging him taxes twice (which would be dishonest since they are only paying the taxes once), that is keeping the taxes from his original ticket then charging him taxes on the replacement ticket, there is no way the change fee of $75 plus taxes could equal $193.

I'm not sure why you are getting bogged down with the word voucher. Nothing turns on whether it is a "voucher" or a "credit" or a "refund" or the "value of an unused ticket".

Did your reliable source also explained that in the past 6 months that there were Canadian Governmental and Provincial tax changes "raising" the tax levels and that affects the manner in which purchases are assessed taxes? I'm sure you would agree that if your Government raised you tax levels you would have very few avenues to escape that "adjustment". Hence my question about when the original ticket was purchase and when is it now being used. I have to assume his value was non-refundable otherwise this whole post would be mute - a refund would have be provided = end of story!

As for being bogged down on "voucher" - you referred to it like a 100.00 bill and I have to correct that perception. It's an "unused ticket" as it plainly states in the rule and as an unused ticket it has components - the fare, insurance fee, NAVCAN fee, Canadian Air Transportation tax, Airport Improvement Fee and general tax based on the province of issue - GST, HST and/or QST. When the Government changes the taxes these have to be reassessed. The purchase conditions do not state an unused ticket will be turned into "one lump sum" to be used at a later date.

In actual fact survivor, you are hoist by your own petard. The T&C's do not say it is an unused ticket.. . it says this...

The value of the unused ticket, is a different thing to an "unused ticket". Canadian law is based on British Common Law, and one of the key unpinning principles of common law is that the interpretation of the law is based on what the average citizen would understand the meaning to be. Here the meaning is clear. The customer had a credit of the value of the unused ticket.. the value was $280. There can be no other reasonable interpretation of this other than to assume that you would have a credit to the value of $280 towards the cost of purchasing a new ticket. The new ticket costs $191. In addition, there is a fee to be levied of $75. On my calculation, the total cost should therefore be $266. As he has a credit of $280, he should have a total of $14 credit remaining.

That is applying the rules you have just quoted. I find it hard to believe that anyone other than an AC employee, trained to confuse, could reach any other conclusion.

So its okay to dismiss the "plus tax" aspect of the purchase(T&C)? The original ticket was 230.00 and assessed a 5% tax at the time of purchase (11.50 tax) and 191.00 at 13% (24.83 tax) at the time he called in to use it. Houstonflyer is right, we can't charge tax twice but we are required to charge the correct tax (an additional 13.33) when he reuses his "Value". And the 75.00 is subject to tax too so that's an additional 9.75. Are we getting any closer to the $104.00 he was shocked about? As I mentioned the Navcan and the Insurance and all of the other fees have to be "upped" to the new tax level since the courts have deemed it so!

Its also pretty clearly spelled out that "If the fare for the new journey is lower, any residual amount will be forfeited." The original fare was 230.00 and the new fare is 191.00 - there is a loss of 39.00. There goes the $14.00 credit remaining.

Are you genuniely trying to help us to understand or are you deliberately missing the point? It is so frustrating.

Let's accept the following.

The fee of $75 is accepted
The fare is $191 is accepted.
Additional Tax of $13.33 is accepted.
Tax on the $75 of $9.75 is accepted.

Let's add these up now:

Fare $191.00
Fee $ 75.00
Tax $ 13.33
Tax $ 9.75
Total $289.08

He had a credit for $280.

Even on your calculation, AC needed to ask for $9 surely?

I would really like you to understand this, but this thread has gotten so convoluted with guessed amount and dismissed processes and assumed application. I will post what would have been done from beginning to end and you can pick it apart and tell me where I'm absurd; but you have to grant me the condition that this person bought their ticket before April and request its use after April. There is no reason a tax adjustment would have come into the conversation unless these were the conditions in the first place.

I think the answer is right in front of us. Even an AC employee, with a high degree of goodwill, is unable to explain the ridiculously complex mechanism which generated the final charge. If I was the OP, I would take it to court and let them explain it there...

AIF varies based on city of departure
NAVCAN 9.00/15.00/20.00 depending on distance between cities

Prior April 2010 Tax (5%)
Airfare 230.00 11.50
Insurance 3.00 0.15
NAVCAN 15.00 0.75
ATSC 4.67 0.23
AIF 20.00 1.00
Total 272.67 13.63
Grand Total 286.30

After April 2010 - Change to travel anytime after increase - customer subject to new tax level
Tax increase depending upon province of commencement 12%, 13%, 15%
ATSC Fee increase to 7.12
After April 2010 Tax (12%)
Airfare 191.00 22.92
Insurance 3.00 0.36
NAVCAN 15.00 1.80
ATSC 7.12 0.85
AIF 20.00 2.40
Total 236.12 28.33

Per T&C if airfare less than original difference is forfeit (230-191=39CAD unusable)
ATSC increase 2.45
Tax increases
Fare 11.42
Insurance 0.21
NAVCAN 1.05
ATSC 0.62
AIF 1.40

Total Increases 17.51
Change Fee 75.00
Tax (12%) 9.00
Total 101.51

This is how the calculation is done (like it or not, held up by the courts; administered by Revenue Canada)
So pick away! (tax amounts beside each value

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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



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.

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!

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...

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!!

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.

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.

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.

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.