New York Flights £172.49 return bargain!

NiftyDigits

dickydonkin wrote: »

Somewhat ironic coming from someone who (on this very thread) attempted to justify an argument by posting a fare from 2005.

I posted this 'five months later' to answer your question below and seems 'germane' to the debate:



Seems I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.

With respect to the flights being 'cancelled' hours after the error was recognised, if you read the article correctly, you will see that the affected people were not informed by the airline and some may have committed to a hotel/car hire etc. And just to correct your post, the flights were not 'cancelled' - as the flights will still be departing and arriving as scheduled - it is the 'bookings' that have apparently been cancelled.

It will be interesting however to see the outcome of the United fiasco.

That's me done on this topic. I am not becoming embroiled in some childish tit for tat posting episode that was ongoing upthread.

Are you sure that you are going? You claimed before that you could not even see my posts.
Whatever my argument, I certainly did not try to revive a five month old thread to try to prove a point. Has it escaped you that if it took five months for you to find an example(and a not particularly good one at that), that it is clearly an exception?
As to childishness, should I call your attention to your 'flights' and bookings' pedantry?

malkie76

I'm not sure the timeframe matters on this occasion - it's an example of a cancelled error fare. Had any passenger booked insurance, hotels, cars or anything else non-refundable they could easily be out of pocket.

The sensible advice is that booking error fares comes with a genuine risk.

jpsartre

I just knew NiftyDigits would find some excuse for why the United thing didn't prove him wrong