WSJ:Bug价机票指南

https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/travel/i-snagged-a-550-business-class-ticket-to-italy-then-the-airline-found-out-49a07167 第一次知道DOT的24小时规则对7天内的航班是无效的 这篇文章讲述了《华尔街日报》（WSJ）旅行专栏作家 Dawn Gilbertson 亲身经历的一场关于“Bug 票”（Mistake Fare）的博弈。 以下是内容的精华总结： 意外的“惊喜”：550美元的商务舱 作者在浏览机票时，意外发现土耳其航空（Turkish Airlines）出现了一个极其罕见的低价：从美国华盛顿特区飞往意大利那不勒斯的商务舱往返机票仅需 550 美元。 • 对比： 正常的商务舱价格通常在 3,000 到 5,000 美元之间。 • 反应： 面对这种明显的系统漏洞票（Mistake Fare），资深旅行者都知道“先买后问”，于是她果断下单。 航司的“反击”：取消订单 然而，好景不长。土耳其航空随后发现了这个定价错误。 • 操作： 航司并没有选择“认栽”硬着头皮承运，而是大规模取消了这些已售出的低价票。 • 理由： 航司通常会以“系统技术故障”为由取消合同。根据目前的行业惯例和法律，如果价格明显属于错误（即一个理智的消费者应该意识到这不符合常理），航司在很多司法管辖区内有权取消机票并全额退款。 消费者的博弈与纠纷 虽然航司取消了机票，但这引发了大量消费者的不满和维权： • 维权点： 许多乘客已经根据机票预订了不可退款的酒店、当地交通或活动。 • 现状： 在美国，自 2015 年法规调整后，交通部（DOT）不再强制要求航司必须履行 Bug 票，只要航司证明那是错误并提供退款或赔偿相关损失即可。 专家的核心建议 通过这次经历，文章给广大“薅羊毛”读者的核心建议包括： • 预订后保持冷静： 买到 Bug 票后，不要立即预订不可退款的酒店或后续行程。至少等 1-2 周，看航司是否确认出票或是否有取消迹象。 • 确认票号： 拿到预订代码（PNR）不代表稳了，收到 13 位的电子票号（Ticket Number）才算初步成功，但即便如此，航司仍有几天窗口期可以撤回。 • 心理预期： 对待 Bug 票要抱着“得之我幸，失之我命”的态度，航司并不总是会为了口碑而承担巨额损失。 一句话总结： 即使是资深旅行作家，在 550 美元的商务舱诱惑面前也会心动，但最终这成了关于“航空业系统错误与消费者权利”的一次生动教训。如果你也遇到了这种好事，记得先等子弹飞一会儿。

收束观测者: 作者在浏览机票时，意外发现土耳其航空（Turkish Airlines）出现了一个极其罕见的低价：从美国华盛顿特区飞往意大利那不勒斯的商务舱往返机票仅需 550 美元。 https://www.uscardforum.com/t/topic/496059/1 单程 一定要YVR出发；可至NAP MXP TRN SJJ LHR wide open 楼主已经出了十套了

收束观测者: 一句话总结： 即使是资深旅行作家，在 550 美元的商务舱诱惑面前也会心动，但最终这成了关于“航空业系统错误与消费者权利”的一次生动教训。如果你也遇到了这种好事，记得先等子弹飞一会儿。 一句话总结里有俩句号。

收束观测者: 从美国华盛顿特区飞往意大利那不勒斯的商务舱往返机票仅需 550 美元 这不是YVR出发的吗 收束观测者: 现状： 在美国，自 2015 年法规调整后，交通部（DOT）不再强制要求航司必须履行 Bug 票，只要航司证明那是错误并提供退款或赔偿相关损失即可。 另外，CTA说如果明知是Mistake Fare，还向CTA File Application，CTA可以根据航司的请求让乘客赔偿航司 嗯对，是赔偿航司的成本 https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/307-c-a-2015 https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/307-c-a-2015

SourSweetTea: 这不是YVR出发的吗 The routing was ridiculous—Vancouver-Montreal-Istanbul-Milan 不知道Gemini咋回事

SourSweetTea: 另外，CTA说如果明知是Mistake Fare，还向CTA File Application，CTA可以根据航司的请求让乘客赔偿航司 嗯对，是赔偿航司的成本 https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/307-c-a-2015 看起来羊毛不能薅的太狠了

这个没法举证吧

This is an actual ruling In light of the above, the Agency orders Mr. Liu, by no later than October 21, 2015, to pay CAD$1,000.00 to United. ISSUE 4: SHOULD UNITED BE AWARDED COSTS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 25.1 OF THE CTA? Position of United [28] United requests that the Agency award it reasonable costs in responding to Mr. Liuʼs application. Position of Mr. Liu [29] Mr. Liu did not make any submissions respecting this matter. Analysis and findings [30] Section 25.1 of the CTA provides that: Subject to subsections (2) to (4), the Agency has all the powers that the Federal Court has to award costs in any proceeding before it. Costs may be fixed in any case at a sum certain or may be taxed. The Agency may direct by whom and to whom costs are to be paid and by whom they are to be taxed and allowed. The Agency may make rules specifying a scale under which costs are to be taxed. [31] The Agency has full discretion to award costs and, in the past, it has relied on a set of general principles in determining whether to award costs, including whether the applicant for an award of costs has a substantial interest in the proceeding, has participated in the proceeding in a responsible manner, has made a significant contribution that is relevant to the proceeding, and has contributed to a better understanding of the issues by all the parties before the Agency. In addition, the Agency may consider other factors, such as the importance and complexity of the issues, the amount of work, and the result of the proceeding in justifying an award of costs. In this case, there are other factors which favour awarding costs to United. [32] The Agency has not typically awarded costs against individual applicants who in good faith bring forward applications regarding their experiences travelling by air. Even if unsuccessful, the Agency has declined to award costs against an applicant because, in part, there would be concern that future applicants might hesitate filing an application with the Agency out of fear that if not successful, they would be called upon to compensate a carrier for substantial legal costs. Proceedings should be accessible and, for this reason, the Agency has often determined that parties should bear their own costs. [33] The facts of this case are different. The evidence indicates that Mr. Liu knew that the ticket price he obtained was the result of a mistake. United provided evidence that Mr. Liu used a false address to obtain the erroneous fare. This suggests that Mr. Liu had been made aware of a glitch in the calculation of an exchange rate resulting in fares being set at a fraction of their intended prices and that he purposefully set about to exploit this. Mr. Liu offered no explanation in response to the evidence submitted by United. [34] Mr. Liu brought this application to the Agency and sought to enforce the contract even though he knew that it was based on a mistake, and he misrepresented himself. This is conduct that the Agency finds should be addressed through an award of costs. This application should not have been brought to the Agency. It was not only devoid of merit but was based on a deception and was not filed in good faith. United was required to retain Counsel and expend significant resources to investigate the application and provide detailed submissions in response. The Agency finds that an award of costs against Mr. Liu is appropriate, and that those costs be fixed.

说这位用了假地址，证明他是故意利用bug。不过买机票怎么还要地址，是付款信用卡地址？

收束观测者: 第一次知道DOT的24小时规则对7天内的航班是无效的 ？我以为你什么term都读

省流：发现Bug票别急着“狂欢”，庄家可能掀桌。

对，信用卡Billing Address

虽然有7天这个限制，但是实际上客服还是愿意帮你免费取消

这大加拿怎么比灯塔还要资本主义