and Easyjet flexi tickets aren't fully flexible in the proper sense. They don't allow name changes, changes of route, or refunds, just date changes within a specific time frame. They do include luggage, speedy boarding, seat selection etc.

SMa wrote:

Had been going to go on and say that as the OP has never been back since his last post on this thread, we never will know sufficient details to ever find out if that is the case, Luci.

SM

...he finished his fifth post on this thread with " I'm out" - presume that since he didn't get the answer he wanted he's "switched off" so to speak

Brewerdave, that was my assumption too.

SM

People seem to be accepting that the cost of increasing the fares is appropriate.
Why?
The company, wether OTB or BA or any other supplier, sold two tickets for a certain date at a certain price.
Why then, should changing names affect the flight price?
The only difference is that different people will be using the tickets, the flights,times etc and the actual cost to the supplier remain the same.
If you accept that charging a different price of the tickets is fair, then you should also agree that the carrier should cancel without charge, except basic admin fee, as they they will be making more on re selling the tickets at a higher price (should they actually be able to re sell the seats).
Possibly even making a payment to the original purchaser is in order as the tickets are now valued more!
I know that it is in the terms and conditions that they will do this but the discussion has moved on from wether we read the TC's , to wether the TC's are actually fair.
I simply cannot see the justification for such high charges for amending a name on a ticket.

Jay Trip wrote:

In June this year we went into Thomas Cook travel shop to enquire about a holiday.
The manager knowing we love Icmeler came over and asked us if we wanted to go the following week as someone who was due to go had to cancel because of ill health.They hadnt declared a pre existing so couldnt claim from insurance.
She asked us to make them an offer and it would only cost £25 each to change the name on the tickets.
The people had booked in September 2011.
Unfortunately it was when Turkey were having very high temperatures of 40+ which is far too hot for us.
If a large company like Thomas Cook only charge £25 which is OTB charging what I think is an obscene amount to do a name change.
They are one company I would avoid like the plague.

This is because Thomas Cook is a package holiday so you are not comparing like with like, it's like comparing apples with pears.

In the intervening months since June the flights on the OP holiday could have gone up a huge amount.

I have looked at the same easyjet flights only three months apart in dates and they have gone up by more than a hundred pound each , so for two people that could easily be a £200 plus increase or more in over six months.

The OP won't come back as they are not getting the sympathy they feel they should be getting.

But at least his query has promoted some much needed interesting debate on here, and may cause others to actually think about what they are booking in the future and weight up the difference between a package holiday and booking a lot of seperates through on company.

del949 wrote:

People seem to be accepting that the cost of increasing the fares is appropriate.
Why?
The company, wether OTB or BA or any other supplier, sold two tickets for a certain date at a certain price.
Why then, should changing names affect the flight price?
The only difference is that different people will be using the tickets, the flights,times etc and the actual cost to the supplier remain the same.
If you accept that charging a different price of the tickets is fair, then you should also agree that the carrier should cancel without charge, except basic admin fee, as they they will be making more on re selling the tickets at a higher price (should they actually be able to re sell the seats).
Possibly even making a payment to the original purchaser is in order as the tickets are now valued more!
I know that it is in the terms and conditions that they will do this but the discussion has moved on from wether we read the TC's , to wether the TC's are actually fair.
I simply cannot see the justification for such high charges for amending a name on a ticket.

The carrier doesn't charge to actually cancel the ticket. The restrictive tickets are usually 100% non refundable, although some will charge an admin fee if you need insurance documentation. As charging to change the name (when allowed) on a non chg/non ref ticket, plus having to pay the fare difference, is standard practice with most airlines worldwide, I think it's something you will have to put up with, or start a one man crusade against it. Either that or just don't fly.

Online booking agents usually have admin/service charges to amend/cancel bookings, and they are usually very clearly laid out in their terms and conditions, so in all honesty people have no excuse when they get caught out by them. If you don't like the charges, book with a different company whose charges are more reasonable.
If you want a flexible ticket you have to pay for it - either upfront, or when amending it (depending on the fare rules of the individual ticket bought if any, and what amendments are allowed).
Personally it doesn't bother me. I make sure I am fully aware of the conditions attached to what I am buying, and read the fare rules before paying for a flight.

Flight only and package holidays cannot be compared. They are two totally different things, with different rules.

I think it's something you will have to put up with, or start a one man crusade against it. Either that or just don't fly.

or alternatively the government could do something about it, as suggested earlier in the thread when others said the government should keep out of it.
presumably those people would accept a terms addition that said in the small print that your first born would be sacrificed should you attempt to cancel, would be acceptable because you had failed to read it before booking.
I agree that everyone SHOULD read TC's before signing etc, but you cannot deny that most, if not all TC's are deliberatley intended to be difficult to understand and almost always are simply an attempt for suppliers to either escape responsibility or to avoid the consequences of it, whilst at the same time denying the consumer as much equally advantageous treatment as possibe.
It's more than past the time when all TC's should be clearly understandable and unambiguous.

We clearly have different views on what constitutes fair contracts and wether something is right just because it is in the TC's.
I am happy to book through OTB or Travel Republic or Low Cost Holidays etc on the understanding that I am getting a rock bottom price and am going to lose lots of the security issues along with that should I have to cancel but that doesn't mean that although I understand and accept those limitations that I think that they are fair and just.

The argument "take it or leave it" must be manna to dodgy businesses everywhere (not suggesting that the above co's are dodgy) and that is exactly why government intervention is required.

As an aside on a different track I think these companies offer a really good service, in that you can have a much wider selection for your holiday than the traditional package type.

Charging the difference in ticket fares is not a UK thing, but a global thing, and I think the government (and the EU) have 'nannied' this country enough.

I agree about the flexibility of holidays offered through online booking companies, but much prefer to cut them out completely and book it myself. If you want the flexibility offered, find a good independent high street agent (not a vertically integrated one) that holds an Atol and packages their own. You get the same flexibility, and yes you will get charged by their suppliers at their rates for amendments, but you don't have to pay the agent anything unlike with the online companies. Whichever way you book a component holiday, the key is to understand that is what is being booked, and make sure you have the correct travel insurance cover.

It's a bit flippant (and offensive) to imply that people who feel governments' should have better things to do than save folk who are too idiotic to read the T&Cs from themselves, would be happy to sacrifice their first born if they missed it in the small print as quite clearly they would not. It's hardly the same thing anyway, no life was lost here.

It amazes me that people will happily read 40 pages on TA & HT spending hours on researching a holiday hotel but can't be bothered with 4 pages of T&C'S which are more important than a bunch of subjective reviews, it's just laziness and yes I do know T&Cs bore the pants off most people.

The view that somehow the UK gov is draconian in its attitude to this and thus the implication that other so called 1st world governments and economies treat consumers more fairly doesn't stand up to scrutiny. People are so happy to jump on the 'rip off Britain' band wagon & the feeling hard done by thing (wonder how many Greek and Spanish families got a holiday abroad this year, pro rata to the UK populace?) they never give a second thought about the fact that it goes on all over.

I also agree there is flexibility in dynamic packaging but I think the consumer has a duty to educate themselves, and not expect handholding all the way.

I can see where del is coming from in respect to level of admin charges , the time that would be taken to carry out a simple task does not equal 30, 40 or 50 quid of labour , some people have to work an 8 hour day to earn 50 !! But if those admin charges had to be reduced by a law from the govt then the initial fares would be hiked up so that a profit could be made .
For instance when my sister was over in August we booked her Xmas flight with monarch , it was around 100 quid there and back , she then decided in late September that she wanted a one way flight home for good , I looked into altering the flight to a nearer date and getting refunds etc but it worked out there would be no or just a little refund due , because the flight fares were non refundable and the admin charge per flight for a tax refund was more than the tax paid and if I swapped the flight to another date another charge was to be paid and then because she was coming home she would need 2 bags in the hold which is a big no no for the LCC , it worked out about the same to fly her home by BA in club Europe !!! I haven't done anything with her monarch flight she will just be a no show , I just couldn't be bothered to do all the refund stuff to get about £1 .34 back , and anyway the govt is desperate for the tax and I like to feel I'm doing my bit , in it together and all that and anyway monarch would have lost nothing from me and probably resold the seat to make more money , the only one who will benefit now will be whoever was going to sit next to her .

It would have been ideal to recoup say around 50 quid but if they are going to have to do that then would be charging me more than 100 in the first place , I suppose you could say the problem is that people want champagne at lambrini prices , you have to be more realistic and hope you can get champagne at prosecco prices .
I think the problem is that some people get hooked in by the cheap prices and then can't believe how much all the extras are charged at or if they have to make changes , but this is highlighted constantly by the media so we are made aware , it's right for the govt to intervene about card payment charges and they are now displayed in booking process more clearly , but I don think they should poke their nose in about how a business is run unless they are breaking the law , they should concentrate their time on the basic things like filling in expenses claim forms .

Doe
Of course my comment re the first born was flippant, hence the smiley!
It wasn't meant to be offensive, if you found it so, I apologise.
I made no mention of "rip off Britain" nor did I suggest that the government was draconian.

The contention that because something is in the TC's that makes it OK is flawed, hence the OTT example I made.
Several industries have had their TC's amended by law because they were unfair.
One example is the car industry, where you used to be forced to have your car serviced at a main dealer in order to maintain the warranty, this is not the case now owing to legislation.
Indeed other industries have had their admin charges examined and limited, the banks are an example of this.
There is whole raft of other legislation protecting customers from unfair TC's, including the travel package industry, as can be seen in the improvements to customer trestment in the event of delays etc.
The whole thrust of my argument is that the admin charges (in this case) are way too high.
In OTB TC's it says that a charge of £30 PP will be made in addition to charges made by the supplier, so I assume that these figures add up to what the OP was quoted.
However, further down it says that a charge to you of only £1 will be made for amendements cause by the supplier altering their details
So, how is it possible for admin to alter one set of figures costing £1 and the other costing £30 ?.
Presumably they both entail the same amount of work and expense by OTB.

Del, they are different because the suppliers, not OTB, have different charges for different changes and OTB has to pass these on to the customer. With all the low cost airlines there is no such thing as 'just a name change' - they are selling non-transferable tickets. What some of them are willing to do is allow you to cancel the original ticket, give you credit for the value for that ticket and then sell you a new one at the current price and hence why the charge for doing this 'name change' includes the difference between what you paid originally and what you have to pay for the new ticket at current prices.

Any attempt to make them change this could result in an even worse deal for the customer. Instead of allowing you to cancel the original ticket and giving you credit towards a new one they'll just turn around and say 'Sorry, you bought a non-transferable ticket - if you don't use it for the flight booked and for the person named on it tough and, yes, you can get a refund of the tax but we'll charge you an admin fee for that because of the inconvenience you are causing us.' And then they'll sell you a new ticket at the current going price along with all the other add-ons that you also paid for originally because this is now a new transaction completely unrelated to any earlier ones.

These situations arise because people don't seem to understand that they are buying a non-transferable ticket and that means exactly that - if the original purchaser/named passenger doesn't use it then it cannot be transferred to another person. Airlines aren't the only people to do this - I travelled London-Berlin earlier this year at a real bargain price with a ticket booked through DeutscheBahn. The tickets, including the Eurostar connection, cost 98€ return each because I booked them as soon as they became available 90 days before travel. The German couple sat across the table to us on our return journey, and who had only booked 2 weeks beforehand, paid close to 3 times as much. I got the good deal because:

1) I bought them 3 months in advance for specific trains on specific dates.

2) I accepted that if for any reason we weren't able to use them, they were non-transferable, non-refundable and DB would pocket the money and, yes, would be able to re-sell the tickets. No doubt their costing plan takes account of the fact that this will happen with a certain percentage of seats hence why they are willing to take the gamble and sell a set number of tickets at very low prices.

What the couple who paid full fare for open tickets gained was:

1) Being able to book very close to the day of departure.

2) having flexibility right up until the morning of the day they were traveling to change their plans without any additional cost.

3) Leave their return date open and only confirm it 24 hrs before travel and within 30 days of their outbound journey.

This suited them because the reason they were travelling was because their 1st grandchild was about to be born and they wanted to be able to time things so that they could spend as much time as possible with the family cater the baby was born. We were all happy with what we'd purchased because they suited our needs but I can imagine that they would have been extremely unhappy if my bargain buy had actually come with all the flexibility of their ticket. If it did why would anybody ever buy open tickets? And then the prices for all the tickets would go up considerably. Whether travelling by train or plane you get the best price by committing yourself early and accepting the very tight rules that restrict what your options are if you need to change your plans.

Perhaps the most transparent thing would be to go back to the days when all tickets were 'open' and could be transferred to another person to use. But if that happened, a great many of us would be priced out of the market and the days of cheap mass travel would be over and we'd return to the days when air travel (and at current prices even train travel) would be the preserve of the well off only. I don't want to see that, do you?

SM

PS As soon as the Berlin tickets were booked, I could have travelled down to Kings Cross from the east coast of Scotland for as little as £13 each way but I chose to pay £18 pounds instead for more convenient times. But if I'd left it until nearer the time or just turned up at the station on the day I'd have had to have paid a considerable amount more. I took the gamble that Eurostar and DB would not change the times of our trains but if they had, I would have just had to write-off those tickets and buy new ones but at that price I thought it was worth the gamble.

del949 wrote:

However, further down it says that a charge to you of only £1 will be made for amendements cause by the supplier altering their details
So, how is it possible for admin to alter one set of figures costing £1 and the other costing £30 ?.
Presumably they both entail the same amount of work and expense by OTB.

The £1 charge is not to do with the supplier altering the details. It's to do with the supplier making surcharges. It is not a set charge, just a 'they reserve the right' charge. The chance of their being surcharges are minuscule as most suppliers adsorb with first so many % if they need to surcharge at all. I've never had any surcharges for years and years.
The amount of work is different between that and a customer making changes. If there is a surcharge levied all it involves is OTB reprinting the final costing page. If someone cancels or amends it is far more time consuming with regards to phone calls, paperwork etc. Having worked in retail you may be surprised to know that agents end up ringing the same phone numbers as customers, and you know how long you can stay on hold at premium rates. It is a time consuming process, and time costs money. The admin staff used to have phones on speaker phone just ringing and ringing try to get hold of suppliers.
It's easy to avoid the charges. Just don't book through online booking companies. Go to an independent agent (for better service) and they will do the same thing for you, but without charging for amendments etc.

If there is a surcharge levied all it involves is OTB reprinting the final costing page

no it doesn't. they still have to inform the customer and then collect the extra charge and forward it.
the fact that it is rarely if ever done, or that the cahrge is only "reserved" is irrelevant.
There can't honestly be that much difference in the costings 'tween the two scenarios, certainly not to the extent of £1- £30.
Sorry but I think we have exhausted this, you firmly think that the amount of charges are reasonable and I don't , I doubt that either of us are going to change our own viewpoiont on this.

It's no different to any other company. TC charge £1 admin fee in respect of surcharges. They do have to collect it from the client, but forwarding is done automatically via the bank, depending on the agreement they have with their supplier.
If you think there isn't a big difference in the expense involved I can assume you've never worked in travel, or seen a travel agents phone bill when it comes to contacting suppliers. Not to mention the employees time that is takes up.
If you think it's not reasonable don't use them. Plenty of high street agents will do the same job, without charging extra for amendments, but that is then reflected in the cost of what they sell. You can't have it both ways.

You seem determined to compare the two sides of the market, i.e charges or no charges, although I have said repeatedly that the issue is not that there are charges or that the charges are not visible but the amount of the charges that is unreasonable.
I have no problem with them making ANY charges that they wish to as long as what they charge is reasonable.
An admin charge should be exactly that, not incorporating a margin for the loss of profit from the original transaction being cancelled , not makling a profit on the time consumed etc
It should cover only the costs incurred in amending the booking etc.
If they wish to make a charge for loss of anticipated profits then fair enough, but list it as such.
Leaving cancellation aside, how on earth can amending names on 2 tickets, perhaps a simple spelling mistake, amount to £60?
One phone call, a couple of e-mails and producing an electronic form that the customer prints anyway.

I really don't know how many more different ways we can try explain that in the OPs case this is almost certainly not a case of just 'amending the names' on two tickets. With all the low cost airlines, what would happen is that the original tickets are cancelled with the airline and a new booking made at the current price (which could be considerably higher than what was paid for the now cancelled tickets), the cost of which would reflect an element of credit being given for the cost of the original tickets. This is what will happen with all non-transferable tickets. If you think that you might need to make changes later then don't buy a cheap non-transferable ticket.

Re the spelling mistake example, most people will check immediately after receiving confirmation details and some companies and/or airlines will make the change for free or only a nominal charge if they are sure that this was a genuine mistake. But again this is a case of caveat emptor - anytime I've booked on line I've always been prompted to check and confirm that the details are correct and that it will not be possible to make changes later after the 'confirm' button has been clicked.

SM

I really don't know how many more different ways we can try explain that in the OPs case

we moved on from the OP a few posts back, so all I have done since then is talked about charges in general

With all the low cost airlines, what would happen is that the original tickets are cancelled with the airline and a new booking

just because they all do it, doesn't make it right.
If they then sell the tickets at a higher price they have recouped any loss so why should they charge at all?

and some companies and/or airlines will make the change for free or only a nominal charge if they are sure that this was a genuine mistake

.

but presumably the costs are still the same, so why no charge ?

But again this is a case of caveat emptor -

There are many circumstances where the above does not apply in British Law, the sale of goods act for one example overides CAV EMP, as I believe does the distance selling legislation to some extent

Personally, I hope that they do all continue to do it. At present, those of us who are willing and able to book early and commit to a particular flight are able to purchase tickets with the low cost airlines very cheaply and at below the real cost to the airline because they know that they will be able to cover this loss with the prices they charge for later bookings. If legislation is introduced that means that in effect they can only sell flexible tickets that passengers can change at a later date at only minimal cost to the passengers fares will go up for early bookers. The low cost airlines will adopt the pricing model that used to be used in the airline business - work out the total costs including overheads of running the flight, add on the profit and then divide the price by the number of people you expect to book tickets. If they do that many of us would be priced out of the market.

Similarly, I would hope that they would continue to show a bit of humanity and respond positively to someone who has made a genuine mistake as opposed to someone who has decided months later that they don't want what they booked and entered into a contract for. Again, insist that everybody is treated the same and the discretion would disappear and everybody would be charged regardless of why they needed to change the details on the ticket. Oh, I forgot, that's what Ryanair already does!

As for the Sale of Goods Act and Distance Selling Regulations, neither allow you to buy goods, take them away and then 6 months later change your mind, take/send them back and insist that the seller lets you buy a more expensive product for the same price plus only a nominal admin charge. It doesn't matter whether the jumper or whatever is still in saleable condition or not - you have no automatic legal right to take it back for refund or exchange. Some stores do let you return goods within usually 28 days for exchange or refund but they are not legally required to do so if the product was fit for purpose at the time of the sale and has not developed a fault within an unreasonably short time scale. The Sale of Goods Act only covers you for returning an item if it wasn't fit purpose, not because you've changed your mind about what you want. Caveat Emptor still applies in the sense that you are still expected to decide whether you will still like this jumper in 6 months time

The situation with distance retail sales is that they have to give you the opportunity to examine the goods in person and let you return them if on having done so you decide they are not suitable for purpose. But again they are allowed to put a time limit on that and it is also usually only a maximum of 28 days as well. The 'cooling off period' that you are allowed for certain products under the distance selling regulations is usually much shorter and is designed to cover situations where people might have felt pressurised into buying an unsuitable product but it's hard to see how that could be applied to the on-line selling of travel products, even though that is what the OP seeming to be trying to argue. It's hard to see how any government would allow a 6 month cooling off period which is what the OP would have been arguing for.

And the Sale of Goods Act does allow shops to sell faulty goods without the right of return if you have been warned that it might be faulty - hence the 'sold as seen' signs that are displayed when a shop is selling 'seconds' or ex-display stock etc. if the fault is something that you could reasonably expect to have noticed at the time of purchase then you don't have any legal right to expect it to be exchanged on those grounds later. Caveat Emptor definitively applies in those circumstances. A bit like if the T&Cs have warned you what you were agreeing to when you clicked on the confirm button!

SM