Most airlines now offer super low fares with conditions stating that if you cannot use the trip, for whatever reason, the money paid is forfeit.

Most airlines now offer super low fares with conditions stating that if you cannot use the trip, for whatever reason, the money paid is forfeit. Has this ever been tested legally through the court system?

Geez I hope that can't be challenged in court. 

Based on my little knowledge of micro economics, if anyone ever wins a case like that, that just means higher fares for everyone else. If you can't committ to a date, don't buy the sale fares.

Richard,

On what basis might a challenge be put? A ticket represents a contract with an offer and consideration, which has been accepted.

The premise being, if you're not happy with what's on offer you would not accept. 

+1. There was clear conditions of sales and they were accepted. Therefore I fail to see how OP can chalange carrier.

I think what Richard is referring to is the inability to transfer the ticket to someone else, and the inability to get a refund even though the airline has resold the seat to a new buyer.  I think in that context it's a very fair point. I wish someone would take a test case to court. The basis would potentially be that the terms of the contract are "unconscionable" and that the airline has abused its market power - corporate v individual. Maybe a complaint to the ACCC could help?

wilsoni,

Are you working on the assumption that the carrier is the sole operator on a certain segment, thereby abusing its market power?

Assuming there are multiple carriers operating a segment and all of them apply the same tight conditions on cheap fares - Does that constitute cartel behaviour? I suppose there is a burden of proof required to support the case for collusion...

The abuse of market power in my view would be, however many carriers collude in the behaviour, in them imposing unconscionable terms - in the sense of helping themselves to double profit (or more).

Are you actually familiar with how unconscionability works in Australian law? This particular case comes nowhere near what would be required.

I'm no lawyer, but it is precisely because the company already knows a certain number of people won't make it onto the flight that they can sell it for cheaper.

Its not that different to buying a scoopon / groupon vs booking at a restaurant. By going the cheap route, you have less flexibility.

You mentioned the "inability to get a refund even though the airline has resold the seat to a new buyer" - if I'm not able to use a voucher at a restaurant, I can't demand a refund, or ask the restaurant to hold the table, cook the meal, and not let anyone eat it!

So not only do you want supercheap airfares but you want them to be refundable and transferable too.

Did anyone mention ME, ME, ME, ME, ME??

Who is "you"?  Anyway, I don't see anything here that says anyone "wants" these fares to always be refundable - only that airlines don't sell the same seat twice or more without refunding at least a part of the cancellation(s).  As for ecg, his/her post speaks for itself - the me, me etc is ecg self-indulgently failing to articulate an opinion.

Yes, I'm sure the OP asked the question merely as an intellectual exercise.

Get over yourself.

Buy a fare that has in its terms and conditions the chance to refund or transfer. Easy as. Not sale fares

If not then they are the terms of purchase. Miss the flight forefit the money paid. Its quite clear when you buy the fare what you get.

IIRC, in the Jetstar vs Free case ragarding fees for name changes, the Supreme Court supported the idea that cheap tickets could come with more restrictive conditions than more expensive fares. The airline offers cheap, inflexible or expensive, flexible and you as a consumer choose which way you want to go. 

I don't know about all of you but I think its awfully sexy when you're able to quote case law!