Is this enough compensation? Here’s a refund for your airline tickets, but there’s this little fee …

Karlin Lissa and her family planned to return to Sudan for the first time in more than a decade. But their plans were foiled when the State Department issued a travel warning in October, advising US citizens to defer all travel.

The Lissas wanted to go to Sudan — still want to go — but they can’t put their children in harm’s way. The government warning is anything but ambiguous:

U.S. citizens and citizens of European countries have been victims of kidnappings, carjackings, and armed robberies while travelling in Sudan. Armed militias have instigated sporadic violence and attacked locations in Southern Sudan. Threats have been made against foreigners working in the oil industry in Upper Nile state. Land travel at night should be avoided.

Why go to Sudan in the first place, let alone with four young kids?

Because that’s where they’re originally from. Karlin and her husband emigrated to America in 2000.

“After 12 years of not seeing our parents and family who are still in Sudan, we decided to return to our home country to visit them,” she told me.

For many months my husband and I worked overtime to save up money for airfare for us and our 4 children. In May, we purchased 6 tickets from International Travel Network (ITN) agency to fly British Midland Airways (BMI) to Sudan during the holiday season.

On Oct. 1, the State Department issued a travel warning.

My family who lives in Sudan also warned me of the many dangers going on due to referendum in the country including war, kidnapping, carjacking, armed robbery, and sporadic violence. They have told me that it is unsafe travel there out of fear for our lives and our children’s lives. My father lost his life from war in this country.

The State Department isn’t alone. The British government also issued a warning advising against travel to specific parts of Sudan, including Darfur.

Lissa contacted ITN and BMI several times since these warnings have been issued, and they’ve agreed to refund the tickets. But they want to charge a $550 “fee” per ticket.

BMI is still flying to northern Sudan, an area that is more dangerous for me and my family.

Our family in northern Sudan is currently moving from this area and migrating to southern Sudan for safety.

My husband and I are good hardworking citizens. We live in Arlington, Va., we are active in our community and in our church. We live within our means and do not spend frivolously. It is essential that we receive the refund on our airline tickets so that when Sudan is safe we can travel to see our family that we love so much.

So is BMI’s “refund” enough?

BMI’s conditions don’t mention a $550 fee. It’s actually quite a bit lower.

Certain tickets allow full refunds depending on the original cost of the ticket. A refund administration charge of £25.00 per person, per ticket applies to all fares and all cabins, excluding fully flexible fares.

The key word, here, is “certain.” ITN is a consolidator, which means the family’s tickets were discounted and probably came with special terms and conditions. The $550 fee is more than likely a combination of BMI and ITN fees.

Airline insiders and frequent fliers reading this will probably say the fee is justified. If the family wanted peace of mind, they’d argue, they should have purchased fully refundable tickets. And yes, if money were no object, and they were flying to a war-torn destination like Sudan, then that would have been a reasonable decision.

But the Lissas didn’t have a lot of money to spend, and they really wanted to see their family. Even if flights are still operating, isn’t a $550 fee a little much?

What do you think?

With more than 800 responses to this morning’s poll, 78 percent said BMI should offer the family a full refund.

BMI is aware of this issue and is looking into it. I’ll have an update soon.

(Photo: ma rkh illary/Flickr Creative Commons)

  • Raven

    I really have no sympathy for this family. Sudan’s problems were not “sudden” and the violence in Darfur has been going on for years. Thus, I wonder, why didn’t they pay to fly the family to the US for the visit?

    The “we are hard working people” and “don’t have a lot of money” and “worked overtime to save” whining garners no sympathy from me, either.

  • Teresa

    What were the original conditions on the tickets? I don’t really see any reason for the consolidator to be any more generous than that. That said, $550 per ticket seems like a very high cancellation penalty. But again, we don’t even know what the cancellation terms were.

    I don’t know what the total cost of each ticket was, but I’m inclined to say they should take their trip. There are very likely pretty simple steps the family can take to ensure their safety. Although that might result in a more limited trip than they intended, it would still mean the kids see their grandparents. State Department warnings tend to err very far on the side of conservatism and caution and are not unassailable grounds for making travel decisions.

    @Raven: a possible reason they haven’t flown the family to the USA is that the family wouldn’t be able to get a visa.

  • Eric

    I can see a fee being justified… say maybe the standard $150 per ticket, but $550??? That’s a bit outrageous.

  • Brooklyn

    Raven, I’m sure the government has a job for you – why don’t you apply to the TSA? With your winning personality, you’d fit right in!
    And Teresa, I’ve flown into a number of places against State Department warnings, but if the locals say it’s too dangerous than it certainly is.
    A $550 cancellation fee is extortionary, no matter what’s written in the contract. Chris should mediate the case.

  • Arizona Road Warrior

    Given the history of the area, they should have purchased travel insurance when they purchased their airline tickets IF there was NO US State Department’s travel warning. Most if not all travel insurance won’t cover you if there is a pre-existing travel warning and I am sure that there are some policies that won’t cover travel to the Sudan even if there are no warnings.

    What is the breakdown of the $ 550 fee per ticket and how much is going to BMI and how much is going to ITN? Without having the full facts, it is hard to determine who to ask for a waiver of the fees…BMI or ITN? If ITN is charging a $ 400 a ticket, is it fair to ask BMI to pay $ 400 when it is not even their fee?

    Chris: It is my opinion to get the full facts before publishing the article so that your readers can make their comments upon facts NOT their opinions, etc.

  • Monica

    I can see both sides of this one. The family’s sob story about being hard working isn’t pulling at my heartstrings. Right now most of us are working hard and saving up for what we want and can’t afford to be frivilous with our money. Welcome to the club.

    I believe the $550 fee per ticket is a little high, regardless of what they paid for their ticket. That’s more than $3000 for four children and the two adults. When our government steps in and tells people not to go, that should warrant a little extra help to people seeking to change their plans.

    The family shouldn’t really be shocked by this, though. The fighting in that part of the world has been horrible for a long time, so it was something they should have considered.

  • Fred

    I have to agree with Raven actually. Sudan did not go from safe to unsafe. It went from unsafe to even less safe. As expats, they should know. Sounds to me like the trip got pricey, and they thought the travel warning would be enough to get a few thousand back on tickets for the kids. I find it weird the waring from the family is almost identical to the state department warning.

  • MarkieA

    I know that Raven is going to get blasted for her (?) comments, but I have to side with her on this. It isn’t like Sudan has been a peaceful country for years and years, and then, suddenly, violence has erupted. What has changed since May? The DOS warning? Is that it? Is it actually more dangerous to go to Sudan today than it was 6 months ago, or is it just that the State Department has issued a warning? I imagine that the Lissas have been in contact with their family in Sudan for quite some time, and therefore should have been fully aware of the risks for quite some time. All that said, $550 per ticket is a bit much, to say the least.

  • Arizona Road Warrior

    @ Eric – “I can see a fee being justified… say maybe the standard $150 per ticket, but $550??? That’s a bit outrageous.”
    - – - – - – - – - – -
    Was it a standard airline fare? No…it wasn’t. They purchased their tickets from a consolidator (ITN) which means that the tickets were discounted (probably heavily) and came with restrictions.

    When an airline ticket, a hotel rate, etc. is discounted from the normal fare\rate\etc., the reason is because the fare\rate\etc. has special terms and conditions. I don’t understand people that buys these super-discounted fares\rates\etc. then can’t travel but expect the travel provider not to follow the terms and conditions of the purchase when it comes to fees, refunds, etc.

  • darby

    Raven, you really think that a viable alternative to 2 individuals traveling to is to fly the entire family to the 2 individuals?

    Every day I wonder why so many people read this site. Not because of Chris – I think the content and intention of the site is great. I wonder because so many people seem perfectly content for consumers to be raked over the coals by travel companies and other large companies every day. “If you don’t want to abide by the company rules, then don’t purchase the product!” – Sometimes there are few to no viable alternatives. That doesn’t mean that the “rules” are applied fairly or that they should not be changed. That is what the site is about – trying to protect the consumer from policies that are manifestly unfair. I continue to wonder why these people read and comment on this website every day blaming and “feeling no sympathy” for consumers when it is a CONSUMER/TRAVEL ADVOCATE site.

    Anyway, I wonder why they didn’t purchase travel insurance, especially when traveling to such a volatile area? However, 550 is an obscene charge per ticket.

  • Raven

    FYI: I’m a guy.
    And Brooklyn, I’m one of the heartless ones of the group, but someone needs to be. There are far too many letters I’ve seen where the OP states their “sympathy” plugs. We’ve had “seniors on a fixed income” and “single mothers” and my personal favorite “parents of a speical needs kid.” Why should their contracts be any different than a single traveler? What makes these people think that they can bend their rules because it’s convienent?

    Another question I have is why wasn’t insurance purchased? This sounds like a high-risk trip. Course, if these people were flying to Darfur, I’m wondering if anyone WOULD insure it…in which case, that’s just another red flag not to go.

  • Arizona Road Warrior

    When a person purchased super discounted fares and rates, there are typically more restrictions (i.e. no refunds, no changes, etc.) than the restrictions for refundable fares and rates. A person assumes the financial risks for more restrictions for the lower fare or rate. Depending upon the size of the financial risks, some people will purchase travel insurance because they can’t afford to assume the financial risks.

    If I was the Lissas, I would have work more overtime in order to have more money in order to purchase tickets with less restrictions (i.e. less financial risks), a travel insurance policy or etc. given the history of the area. If it meant postponing the trip a few months or more until I had the funds, so be it especially if I couldn’t afford to lose any money.

  • Leslie

    While I agree with everyone who mentioned that Sudan has been in a constant state of violence for some time and this family should have taken that into consideration, most of it has been confined to one region. With January’s referendum coming up, things will get much more dicey and I wouldn’t be surprised if civil war breaks out if the South votes to seperate from the North. My guess is the family wanted to get to Sudan to visit and come home before the violence serously escalated.

    Another thing I thought about is this family’s view of the violence is much different from our’s since this is their native country. What we would deem “unsafe” by American standards is probably not the same as someone from Sudan who has lived through violence day-in, day-out and has learned to adapt to it. You start to become desensitized to it because it happens everyday.

    Also keep in mind that the State Department also issues travel watches and warnings as political tools and often makes a country seem more dangerous than it actually is. I don’t believe that is the case in this situation, but it pays to do your homework and check other country’s warnings (I use the U.K., Australia and New Zealand) before you make your own decision regarding travel.

    It’s a tough situation to be sure. I hope things turn out OK for this family, and good luck, Chris!

  • Phil

    Perhaps they would not have this problem if they had purchased cancellation insurance, most policies have a clause about state department issued warnings, and most will refund the money, unless the tickets were purchased after the state department warnings were issued.

  • Arizona Road Warrior

    @ darby – “Raven, you really think that a viable alternative to 2 individuals traveling to is to fly the entire family to the 2 individuals?”
    - – - – - – - – -
    There were six individuals (two parents and four children) not 2. If they could get visas, it would make sense to fly the grandparents (4) from the Sudan to the US so that they could see their grandchildren.

  • Arizona Road Warrior

    Chris, why don’t you set up a fund so that readers contribute their own money to it and you can use it to compensate people who don’t get a full refund?

  • LILLIAN

    I think they should have a reaasonable cancellation fee, like
    not more than $150 each. Could they not hold the tix until
    they are ready to go? they should be good for at least a year. The airline could certainly allow that. and prices will
    very possibly be even higherby the time they are ready to go.

  • SirWired

    As many readers of the comments section know, I’m a big fan of travel insurance. However, in this case, only a policy with a “Cancel for Any Reason” rider would have helped (and only for 50-75% of the ticket amount), as terrorism coverage only covers specific acts of terrorism occurring in the destination. Given Sudan’s general level of unrest, that is NOT a policy provision I’d want to be fighting. (If you plan a trip into what is essentially a war zone, what exactly qualifies as “terrorism”?)

    I don’t know of ANY travel insurance policy that lets you get a refund based solely on a Travel Warning. (As many people going to South America found out when the earthquake hit several months ago.) And I’m pretty sure Sudan has been under a Travel Warning for YEARS (they may have UPDATED it on Oct. 1st… The current one says that it merely replaces the one from 12/31/09.)

    If the OP booked non-refundable, tickets, getting away with a $550 fee per ticket sounds like a pretty good deal. It’s better than what they would get with most airlines.

    Is changing the ticket as far out as possible and crossing fingers an option?

  • http://www.twitter.com/cestbeth Beth

    Many airlines charge $250 for changes and cancellations of non-refundable international tickets, so $550 seems very high. Even if the agency charges a cancellation fee on top of the $250, that’s still steep. But it’s hard to make a decision about this dilemma without knowing the terms and conditions of the airline and/or the travel agency.

  • Tanya

    So I went to the State Department Website and looked at the warning. It is very interesting to me that the first paragraph explains that this is an updated warning, replacing one that was issued December 31, 2009. Maybe I am heartless as well, but they were aware of the potential violence. The DOS warning has been there, it may have changed, but the October travel warning did not come from out of the blue. I too think that the $550 charge is high, and it would be interesting to see the receipt of the transaction to see what terms and restrictions were listed, but it is still a purchase they agreed to. I for one do not think that ignorance is an excuse to get out of a contract. Sometimes life throws you lessons and you either learn from them or don’t. I.e. know what you are buying before purchasing.

  • darby

    @ Arizona Road Warrior – who says it would just be the 4 grandparents? The article says “parents AND FAMILY” – either way – why would a viable alternative to flying 6 individuals to see extended family be flying the entire extended family to see 6 individuals??

  • darby

    @Arizona – if you’re so against consumers beign treated reasonably, why do you read and comment day in and day out?? You obviously never or rarely agree with Chris – can you not just email the hotels, car rental companies and airlines with your messages of support instead of those of us who would like to see change being made in the industry?

  • Kevin M

    I’m with AZ that knowing the price of the tickets (both what “normal” tickets would have cost, as well as the discounted consolidator price they apparently paid) would help make this case easier to decide on. If this is a case where each ticket would normally run $1,800, but they got them for $800 from a consolidator (and given that they knew the instability of the region), I’m not terribly sympathetic. Surely they knew of some risk.

    Nonetheless, one question comes to mind: aside from showing passports at the airport, if these people are natives of Sudan (even though they’ve been living out of the country for ten years), is it possible the threats of violence against foreigners aren’t as applicable to them, and that once they’re in the country, they could safely stay with family in a way a more typical American tourist could not?

    Alternatively, I also noted that they say they hadn’t seen their families in 12 years, but they only emigrated here in 2000 – meaning they didn’t see the families for at least two years prior to departing. If that was due to the war situation (which I find likely), and knowing that things had deteriorated steadily since then, what on earth were they thinking in terms of bringing children there?

    Ultimately, to me, this sounds regrettably like a case of buyer’s remorse – they thought they’d want to risk it, but now don’t, and want their money back. And I’ve said it before, but it boggles my mind how people can hunt the internet to find consolidator discount tickets, yet still claim to be unsophisticated travelers who never dreamed that such tickets might have stringent cancellation policies. Is $550 steep for this? Maybe – unlike a typical US domestic flight, I doubt BMI is going to be able to re-sell six tickets to Sudan for travel on a single flight in a couple of weeks.

  • NG

    The Internet archive does not reflect the December 31, 2009 travel warning for Sudan, but it does have a prior one dated March 14, 2008 in which the State Department “warn[s] against all travel to Sudan.” The robberies, carjackings, militias, terrorist activities, threats against the oil personnel, avoiding land travel at night that Chris highlights…it was all there before when they bought these nonrefundable tickets.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20080624203831/http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_934.html

  • barbie45

    Raven is correct. Brooklyn I believe your so called sarcasm is not really called for. This family does not warrant mediation.

  • yuit

    One point that nobodys brought up is that as long as they don’t “look” and “sound” foreign, they should be a lot safer than other foreigners. Originally being from Sudan, I would venture a guess that they might be able to blend in a bit better than the average American, and the risks would be less.

    In any case, I’m leaning towards agreeing with the others, in that unrest in Sudan doesn’t seem to be a new thing, but they do point out that even their family in Sudan is moving, so maybe something out of the ordinary is happening…

  • Joe Farrell

    I voted No. The Sudan has had problems for twenty years – not merely since 2008. These people are FROM the Sudan and still have family there – its not like they had no clue there were problems in the country . . . it sounds to me that they simply had second thoughts or remorse and are using the travel warnings and the ‘kids’ as an excuse.

    And as for ‘hard working’ etc- so what? Isn’t everyone hard working if they have a job? It’s funny how my family is not a working family because of the level income we have . . . .I think we work – if we don’t I don’t know why I leave the house every day and travel around the world . . . . and pay more taxes than 20 other ‘working families.’ If I don’t work then may maybe I should not be paying income taxes arising from ‘wages’ . . . .

  • Mike Z

    Sorry, but the terms and conditions clearly point out that there is no $550 cancellation charge per ticket. If you read their policy posted here, the most they should be charged is $25 Euros, regardless of what type of ticket there is. Also, the original fare price shouldn’t matter one bit. The airline decided to sell the tickets for a certain price, so they have to live with their deal. They also need to live up to the wording of their own policy. If they want to charge more, then they should clearly outline those charges in their policy.

    I would mediate, but only so far as to get the ticket charges down to $25 euros per ticket as described in the policy posted.

  • Clifw

    Who buys a ticket to a warzone without insurance?

    I have little sympathy for people who willfully ignore travel warnings- they’re usually the first to start screaming that the government should send an aircraft carrier to pick them up when things go bad.

    (@Leslie- whilst nothing a government does is ever completely apolitical, travel warnings are pretty cut and dried. Every Western government is currently advising its citizens to avoid travel to Sudan in the strongest terms possible- this isn’t some secret anti-Sudan agenda by the State Dept)

  • JBrook

    Most everyone here is missing the point, it doesnt matter whether they should or shouldnt have bought travel insurance or whether the violence escaleated befroe or after they bought their tickets. They decided to cancel a trip to where and under what circumstances do not matter, a company is now trying to charge them $550 per ticket, that is an outrageous fee, far too high for cancelled tickets.

  • David Z

    Sorry, but the terms and conditions clearly point out that there is no $550 cancellation charge per ticket. If you read their policy posted here, the most they should be charged is $25 Euros, regardless of what type of ticket there is. Also, the original fare price shouldn’t matter one bit. The airline decided to sell the tickets for a certain price, so they have to live with their deal. They also need to live up to the wording of their own policy. If they want to charge more, then they should clearly outline those charges in their policy.

    Mike, certain terms were overlooked from BMI’s site:

    http://www.flybmi.com/bmi/en-gb/legal/website-terms-and-conditions.aspx#cancellations

    8. Cancellations and refunds

    Certain tickets allow full refunds depending on the original cost of the ticket. A refund administration charge of £25.00 per person, per ticket applies to all fares and all cabins, excluding fully flexible fares.

    This administration charge will be collected from any monies due to be refunded back to you from your ticket, dependant on the fare rules, including taxes, fees and charges. If the refund amount due is less than the £25.00 refund administration charge then no refund will be given.

    Unfortunately we don’t always get to choose which terms exactly to enforce. They’re done so in its “general entirety”.

    Fellow travel and airline agents can correct me on this one: my guess is the Lissa’s ticket’s fare rules say something like tickets are refundable minus a cancellation fee, then add in BMI’s £25.00 refund administration charge per ticket, then convert in U.S. dollars and it’s $550 total. Is that the case, Chris E?

    On the face of it, $550 is pretty high. But…how much exactly was paid for those tickets as a few asked?

  • John

    It’s very clear from the article that these are consolidator tickets, which means that the price paid was likely much, much, lower than any published fare. As a result, such tickets come with extra restrictions. In many cases, these consolidator fares are not changeable or refundable or any circumstance at all. So BMI likely isn’t under any obligation whatsoever to issue any kind of refund – travel warning or not. The travel warning is not BMI’s fault but I still bet if they purchased published fares, they would have received a refund from BMI without this steep fee. They chose the consolidator fares and were stupid enough not to purchase insure for travel to, out of all places, Sudan. So in essence, they chose not to insure themselves but are now looking for a payout. This is like someone not having car insurance but upon getting into an accident, going to State Farm and asking for a check. Sorry, but they’re out of luck here.

  • LovelyLife

    @darby, Bravo! I’ve been trying to find a way to say that forever.

  • John

    Oh and just to add one more thing, to all those that are saying that BMI’s ticket rules don’t mention anything about a cancellation or a refund fee, this is only for PUBLISHED fares and doesn’t apply to CONSOLIDATOR fares. If you buy a ticket throgh BMI’s website, then the rules in question apply. But the consolidator fares, like I already mentioned, have their own sets of restrictions. It’s up to the travel agent to inform the customer of these rules prior to purchase.

  • Kevin

    I agree that most people here are completely missing the point.
    This article isn’t about how stupid this family was to book the trip the way they did. It’s about the fact that they want to cancel, for whatever reason, and are getting slammed with a fee that at first glance seems absurdly high.
    That said, I completely Agree with Arizona Road Warrior: “Chris: It is my opinion to get the full facts before publishing the article so that your readers can make their comments upon facts NOT their opinions, etc.”
    This is not the first time in recent articles that we seem to have gotten half the story. Without the entire story, I am ALWAYS going to vote against mediation. If the OP can’t give all the facts needed to make a decision, then they don’t deserve any help.

  • Tracy

    I have to totally agree with Raven on this one. I have no sympathy for this family especially their complaints that they are workign and don’t have much in the way of “extra” money. They live in Arlington, VA and you don’t live in that area unless you have $$$ (I live a few miles from Arlington). THey knew the riska when they bought the tickets. If htey are so concerned with their kids knowing their Grandparetn then maybe they should fly the Grandparents here – 3 tickets (if I read correctly one Grandparent is dead due to the war) would have been cheaper than 6. It would be nice for the kids to see the extended family but you have to set your priorities…

  • Christopher Elliott

    @Arizona and others who want all the “facts” — I would, too. That was one of the first things I did when I started corresponding with this reader: I asked her how much the tickets cost. No word back yet.

    But I think you’re missing the point. I often have to make the call to mediate before I have all the facts, and even when I think I have all the facts, it often turns out that I don’t (the company also has its side of the story, remember).

    So welcome to my world!

  • Arizona Road Warrior

    @ JBrook – “…a company is now trying to charge them $550 per ticket, that is an outrageous fee, far too high for cancelled tickets.”
    - – - – – - – – -
    How about the discounted airfare that the Lissas received which was cheaper than the normal discounted fares from BMI? You can’t eat your cake and have it too! You can’t purchase tickets from a consolidator than expect to be treated (in regards to fees, refunds, etc.) if you purchased a refundable ticket or even a non-refundable ticket from the airline.

    The fact is that the Lissas purchased tickets from an airline ticket consolidator, ITN, not BMI. It is my guess that a portion (we don’t know since all of the facts were reported) of the $ 550 is from ITN. It is my guess that ITN fully disclosed the terms and conditions for the purchase of these tickets to the Lissas.

    By the way, it does matter where you travel to. We don’t travel to areas that are subject to hurricanes during the hurricane season. Yes, the rates are low because most travelers don’t go there because they don’t want to have their vacation ruined by a hurricane. However, if you decide to travel to an area that is subject to hurricanes during the hurricane season, you assume the financial risks not your airline, hotel, cruise line, etc. in the event of a hurricane.

    @ Mike Z – “Sorry, but the terms and conditions clearly point out that there is no $550 cancellation charge per ticket.”
    - – - – - -
    First, these are the terms and conditions for a person that purchased their tickets directly from BMI. Please remember that the Lissas purchased their tickets from a ticket consolidator, ITN. It is my understanding that a consolidator like ITN will purchase tickets from an airline and resell these tickets to their customers. The fact is we don’t know what portion of the $ 550 fee is going to BMI and what portion is going to ITN. It is my guess (since we don’t have the facts) that most the $ 550 is going to ITN since they will lose money in the transaction.

    Even, if the entire $ 550 is going to BMI, it is common knowledge that tickets purchased through consolidators may have very different fare rules than typical published fares and sometimes frequent flyer miles may not be accrued.

    @ Mike Z – “The airline decided to sell the tickets for a certain price, so they have to live with their deal.”
    - – - – - – - -
    Again, the airline didn’t sell these tickets to the Lissas…ITN did. It is like buying tickets directly from Ticketmaster\Live Nation, the NCAA, the Super Bowl, etc. and buying tickets from a ticket broker. If you purchased World Series tickets with a face value of $ 100 from a ticket broker for $ 500 and the World Series was cancelled because MLB went on strike, you will get a $ 100 refund from MLB.

    @ Kevin M – “Ultimately, to me, this sounds regrettably like a case of buyer’s remorse – they thought they’d want to risk it, but now don’t, and want their money back. And I’ve said it before, but it boggles my mind how people can hunt the internet to find consolidator discount tickets, yet still claim to be unsophisticated travelers who never dreamed that such tickets might have stringent cancellation policies.”
    - – - – - –
    I agree on both points.

  • BucksterSF

    Why not just let them go. It’s their lives.

  • Joe Farrell

    @Chris – why would you mediate withOUT all the relevant facts? Just make it a condition of mediation that your potential mediatees answer all of your questions within 48 hours – completely – and provide scans of all documents within 72. If someone wants you to save them $500 or $5000 they can spend $50 on Adobe Acrobat . . . .

  • BucksterSF

    Did I read it wrong or were they just warned and then they canceled on their own. The airline still flies there, why offer a refund at all? It was the traveler who canceled, not the govt or the airline???

  • Arizona Road Warrior

    @ darby – “You obviously never or rarely agree with Chris…”
    - – - – - -
    Does it states somewhere on this website that only people that agree with Chris should be allowed to read his articles, post comments, etc? Since you told Raven to apply with the TSA, I think that you should apply with the FCC since you don’t want open discussions, free speech, etc…you will be perfect for the net neutrality commission. I agree with Chris when the traveler was truly wronged by a travel provider.

    @ darby – “@Arizona – if you’re so against consumers beign treated reasonably…”
    - – - – - – -
    I am not. There are travelers that have been wronged by travel providers that really need the services of Chris. Then there are ‘ignorant’ travelers that have been wronged by their own actions or lack of actions but not by a travel provider.

    An ‘ignorant’ traveler is a person purchased a non-refundable – non-changeable pre-paid hotel room then can’t keep the room but want a full refund. The terms and conditions are disclosed to the traveler before purchase. The reason why the room rate is lower is because of the special terms and conditions. You can’t eat your cake and have it too! If you want to have a refundable and changeable hotel rate then purchase one. If you can’t afford a refundable\changeable hotel rate then look for a cheaper hotel; save up your money until you can afford it; purchase travel insurance; assume the financial risk or don’t travel.

    In the case of the Lissas, if the Lissas were NOT informed of the terms and conditions (i.e. if they wanted to cancel their trips) for the purchase of these tickets by ITN then they have a legitimate complaint about the $ 550 fee. However, they didn’t raise this issue in their e-mail to Chris.

    They know how to hunt the Internet for consolidator discount tickets (a person can save up to 70% according to http://www.airlineconsolidator.com) but doesn’t know that these tickets have stringent cancellation policies?

    @ Tracy – “If they are so concerned with their kids knowing their Grandparents then maybe they should fly the Grandparents here – 3 tickets (if I read correctly one Grandparent is dead due to the war) would have been cheaper than 6. It would be nice for the kids to see the extended family but you have to set your priorities…”
    - – - – - – -
    I agree with you.

  • Bill

    I voted yes – it bears looking into. However, a fair settlement should take into consideration the warnings in effect at the time of purchase, the history of risks travelling to the country, the terms and conditions when the ticket was sold, etc.

    It should NOT take into consideration whether the family is “hard working” or “goes to church”. Reading conditions of sale and buying the proper insurance is important in this case.

    I find the fee high, but then again, some fares are non refundable.

  • Charles

    Just a point of information for Mike Z and others who may be wondering: £ is the symbol for the British Pound Sterling, not the Euro. € is the symbol for the Euro. £25 is about $40.

    Hope the symbols make it to the post…

  • Erika

    I don’t believe they deserve a full refund but certainly a more reasonable fee! $550 per ticket is outrageous! I think it’s also important to realize that this family may not be as experienced travelers as some of the rest of us. I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. And, as others have pointed out, the situation prior to the latest State Department release may not have been at all abnormal for them – even if most of the rest of us would have avoided Sudan like the plague.

  • DJP

    Here is the caveat that needs to be a factor in this all when it comes to air travel…if its not in the laws it must be…

    If the State Department issues a travel warning for those traveling to this location then that automatically means all travel reservations are refunded upon request…no questions asked.

    If you insist on booking such travel when this warning is issued then you (1) must be informed, (2) must acknowledge the risks, and thus (3) if you insist on traveling then you pay at your own risk

  • Joe Farrell

    @DJP – that’s silly – why? Most places do not erupt into a maelstrom of violence without years and years and sometimes decades of unrest and warning. And in those cases, its been unsafe for an American passport holder to go there for that entire period of time.

  • Ed

    Maybe instead of flying their entire brood over there, they should just transfer the tickets to their parents and have them fly over here! Who knows…the parents may like being here enough to want to stay…I mean, if Sudan is so bad, what’s the point in staying?

  • Dan

    Joe,

    I donno if I’d agree with you. Look at Thailand, for instance. Yes, some parts of it are consistently unstable (look at the deep south) but the goings-on in Bangkok earlier this year probably came as quite a surprise — it had been almost two years since protesters shut down the airport. I wouldn’t be so quick to tell someone who booked a ticket before April that they should have known better and that they are screwed. (To the airlines’ credit, they waived change fees for travel during those periods but didn’t refund tickets, to my knowledge.)

    But absent those particular incidents, I’ve never considered Bangkok unsafe for travel, even though one can generally characterize the political climate as “unstable.”

  • http://www.thetravelinggiraffe.com Crissy

    Yes, the Sudan has a history of problems. Should the family never visit? We don’t know for sure. But if I’m giving the family the benefit of the doubt, maybe conditions had calmed down a bit where the family is living and thought this might be a good time to visit so that the kids could meet the grandparents. And things could have changed again. I bet if they had a crystal ball they might have made a different decision.

    I do think that $550 each is too much though!