![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
Should be making the travel agent pay the $400.
@Steven Irish: I agree. If they were sold tickets they weren't eligible for, they should go after the party that sold them. However, I think the classy thing of RC would be to forgive the $800 when it comes to the family, and go after the travel themselves. Seems like a better way to engender loyalty in your customers.
I swear it's crap like this that make me never want to take a cruise, esp. with Royal Caribbean.
@Eoghann:
don't, cruises are so boring. $3200 for two so Im going to assume that was a week a piece ? Seriously for that price you could find good deals going to Riu resorts all over the world, all inclusive and allow you to see more than just the ocean 24/7 (usually). I went on one years ago only because I wasn't paying and god was it crazy. Its like all the fattest people pile on a boat to consume even more food than they normally would.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-453211-100x100.png\")
@Eoghann: I don't see how using discounts that don't apply to you is the fault of anyone but the buyer.
@supercereal: If the person SELLING you the tix tells you you're eligible, why would you automatically doubt that?
@Eoghann: We've been anti-RC since their cover-up of the missing passenger in Turkey. Their nickel-and-dime charges don't help. It's sad really, we'd like to try their really cool ships. But we liked Carnival a few years back, and the good thing with party ships is that you have enough fools gambling and drinking their dollars away that they effectively subsidize our trip.
Wait, so she paid the same amount for the people that lived in Texas as she did for her own family, $3,275, when booking the cruise? And at the gate Royal decided that the Texans should have cost $4,075, then? I'm a little confused on the details there.
Or maybe we should be asking what Royal Caribbean has against Texas.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-95807-100x100.png\")
Why would you have a special West Virginia rate? People with less teeth eat less?
@j-o-h-n:
TEH HE! I still have all my teeth (cefin fur me wisdumb tooths), but still can't afford this cruise (cuz me safin mooney fur me rut kennel eyes ned). Oh also, the use of ain't is much more common in eastern PA, not really a WV thing.
@thebigbad: Goodness. We may not have a whole lot of room to brag out here in flyover country, but we do try to make our family trees just a bit broader than that.
@j-o-h-n: My dad's family is from eastern Long Island (the bad side; i.e Riverhead/Calverton) and have no teeth. So what's the difference between them and people from West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, etc.?: Nothing!
I've been in every state on the eastern seaboard along with Kentucky, Tennessee, Pennsylvania and Alabama (where I live) and have seen toothless people in every single state.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-545648-100x100.png\")
@Megan Squier: Poor dental health is less about one's worth as a human being as it is an indicator of poverty. It's usually about lack of access to healthcare and quality food.
It's just dumb luck that @j-o-h-n hasn't had to gum his dinner. So far.
@j-o-h-n: No, I'm not from West Virginia, but I must correct you. It would be \"fewer teeth\". It's very important when insulting large groups of people that you don't make any mistakes that would make you seem anything less than worthy of throwing said insult.
@cw22books: It would be \"fewer teeth\" if they were countable, but perhaps one could count all the teeth in West Virginia, so I stand corrected.
Also, sometimes one might take grammatical liberties to be more alliterative.
@j-o-h-n:
Teeth are a countable object, regardless of whether you can count the particular teeth of which you speak.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-469751-100x100.png\")
@cw22books: But West Virginians would say \"less teeth.\" They're also known to use the word \"ain't\" a lot.
@cw22books: If you really want to open that can of worms, then the period should be inside the quotation mark in your comment. The irony is overwhelming, isn't it?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-664105-100x100.png\")
@supercereal: Depends on where you're from. In England and British-influenced areas punctuation can go on the outside. It's us damned American's who've decided it always has to go inside the quites. ;)
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1029606-100x100.png\")
@supercereal: Actually, no, it wouldn't. *can of worms opened* Because cw22books is using quotations to denote a certain word or phrase that is not part of an actual quotation uttered by a person/thing, then the use of the period outside the quotation marks is perfect acceptable. If he/she were retyping the entire sentence, then yes, the period WOULD go inside the quotation marks. In this instance, the quotation marks could easily be replaced with italicized words. But, if he/she doesn't know how to do that, then quotations are okay.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-483565-100x100.png\")
@RogerTheAlien: I think you're thinking of the use of single quotation marks to set off special terms, which does indeed allow you to put the period after the closing single quote; all other uses, however, would require the period to be inside the close quote. (Assuming you're talking US, not UK, of course.) That's Chicago Manual of Style, at any rate. God knows what AP gets up to these days.
@floraposte: the use of single quotation marks to set off special terms, which does indeed allow you to put the period after the closing single quote
And you say this is a convention from the Chicago Manual of Style? Or do you just mean the bit about ending punctuation placement?
Use of single quotes to indicate emphasis or replace italics is one of my biggest online peeves, so I had to verify that CMOS wasn't to blame. Here:
Quotation marks do not usually indicate emphasis. Rather, they indicate irony or double entendre, both of which are also discouraged in academic publishing.Of course, they've irked me with the use of usually in their description.
_This is how we denote un-styled italic text._
*This is how we denote un-styled bold text.*
'This is how we denote a nested quotation.'
@CheritaChen: Emphasis is a whole 'nother subject; that's not what I'm getting at. This is the rule for philosophical terms, the only situation for which they have, in my lifetime, granted USAns the punctuation-past-the-quote prerogative. I've only got the 13th ed. at home, but it's 6.63 in there.
UK quoting style makes far more sense (and I say this as one from the US) where the period only goes inside the quote if it's part of the actual quote. Why would you put something inside the quotes if it isn't part of the quote?
@Powerlurker: Same reason \"rough,\" \"bough,\" \"through,\" \"cough,\" and \"dough\" aren't pronounced the same: because it's English and we can.
@floraposte: Dr. Suess had a book entitled \"the tough coughs as he ploughs the dough\" or something along those lines. it was pre-kid book times.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-350350-100x100.png\")
@cw22books: It might have to do with travel distance to the cruise launch point, but I'm not entirely sure. I would assume they offered deep discounts for residents of whichever states booked the fewest cruises with them.
I'd say there's a good chance the travel agent tried to use a trick to get them a good rate that ended up backfiring.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-329214-100x100.png\")
@j-o-h-n: I bet it has to do with booze. Cruise lines make most of their money from drinks. I bet West Virginians drink more so they can afford to give them a discount.
Sounds like they knowingly took the WV rate even though they were in Texas. I don't fault the cruise line here.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-98962-100x100.png\")
Pay it with a credit card and dispute charges later.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-843972-100x100.png\")
@sonneillon: yes, please make a frivolous chargeback because you took advantage of a discount offer that you were never eligible for. hell, why not throw in a lawsuit while you're at it! I couldn't imagine the emotional distress you must've been through when you were asked to pay for the services they were providing!
really though, don't abuse chargebacks. that's not very nice at all...
@thisheregirafFe: Nut's to that they advertised one price you accepted the agreement and then paid for it, that constitutes a contract. Anything further is fraud. A charge back is perfectly fine in cases of fraud.
NOOOO! Havent you been reading the Consumerist lately, all credit cards are evil remember!
1) Why exactly do people from Texas have to pay more than people from West Virginia to take a cruise?
2) If the people from Texas somehow got the discount, it's Royal Caribbean's fault. They should eat the difference...heck, I bet they're still making a profit on them.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-255368-100x100.png\")
@scootinger: I'm going to wager that it was to encourage WV folks to travel to Texas to take their cruise? Assuming I'm correct that originating port was in Texas.
@scootinger:
I completely agree esp. w/ your point #2. When they booked they had the info then they were not from WV. The discount should have never gone through the system with their Texas ID/address. Have to give credit though to Royal Caribbean for checking the ID to the discount. If only our Federal Gov. were this diligent in cross checking program recipients to entitlements.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-257467-100x100.png\")
@jp: Not necessarily, since an agent booked for them and may not have known or may not have informed RC of this information.
@coren:
You have to give an address when you book anything esp. on-line as the agent probably did. When it didn't match then it should have been denied. I had this happen on Harry and David. Found a coupon code for residence of Ca. only and I'm in Az. The system came back and told me, 'california residence only'. It didn't go through because my address didn't match. Just like it should have when the travel agent put through their TX address.
@jp: It's certainly possible, although is it also not possible the agent only used the Virginian's address or perhaps even their own? I've never used a travel agent so I don't know how these things go
@coren:
According to the article I get the impression they only have a Texas address and nothing to do with WV. But you bring up a valid point. If assuming the travel agent used the travel agents address for mailing purposes and assuming the agent is based in WV then I can see how this could have gone through. However, thats lots of 'assumings'.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-387761-100x100.png\")
I'm not faulting the victims, but why would anyone want to take a vacation where you're a captive audience? If you stay at a hotel and find some of the charges are outrageous, like meals, you can always go elsewhere if you have or want to.
Cruise ships aren't as many or as used as airplanes, so there isn't going to be the same amount of outrage, despite the ripoffs being worse. Maybe the laws protecting airline passengers should be extended to cruise line passengers.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-52395-100x100.png\")
@P_Smith: Actually, you are blaming the victim. Your response is basically \"nobody should take cruises\" because you think they're lame.
@Michael Bauser:
took a cruise once, never would I do it again, how can they stick you on a boat with unlimited food (if you're not a glutton this has almost no appeal) and then charge like $6 for drinks AND not let you bring your own booze? Better take that $3200 for 2 and stay at a resort for a week with all the same features except booze added and the ability to go to a beach, enter a pool that isn't full to the brim with people or you know, do activities :p
@P_Smith: Because on a cruise ship meals are by and large free and there's lots of all-you-can-eat, so there's a perception of value. The \"why stay and be forced to pay astronomical prices\" doesn't really apply.
Why take a cruise? Because some of us don't like being stuffed into a tin can and herded from point A to B, being frisked and robbed by TSA employees at every turn.
@jazzjunkie: \"Free\"? You actually believe the food is \"free\", not a part of the exobitant cost of the ticket?
And as for \"not being frisked by TSA\", how exactly do most people get to the cruise lines? Walk? Take the train? The cruise ships pick them up at their homes? Cruise lines stop at only a few ports, not everywhere, and most passengers fly to those locations.
You obviously didn't think this through very well.
@P_Smith: Have you actually see the prices for cruises these days? exorbitant is hardly the adjective I'd use. For those who either like cruises or are willing to give them a chance, they are very cheap. I like to vacation for under 100 bucks a day! But yeah, the food is more like prepaid rather than free. It would be like saying the shampoo snd stuff in a hotel's bathroom is free.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-449511-100x100.png\")
I am confused. She paid $1,787 for 2 WV residents and $3,275 for four Texas residents (incl. 2 children)? It's not clear to me that $3,275 was non-discounted. From what I can tell the 3rd & 4th guests in room pay about 1/2-1/3rd the rate for guests 1&2 in a room.
Too bad the departure and destination are not given as it will lead to much banter and disagreement on Consumerist as poster make their own assumptions.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-25844-100x100.png\")
It doesn't matter why RCL offers a discount to W. VA. Residents, the point is they do.
If the passengers weren't advised of this requirement when they booked then I think the travel agent owes them something. Not RCL.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-496332-100x100.png\")
The travel agent is clearly at fault here and I would be suing them for the cost of the trip to Florida and back, hotel, and time lost off work.
When you deal with a travel agent, you expect them to know their trade well enough that everything is taken care of. Yes, mistakes happen, but this agent should have known that using a state specific discount would be a no-no and there would be a huge probability that the family wouldn't be allowed on the ship not being able to provide the required information to board.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1021046-100x100.png\")
@Batwaffel: Or, the travel agent has done this before, has gotten away with it, gets his/her clients great prices, and is therefore successful. And getting caught this time was exception, not the rule.
Just a theory, but a plausible one, no?
@italianscallion33: very plausible, but the travel agent is still at fault. the agent's been flirting with the rules to be a successful travel agent, and it backfired here. the agent should make the customer whole.
@Batwaffel: I agree that the Travel Agent appears to have been at fault here - assuming that he knew they were from Texas and booked them with a WV discount - but why then didn't the OP contact the travel agent when RC demanded more money? The travel agent is liable - but only for their out of pocket expenses - in this case $400 ($800 extra fee minus the $400 RC refunded).
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-874363-100x100.png\")
Could they pay and then sue the travel agent for the difference if that travel agent made the reservations?
The agent is at fault for their attempt to book you a discount you couldn't qualify for. It's not RC's job to make up for the mistakes of of your travel agent.
This is why you don't deal with a middle-man whenever possible. Travel agents are scum.
@D0rk: I agree it's the agent's responsibility, but a classier company (Zappos cruise lines?) might've forgiven the $800 at the outset and gone after the agent on their own. If they found they'd been scammed, they do have the passengers' personal info, I'm guessing.
Reading this article, it doesn't look like the family from Texas got a special rate, but I don't know the difference between what they charge for a child and an adult (4 adults from WV, though, would cost MORE than what the Texans paid apparently - this whole thing is confusing)
@coren: There's not a special rate for kids; cruise ships basically charge per head, and that's it.
However, a reservation is priced on double occupancy. The 3rd and 4th passengers in one cabin don't cost as much per head as the 1st and 2nd passengers do. So, four people in two cabins will generally (depending on the price of the cabin class) cost a bit more than four people in one cabin.
I just came back from a cruise on the Liberty of the Seas... to make things short: can't wait for Oasis of the Seas this December!
Sounds like the problem is with the travel agency. They clearly tacked on a discount they knew the customer wasn't eligible for. The cruise line did nothing wrong. This should have never have been put on here without the name of travel agency. So people know the place running the scam.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-930037-100x100.png\")
People still use travel agents?
The problem here is the travel agent and not the cruise line. They probably were shopping prices and one travel agent offered them a deal that might have sounded to goog to be true. Turns out it was to good to be true. Rather than be ticked at the cruiseline they should direct their anger at the travel agent that lied to them just to get his comission on the sale.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-406173-100x100.png\")
Is what happens when you try to use a discount for the wrong state (note people parachuting off ship)?
The ship is at anchor. Those people are parasailing. You can see the faint outlines of the line pulling two sitting parasailers.
What if they lived in W.V. at the time of the booking and moved in the intervening months? While it does seem to be the booking agents fault RC should never have charged them the extra at the gate. The cabins were already booked, and the dollars they got will not offset the bad press. At worst, they could have informed the guests of the problem, allowed them on with no additional charge and taken the matter up with their booking agent. That is abysmal customer service.
@pulsar0510: No it's not. That's a hefty discount to let a customer get away with. I thought about the moving thing too, but the customer didn't say anything about it in her explanation, so that's probably not the case. The travel agent was just playing the system. RC shouldn't have to let that sneaky stuff slide - the family should've gotten a better travel agent, or done it themselves.
@italianscallion33:
Please. The family went through a professional and should have been held harmless for that professionals conduct. The cruise line accepted their payment and had zero chance of booking those cabins to an alternate party at that late hour so to insist on further payment is borderline criminal. To say \"the family should've gotten a better travel agent\" ignores the fact that the cruise line clearly let the ticket purchase be processed without verifying the validity of the discount until boarding, which sounds shady to me. And how does one know they need a different agent until AFTER there is a problem?
@italianscallion33: Maybe the travel agent was expedia.com (or similar) and not some store front agent.
Perhaps the OP booked through an online travel agency.
Expedia.com is considered a travel agency and they do book Royal Caribbean cruises.
In that case - who's fault is it?
How exactly is this \"Extortion\" Consumerist? They used a Discount code that they shouldn't, and they got caught. Or, the Travel Agent used a discount code they shouldn't, and they got caught. Either way, This is NOT RC's fault. And I don't think they are required to a full refund either. Who ever booked the cruse, is at fault here, and should pay the difference.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-350632-100x100.png\")
Why do West Virginia residents get such a big discount?
Anyone think this was one of those \"internet deals\" and the OP got busted?
Not that I'm saying I don't do internet deals. But if that is the case... sometimes those \"deals\" turn into \"duds.\"
Since we do not know the category of the cabin booked or the rate at the time (rates change just like airplane tickets) we do not know if they got a discount, but I assume they did for being WV residents. On the RCL website it states: Please Note: A valid driver's license or state-issued ID; U.S. or Canadian military ID; or U.S. or Canadian local, state or federal law enforcement, fire department, or EMT employment badge or ID must be presented at the pier to validate eligibility for the applicable Exclusive Rate. If eligibility cannot be validated, you will be charged the standard rate or denied boarding.
So I think RCL was justified in charging them the full rate and they should take it up with the travel agent
I rarely click through, but this excerpt was so confusing that I had to. \"The family from Texas, I paid $xx\"? I couldn't figure out what that meant, or even who was saying what in the quote.
After reading the article, I still don't understand it.
Assuming that everything she says in the article is accurate:
The lady, Mary Hoefs, was in charge of making arrangements for a family cruise. She bought tickets for a family in WV, for a family in TX, and for herself (as indicated by her use of the word \"here\") in AZ. She paid for all of these.
She paid $1787 for the family from WV, a special rate.
She paid $3275 for the family from TX.
She paid $3275 for the family from AZ.
At the time of embarkation, the family from Texas, who had paid the full rate of $3275 (same as the family from AZ) and not the reduced rate of $1787 (like the family from WV), were taken aside and told they had to pay extra.
If they paid $3275, then how is the cruise line saying they got the WV discount of $1787?
And if the WV discount price is $1787, why would the cruise line want $800 to make up the difference - which would only bring the total to $2587 instead of $3275?
Moving on from that, she is upset that the cruise line didn't inform her of the discrepancy beforehand - how on earth would they know? ESP? If, as their rep says, \"the guests from Texas were booked as being West Virginia residents,\" how could the cruise company be expected to know where they actually lived, before they show up with ID in hand? (Since she booked all the tickets through a travel agent, I'm assuming that all the tickets were delivered to her, so it's not like the cruise company would have gotten returned mail or something.)
I understand and sympathize with what a nightmare that must have been to have this all going on at the boarding location, but... what? The cruise company should send out agents to check passengers' IDs a month beforehand?
I feel like there's so much missing, so many details - what does the travel agent say about it all? surely s/he was contacted to find out if or how they were booked like that, where's that agency's input? - that it's impossible to conclude whether this was bad customer service (they incorrectly charged the TX family $800 more even though they had already paid the full, non discounted rate) or good customer service (the TX family got a promo rate - erroneously or fraudulently - that was $1488 less than it should have been, and only had to make good $400 of that unauthorized savings).
After rereading some of the comments, specifically coren's and IfThenElvis's, I realize that I didn't consider that the family sizes might be different... If TX's group was larger than WV's group, then it starts to make a little bit more sense.
But what are the odds that a *discount* rate for two children and (presumably) two adults would turn out to be identical to the *non-discounted* rate for {unspecified number, unspecified status)? I can see where that could contribute to the confusion.
I wish we had a lot more detail about this!
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-24726-100x100.png\")
I get the point, I really do, but in the future I really do prefer the answer on the outside. :-)
Maybe the travel agent told them they were paying $3K but actually booked the WV rate and pocketed the difference. I'd go after the travel agent since it is their responsibility to plan your trip to make it go smoothly.
I personally would never trust my vacation plans to a travel agent.
Another example of why not to use a travel agent and why you should book directly with the cruise lines.
Same thing happen to me on my honeymoon. But I had totally different outcome. I was told the code they used was for vegas and I needed to pay $700. I told them we could not pay. Then they said they would waive the fee and that we should try to get the $700 from my travel agent anyways.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-334007-100x100.png\")
gotta love crooked travel agencies that promise discounts larger than the sky just so they can get their commission....yet the traveler has to suffer right in front of the gate to start a misserable vacation.
good job travel agency!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-66943-100x100.png\")
RCCL was in the right here. It was the equivalent of ordering carry out and showing up with a coupon that says 'dine in only'. They don't have to honor it at all. In this case, they met them half way and gave them a discount.
@quagmire0: Sure, except they had months to notify the customer of the discrepancy. Why spring it on them at the last minute?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-451623-100x100.png\")
These Cruise companies make it sooooooo easy to find reasons to avoid their services. There are so many choices to spend your travel dollars more wisely and you can actually enjoy yourself! how do these companies stay in business?!? These kind of events are the rule not the exception with cruise comapnies.
Oops:
* hear whining
It always pays to use a reputable travel agent. Perhaps the reservation was booked by a travel agent wanna-be-they are out there. A reputable agency is licensed and bonded and carries the proper insurance. The agent or whomever made a blatant error, which should of never happened. The agent should always qualify the client, and go over every aspect of the travel details with their client long before departure. Actually, RCCL bent over backwards as this was clearly not the cruise lines fault.
If you went online and purchased Student tickets for a movie then when you went to the box office and they asked you for your Student ID and you didnt have one. Would you be offended when they told you that you had to pay full price?
Substitute Student with Senior or Military etc. Customer service when someone is using a discount they do not deserve? Where exactly do you draw the line?
Of course, the passengers simply could have been \"stretching the truth\" (or outright lying) and there was no way for the travel agent to know. It's not like they hire private investigators to background check every passenger.
Second most popular/false claim: \"No, that's not a debit card number I just gave you, the charge will go through.\" Sigh.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-307161-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-17616-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-690585-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-335588-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-505944-100x100.png\")
Good heavens!! They tried to use a discount they weren't eligible for? And they're upset that when they showed ID the discount was removed?? And the cruise line didn't know before they saw the ID's? Tsk. Tsk ... how rude of the cruise line. Of course they would refund part of it - as a good faith measure (complaints in the rough waters of cruise profits do work)
I'm an outside cruise agent and I always check what the discount is for (it's in the rules) and always tell people to make sure they qualify for ANY discount.
@IllianaCachaco: It's me ... under the right sign-in ... @ takes so little... you're right, I didn't word that sentence so it made sense. I always make sure people are qualified for the discount - and when someone asks me about a cruise (that I'm not booking) i tell them to make sure they qualify ...
All cruise lines have a lot of discounts - some are very attractive - but the rules are very specific about who can use them and who can't.
I agree, the cruise line isn't at fault here - the booking travel agent is ...
@IllianaCachaco: How exactly is this \"Extortion\" Consumerist? They used a Discount code that they shouldn't, and they got caught. Or, the Travel Agent used a discount code they shouldn't, and they got caught. Either way, This is NOT RC's fault. And I don't think they are required to a full refund either. Who ever booked the cruse, is at fault here, and should pay the difference.
@IllianaCachaco: @IllianaCachaco: As the travel agent, don't you consider it YOUR responsibility to check to see if your clients are eligible for discounts on tickets YOU sell them?