Based on the facts as stated….

I can entirely understand the penalty in the case of the DING advert. It sounds like SWA didn’t get their act together on that one.

But on the Luv a Fare Sale, it sounds like the DOT is absolutely out of order. I can’t see anything in the two statutes quoted (apologies if I have misread anything) which refers to quantity of seats available. And in any event who or what in the DOT can define ‘reasonable’. I would have thought that as long as at least one seat was available at the sale price, then the regulations had not been transgressed. Of course it is hoped that SWA stated in their advert that ‘fares at this low price are limited’ or some such other wording. Perhaps that was the problem (?)

For what it’s worth – here are SWA’s responses, which in my opinion fell into the ‘W’ category (weak and/or waffle)….

1. Southwest responded to the DOT saying that the “Luv a Fare’’ sale “was very beneficial to consumers’’ and that sale fares in many markets didn’t even sell out.

2. A spokesman for Southwest said that problem resulted from computer problems with its DING! offer. “These were temporary and unintentional circumstances that were aggravated by a technical glitch in our inventory and sales systems,’’ spokesman Brad Hawkins said. “We’ve worked with the DOT to address their concerns and have corrected the issues internally to prevent this from happening again.’’

Lee