If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Email from MBNA AOPA
It's not as silly as it seems at first sight.
Yes, it is. No, it isn't. Mind you, I'm not saying it's not silly. It is just less silly than it seems. It seems sillier than it is. Unless, of course, he includes in his advertising the information that he will discount the price by some amount for people not using credit cards. There's no prohibition against any such advertising. No, but there are rules about it. The discounted price cannot be more prominent than the nominal price. Also, I most often run into merchants adding this fee to credit card users (in the form of a discount for everyone else) in situations where there is no real concept of "advertised price". My dentist, for example. Hmmm. I'll have to ask my dentist about that too. But if somebody calls and says "how much is an exam", the price that is quoted should be the non-discounted price. There really =is= a concept of "advertised price", it's just, well, not advertised. And of course, your explanation begs the question of why a credit card company would write into their contracts a loophole... your explanation requires that one assume that the credit card company cares more about how their clients advertise and less about whether credit card users are charged a surcharge or not. Historically, I believe that is the case. IIRC, the "discount for cash" gave an advantage to merchants who did this, to the detriment of merchants who did not. CC companies valued the latter more, and listened to their complaints (and the complaints of CC holders who resented being charged). By putting in this rule, they induced people to use CCs more, which is what the CC companies are =really= interested in. They still valued the other merchants, and I guess that was the compromise that was reached. I think some attorney generals got involved too. Jose -- He who laughs, lasts. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Email from MBNA AOPA
I'll start using cash, I suppose. But some FBO's actually have given me a 5% discount for using the AOPA card; then I get a 5% discount from MBNA when I turn it in at the end of the year as part of my application for the 5% rebate. Works out to a 9.75% discount on some (but few, and, small) discounts. Since my annual is always put on the card, plus all else, I always count on a $250/yr rebate, anyway. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Email from MBNA AOPA
Jose wrote:
It's not as silly as it seems at first sight. Yes, it is. No, it isn't. Mind you, I'm not saying it's not silly. It is just less silly than it seems. It seems sillier than it is. Is surface appearance the true measure of how silly it is? |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Email from MBNA AOPA
Is surface appearance the true measure of how silly it is?
No, but it's the true measure of how silly it seems. Jose -- He who laughs, lasts. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Email from MBNA AOPA
I didn't think it was as silly as it seemed.
You and I agree. Jose -- He who laughs, lasts. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pilot claims no blame in July crash | Mortimer Schnerd, RN | Piloting | 48 | March 15th 06 09:00 PM |
MBNA Aircraft Financing | att news group | Owning | 29 | November 7th 05 04:10 AM |
Searching information about Mike Fisher | PitCock | Home Built | 2 | January 17th 05 09:31 PM |
AOPA and ATC Privatization | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 139 | November 12th 03 08:26 PM |
email attack | Richard Lamb | Home Built | 21 | September 29th 03 06:39 AM |