Below is my response that I posted on Flyertalk and his blog View from the Wing on Boarding Area:
This deal was first published on March 29, 2013 prior to the FTU on this website:
As of today the Australian Frequent Flyer website has over 1165 post on the subject. They have been openly discussing this Brazilian Expedia airfare booking in the home country of Qantas Airlines for months.
TheMrPickles blog most certainly has had nothing to do with this deal ending. And intact, people are writing on the Australian website that they are still booking through the Brazilian Expedia website at the discounted fares.
Call me an idiot if you want, but at least have your facts right.
And before anyone wants to throw in my face that I breached a promise at FTU you better google what a “contract of adhesion” is.
And for those of you who don’t know how to google:
adhesion contract (contract of adhesion) n. a contract (often a signed form) so imbalanced in favor of one party over the other that there is a strong implication it was not freely bargained. Example: a rich landlord dealing with a poor tenant who has no choice and must accept all terms of a lease, no matter how restrictive or burdensome, since the tenant cannot afford to move. An adhesion contract can give the little guy the opportunity to claim in court that the contract with the big shot is invalid. This doctrine should be used and applied more often, but the same big guy-little guy inequity may apply in the ability to afford a trial or find and pay a resourceful lawyer.
In this case 600 people “paid” to attend, fly, and paid for accommodations at the meeting hotel. Once they got into the meeting room and the session started they were told “This is a SECRET and you can’t tell anyone”
The attendees had no choice but to stay in the room to get their monies worth. If they left the room they would be out all of the money they spent to attend by turning the trip into a trip-in-vein.
All of the attendees were at an unfair advantage and unable to bargain or make a fair negotiation on the terms. The attendees should have never been put in this position. The requirement to keep “this” secret does not hold water and is an unfair restriction.
I am the little guy in this scenario. My ethics have always been the same. And I stand by my word. Those that know me personally know that I am true to my ethics.
And that is all I have to say about this. Other than the fact that I am still a big fan of Gary Leff!
Now lets move on do what we do best, See the World!