I made a mistake, it seems, in sharing a great tip at the April Frequent Traveler University.

In an ‘off the record’ session where folks are asked not to post or write publicly about what’s discussed — I specifically offered up a tip on the understanding that it wouldn’t be publicly disclosed, suggesting that anyone who was uncomfortable with those terms please leave the room – I shared a way to save as much as $600 on tickets to Australia.

The reason the tip was ‘off the record’ is because I believed that, if written about, the opportunity would go away. That’s why I never wrote about it on my blog, though of course sharing such ‘secrets’ is precisely how one gets notoriety and fame in this travel blogging world.

I try hard to share the best ways to earn lots of miles at low cost, how to use those miles with greatest effect, and how to get the best deals on travel.

I have no problem writing about deals that I believe will be short-lived, to give as many people a chance as possible to take advantage of them. But I tend to steer away from those things where I believe the deals won’t last if they get blog exposure.

Brazil has a law that says fuel surcharges cannot be added to tickets departing that country. As a result, airlines usually file higher fares without those surcharges for Brazil departures. Qantas, however, had their fares filed incorrectly — such that any ticket purchased in Brazil priced out without fuel surcharges.

And it’s pretty easy to purchase a ticket in Brazil from the comfort of your computer (and from many other countries as well). You just need to use a country-specific Expedia website, in this case expedia.com.br. Google Chrome has a built-in translate feature.

Using that website (best to buy your tickets with a credit card that does not charge foreign currency transaction fees) you could buy Qantas tickets between any two points without fuel surcharges. You could save about $600, for instance, on Los Angeles – Sydney tickets.

Of the six hundred-plus people in attendance at Frequent Traveler University where I shared this, only one person posted publicly about the deal I shared: Mr. Pickles wrote with joy about sharing a ‘secret’ that he wasn’t supposed to. And now that ‘secret’ is dead.

Unsurprisingly, this trick no longer works — Qantas flights no longer seem to be available on Expedia’s Brazil site.

That said, blaming that blog’s publishing the ‘trick’ for it no longer working would be a logical fallacy — post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because it stopped working after publication doesn’t mean it stopped working because of publication. It’s suggestive, but not dispositive.

When Airfarewatchdog published the trick of adding a flight to Canada at the end of a United international ticket that deal was killed in a matter of hours. Precisely because the loophole was closed so quickly, I doubted that the publication of the trick could have been the cause (I was skeptical that United IT was that good). What I initially believed to be a logical fallacy in blaming Airfarewatchdog turned out to be true — as I had confirmed to me by folks working for ATPCO which publishes international airfares (and was involved in the fix).

If Mr. Pickles killed the deal he took so much joy in outing, then I feel badly that I shared it in a room where he was present. Everyone else, as far as I’m aware, honored the pledge not to write about this one.

On the other hand, it might have been headed for an end anyway. If his writing about it let anyone take advantage of the deal – despite the request from the person sharing it with him (me) that it not be shared further online — then perhaps it’s for the good.

Without confirmation from the inside which story is true, I have no way to know. But I will continue my approach of sharing most things, things that seem like they’ll have a long shelf life or that seem like very short term opportunities regardless of whether they’re shared, and not sharing things that I believe will be killed once published. And, of course, honoring any commitment that I may make to someone that shares deals with me — if it’s shared with me with the understanding I won’t publish it, I do not write about it.

Update: To be clear, maybe my point was lost, I am not blaming this blogger for killing the deal. In fact I suggested to do so would be a logical fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc) — but that I would not have posted it (and did not) and I believe he should have honored the terms under which the technique was shared with him.

---

You can join the 30,000+ people who see these deals and analysis every day — sign up to receive posts by email (just one e-mail per day) or subscribe to the RSS feed. It’s free. Don’t miss out!