This is a good elucidation. Still a crap product, though. And arguably the business practices of the Airlines are geared towards making informed decisions more difficult. The regulatory body should actually look at <this>, precisely because they are new (these practices were not at all common prior to y2k). Opaque pricing as a marketing strategy, in particular, is a policy concern. The net result is the cost of a trip -- in time and money -- are almost impossible to predict. Part of this is pricing, part of this is the assymetry of the ticketing terms. This makes reasonable economic allocation decisions problematic. And that is actually an issue, for the public and for the regulatory bodies to consider. I'm normally not a fan of bueracracy, but the ticket sizes ($1,000's per year) and the multiplier effect (cost of doing everybody elses business changes) is such that some basic frameworks would probably be productive. In particular, if the industry is on a level playing field, it wouldn't be distortive to competition (any more so then the current concetration issues or the impact of opacity on mkt efficiency).
The obvious problem with this is that one generations "floor" of minimum quality becomes the next "ceiling" when tech changes and innovation promises better/faster/cheaper ways of doing things. Once the power is given to write the rules, then the special interests will ensure they are written for their benefit. Etc. But its still worth thinking the problem through. To big an issue to not even try.
Look at the impact that Heathrow had. It provided London and the UK with a massive advantage over the past 20 years as the English speaking gateway to the EU. And thats despite all of its limitations and problems.