Read Fine Print Carefully Before Buying Ticket : Advertising: Some airlines agree that playing up a fare that doesn’t exist is misleading. However, it’s still the responsibility of the consumer to carefully study all the information offered.

Can airlines legally cite only a one-way fare in advertising headlines if other parts of the ad suggest that there really is no one-way fare?

Also, can the price, which is designed to catch your eye, exclude such charges as assorted taxes (the international air-departure tax is expected to be doubled soon to $6 from $3)?

Although the Department of Transportation says yes to both questions, many consumer organizations object, contending that such practices really amount to deceptive advertising.

The National Assn. of Attorneys General has issued guidelines that specifically call for airlines to include all taxes and surcharges in the advertised rate, and not to advertise one-way fares if there is no ticket at that rate.

Also, the Department of Transportation says that the states, under the Federal Aviation Act, can’t regulate airline advertising.

Moreover, the Department of Transportation contends that it is acceptable for the carriers to separately list additional charges and to state elsewhere in the ad that a round-trip purchase is necessary.

As long as all pertinent facts are available in the ad, anyone can presumably make a judgment and figure out the total cost, the Department of Transportation reasons.

Thus, airlines may try to get you to read its ad by advertising misleading headlines. This is what concerns consumers, as well as some airlines.

Neither are travel agents pleased with such advertising. “I prefer the guidelines issued by the attorneys general. But the DOT hasn’t listened, and we still have ads that are misleading and unfair to the traveling public,” Susan Kaplan of Martin’s Travel & Tours in Los Angeles said. Kaplan also is president of the Southern California chapter, American Society of Travel Agents.

“Consumers often call travel agents trying to get a fare that doesn’t exist,” she said. “Then they blame the agent when they can’t get this rate, even though it’s the airline’s ad that created the false impression.”

Such information is invariably in smaller type, although there might be a border around it and it may be in bold-face type. On the other hand, important if not crucial information might be in the small print near the bottom of the ad.

Regardless of placement, it’s the responsibility of the consumer to read all the information carefully.

Never ignore an asterisk. Some readers automatically go from headlines with asterisks to the information by the asterisks, bypassing the rest of the copy. Only after deciphering the asterisk information will they continue to read the rest of the ad.

Another example of a questionable headline is the one that cites a price for a hotel room, with an asterisk by the price. If you read the small print you’ll discover that the $50 rate is per person, double occupancy. This means that the rate is really $100.

Some carriers agree that advertising of nonexistent, one-way fares is misleading.

“We’re vehemently opposed to advertising any fare that isn’t available. What you see first is what you should be able to buy,” a Southwest Airlines spokesman said.

A USAir executive wrote the DOT: “Why should the DOT permit airlines to advertise a one-way fare when one-way travel is not offered at that fare?”

The DOT concedes that its policy is vague. Now it is deliberating a proposal on airline- and tour-operator price advertising that would clarify its position. “We want to make our policy explicit, but we’re not changing it,” a DOT spokesman said.

The question of whether states can regulate airline advertising may be decided in a federal court in Texas, where litigation is pending.

The DOT also is weighing a proposal that may make it easier for consumers to fly to some international points without going to major coastal gateways. This plan would allow cities to be served by foreign airlines.

Western cities that might benefit from such a rule are Phoenix, Denver, Portland and Salt Lake City.

Foreign airlines would have to meet key criteria to get such routes. For example, no other airline could serve the American city from the foreign airline’s home country, and the route couldn’t involve service to or from third countries.

Such rights wouldn’t be granted if American interests mounted acceptable objections. American carriers, which don’t offer international service from various cities, generally want to feed traffic from those places to their hubs. Moreover, U.S. airlines would want the same sort of rights overseas if foreign airlines can claim such routes in the United States.

While the power of states to control airline advertising is in question, the states may get more authority in another area that many observers believe is long overdue.

A bill pending in Congress would give states more power to regulate telemarketing operations, and also provide more authority to the Federal Trade Commission to fight such scams.

If approved, the bill would permit state attorneys to file suit in federal courts against fraudulent telemarketers. If a court issued an injunction against a telemarketer in one state, or required it to repay money illegitimately collected from consumers, attorneys general in other states could immediately ask that these court orders apply in their states as well.

This authority would save an attorney general in another state from having to file a duplicate suit within his area of jurisdiction. Inasmuch as these scam outfits generally work a certain area quickly and then move on, speed is essential to prevent them from ripping off consumers.

The bill also calls for the Federal Trade Commission to devise regulations within six months to fight telemarketing scam outfits.