MilesBuzz! - I know I'm an idiot, but...

We've recently seen some postings saying essentially, I know it's against the rules, but... Apparently, the "but" is that they are looking for others to say it's okay to break the rules. It's not okay and people on this board should say so. What's more, people should not use this board to circulate schemes that help others break the rules. After all, when the rules get broken, it's the frequent flyers who pay for it. For example, if I finally get into an international first class lounge, I don't want it full of a bunch of people who are flying from Moline to Ft. Wayne but figured they'd buy $10,000 international first class tickets using their Amex cards and knowing that they'd hustle over to the counter before boarding for Ft. Wayne to get refunds. That hurts the very people we are -- frequent flyers. It also taxes the airlines more than they figured the programs would tax them. Then what happens? Cutbacks.

I know. We're each just one person and what's it going to hurt if I cheat the system? Well, if we all do it, it's going to hurt a lot.

So what can we do to stop cheaters. There's plenty of stuff. If I were an accomplished hacker, I'd find out who the person is then notify my airline. Yes, I'm being a narc but rules are rules and, as I said before, when people break them (especially when they knowingly break them), they should pay the price. Here's another thought. Create a bogus identity on Ebay then place a ridiculously high bid on things like systemwide upgrades. Then, when the auction is over, renege on the deal. And keep doing it and doing it and doing it. What's the person going to do. Run to the police, the airline, Ebay? No. They can't. They're doing something against the rules.

Bottom line: If you are going to break the rules, don't ask us for permission and don't make us pay the price for your immoral behavior. (Yes, I said immoral, not illegal). As a lawyer, I know there is nothing "illegal" about selling upgrades, sneaking into lounges under false pretenses, etc. But I do know that it's wrong. Maybe people should try to start living their lives in a manner where they don't have to preface things with "I know it's wrong, but is it okay if I..."

PremEx2000, well spoken! If only more people had your attitude.

Greg

if rule breakers are the scrourge of the earth, narcs are a close second. i highly doubt that the lounges are going to fill up with people buying intl F tickets, and then running to get the refund before they fly.

enforcing all the rules costs money. so as a narc, you increase the cost of business. why dont you instead be a force for positive change, and work with these vile rule-breakers and help them reform? prevention will save the airlines and according to your logic, frequent flyers, more than enforcement. whats cheaper, prison or school? dont be a cop mentality, be a teacher.

next time a guy posts one of his, "but" posts email or post to the person, and try hard not to be holier-than-thou, and try to get them to stop.

lastly, please realize that you dont "have" to be a narc or a tattle-tale. you are CHOOSING to be one. you are kidding yourself if you think the hordes of people sneaking into lounges are FORCING you to be a rat fink.

laslty, continental is shafting their flyers with all their stupid hokey rules and upgrade crap. what caused that? people sneaking? no. so i would prefer you direct your moral vigilance at the airlines, not the tiny handful of people that bend or break the rules.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by PremEx2000:
Then what happens? Cutbacks.
</font>

Can anyone cite a specific instance of a cutback that was caused (correlation is not enough) directly or indirectly by people skirting the rules?

Regarding cutbacks caused by rule breakers, I assume that part of the reason that United has switched from paper upgrades to electronic upgrades in all but one case (SWUs), is because people were selling them in contravention of the Mileage Plus rules. So now, instead of just being able to gift a North American upgrade to a friend of mine, I have to walk 10 blocks to the city ticket office, wait in line, and show identification proving that I'm me so that I can have the electronic upgrade attached to that other person's ticket. It is a huge pain in the .... And aside from cost savings the airline realized from switching from paper to electronic certs, I presume a large part of the reason for this change is because people were routinely selling these certs even though the rules specifically prohibit that. But I don't work for the airline so I can't say for certain that that's the reason for the change.

PremEx2000,

The problem is where exactly to draw the line. The examples you cite may be clear cut, but Flyertalk is full of posts about gray areas like how to participate in targeted promos or get something more out of the programs than was originally intended by the airlines and hotel chains. If you take your position to its logical conclusion, we might as well just shut FT Miles down right now and replace it with copies of the official terms and conditions from each program.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by dhacker:
PremEx2000,

The problem is where exactly to draw the line. The examples you cite may be clear cut, but Flyertalk is full of posts about gray areas like how to participate in targeted promos or get something more out of the programs than was originally intended by the airlines and hotel chains. If you take your position to its logical conclusion, we might as well just shut FT Miles down right now and replace it with copies of the official terms and conditions from each program. </font>

Exactly. The question in the post that PremEx is referencing is a totally valid question. Counselor, the slippery slope argument works in both directions. FT Miles is designed to exploit (yes EXPLOIT) the awards programs out there. Is there a fine line we tread between what counts and what does not? Maybe. But I will take the HHonors points I earn for Priceline stays, and happily accept the promotions I use and are not 'directed' towards me. My 2cents. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

At least we got to the root of PremEX2000's beef:
"I have to walk 10 blocks to the city ticket office, wait in line, and show identification proving that I'm me..... It is a huge pain in the ...."

I believe the move to paperless on these coupons is the same as for printing tickets, cost savings for the airline.
But I could be wrong.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by PremEx2000:
Apparently, the "but" is that they are looking for others to say it's okay to break the rules. It's not okay and people on this board should say so. What's more, people should not use this board to circulate schemes that help others break the rules."</font>

I absolutely agree, and have been preaching that message here repeatedly. Unfortunately, the message generally is met with a bunch of folks desperately attempting to rationalize their dishonesty. It's a sign of the times. But thanks for your post.

P.S. Where oh where is wormwood?

If you started to hack into other people's account information would you not be guilty of what you preach?

Airlines changed over to electronic upgrades becuase it saves them a bunch of money in not having to process the paperwork. It is the same reason why they are pushing E-tickets. If you think the primary reason or even a secondary reason was to cut down on the "cheats" you are sadly mistaken.

As far as the "but" post, who said this person was going to do this--he just posed a question and people responded to it. While you may not like some of the responses, at least you were able to voice your viewpoint.

If you think the world is full of cheats and people looking at ways to break the rules you need to realize this is not a healthy approach to life. Please do not think that your view point is above approach.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Tango:
If you started to hack into other people's account information would you not be guilty of what you preach?

Airlines changed over to electronic upgrades becuase it saves them a bunch of money in not having to process the paperwork. It is the same reason why they are pushing E-tickets. If you think the primary reason or even a secondary reason was to cut down on the "cheats" you are sadly mistaken.

As far as the "but" post, who said this person was going to do this--he just posed a question and people responded to it. While you may not like some of the responses, at least you were able to voice your viewpoint.

If you think the world is full of cheats and people looking at ways to break the rules you need to realize this is not a healthy approach to life. Please do not think that your view point is above approach.</font>

Ahh, a voice of reason and reality from the crisp air of the Great Northwest http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

I think I know what you're trying to say but, PremEx2000, I find your subject header and (the first two paragraphs of your) post incoherent.

Golly, Mr. Cleaver, do people really break the rules?

Let's see, CO's "enhancing" OnePass for 2002 *after* we've already qualified for it. Gordon utters a bald-faced lie about no changes to OnePass, then implements them regardless.

Airlines lie to us all the time about delays, cancellations, "expediting charges", lost luggage, etc. They cram us into ever-shrinking seats, cut meals with no warning, raise change fees to extortionate rates, keep us imprisoned on grounded planes for hours, etc.

The airlines have written the 'rules' to their benefit and try to screw us over as much as possible. And you're advocating holding still for it?

This isn't a church social; it isn't a war either, though. I'm not advocating anything illegal, but have no qualms about exploiting their own "rules" to my benefit.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by PremEx2000:
Regarding cutbacks caused by rule breakers, I assume that part of the reason that United has switched from paper upgrades to electronic upgrades in all but one case (SWUs), is because people were selling them in contravention of the Mileage Plus rules</font>

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum105/HTML/004465.html

Is trading UA SWU's is against the rules too? Can we get a ruling from the mileage police?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by dhacker:
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum105/HTML/004465.html

Is trading UA SWU's is against the rules too? Can we get a ruling from the mileage police?

</font>

I'm all for a group hug, but that was hilarious.

I am going to agree with the original poster.
If you see someone in a wheelchair with a stack of $50 bills and you grab one and run, and no one will ever catch you, you are still a thief. Regardless of whether they had plenty more money or not.

Cutting in line is harmless, unless there are 10,000 free give-aways and the person who cuts makes you number 10,001.

I remember in college all the cool credit card numbers posted on the wall of the phone booth. I also remember we wanted to burn the university down when they took away the phone booths and we all had to walk two blocks to make calls outdoors.

Think of the riots in the 60's. Those communities sure showed the store owners who was boss. Of course 40 years later you can still see the rows of empty stores as you drive 7 miles to the supermarket.

All that has happened is that we are experiencing theft that doesn't exactly affect us at this moment. It's sorta the American way. (Greenies - here's your opening)

In our own world, I flew JFK to LAX and the guy next to me had 3 bistro bags. There's never enough food in these crappy little bags, he explained. No big deal, until they ran out of food. Harmless pilfering though.

There seems to be this new fascination with the line between right and wrong versus legal and illegal.

If I claim FF miles for myself and someone else with a name similar to mine, you might make the argument it isn't illegal, and you might find enough words to convince me, but you'll never find enough words to convince me it isn't wrong.

One other poster responded that we were "forced into this" by the evil actions of the companies involved. I thought that was why America suffered its worst attack in history? Someone was entitled to do it due our bad behavior. So please don't use this excuse.

We also had a thread a few weeks ago with women high fiving each other for taking over men's bathrooms cuz they felt entitled. Of course I learned alot from that episode and now park in handicapped parking whenever I want. There'll always be another space for those people.....

So please, at least have the dignity to be embarrased by your actions. Fifty people telling you that you are not a thief doesn't change reality, just your perception of it.

DHacker: I got to hand it to you, that was pretty nifty research. But if you read United's Rule 8, I did not violate the rules.

Maybe people misunderstood my initial point. I am all for "bending" the programs within their rules. As I see it, a mileage run is bending the rules. The airlines didn't necessarily count on people doing it, but it is not really violating the letter or the spirit of the rules. But when people specifically try to get miles assigned to someone other than who flew those miles, that's a pretty clear violation. What I'm talking about is people who say, "I know I'm violating the rules, but do people see anything wrong with it."

And I understand peoples' frustration with flying these days (although I don't really know the specifics of the Continental complaints). But just because the airlines treat you badly, that doesn't justify you breaking the rules. After all, if they break the rules, they get sued or have to give you vouchers or put you on another flight or put you up in a hotel, and so on and so on. And trust me, they get sued all the time. So when they violate the rules, they do have to pay up. When you violate the rules, most times you don't get caught.

And as for DHacker's point, I'm not perfect. I've tried not to break the rules. As many of us know, the more we learn about the programs, the more the loopholes become apparent. I admit, I came up with a pretty good bumping scheme. (I won't reveal it). I even tried it. It didn't work. But I didn't feel right doing it and I told myself I wouldn't try it again. And I haven't. I'm not perfect. But I think we can make this board better if we focus on exploiting the full value of the programs within their rules, not ways to violate those rules and not get caught.

Yes, it does get gray often. That's why we have each other. So when someone says, should I go ahead with a plan that is a clear violation of the rules, I think we, as a community, should help that person say no.

I support you on this one Premex2000, but I have seen that this is a tough issue to sell.
The world is full or empty of cheats, depending how skummy the person you ask. People who cheat are seldom bothered by their impacting of others as their basis of life is selfcentered.

People who say they know it is wrong, but are suffering from low morals and no balls so they seek the approval of others for their wrong doing.

Responders that support wrong doing usually are:
It is ok, everyone does it
It is ok, I do it
It is ok, it isn't murder
It is ok, they cheat me too (in my sick opinion)
It is ok, what is the big deal
It is good, the more you cheat others the more you have, tough for them, they should start cheating too.
Oh, it must be ok, you do it

Note these people are helping themself, not others. The will pay, there is a judgement day

Let me start off by agreeing with most of your latest post, and I am far from perfect myself (However, I disagree strongly with the original narc idea).

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by PremEx2000:
DHacker: I got to hand it to you, that was pretty nifty research.</font>

You really set yourself up for that one http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by PremEx2000:
But if you read United's Rule 8, I did not violate the rules.
</font>

I'm not too familiar with UA, so checked the rules on the Web site and expected to find support for your innocence. Unfortunately, I read Rule 8 and don't see it exactly the same way:

Prohibition of sale or barter (http://www.ual.com/site/primary/0,10017,1155,00.html)

8. The sale or barter of any such mileage, certificates, awards or benefits other than by United is expressly prohibited. Any mileage, certificates, awards or benefits transferred, assigned or sold in violation of the Program Rules, in addition to exposing the member to the penalties otherwise associated with violations, may be confiscated or cancelled. The use of award tickets that have been acquired by purchase, barter, or other conduct in violation of Program Rules may result in the confiscation of the tickets, denial of boarding with respect to the ticket holder, and, at United's discretion, completion of the travel only upon payment of an applicable fare.

Gee, now I'm acting like the mileage police http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/eek.gif

FWIW, I truly believe that we each have to decide for ourselves! Usually it is clear to most, if not all, but there are surely many grey areas, particularly where miles and points are concerned, IMHO! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by 767-322ETOPS:
Can anyone cite a specific instance of a cutback that was caused (correlation is not enough) directly or indirectly by people skirting the rules? </font>I'm not sure how I would PROVE cause and effect on this one, but once upon a time in the 1960's there used to be student standby fares that were approxmately 1/2 of normal coach fares. It was a good deal for everyone as long as everyone played by the rules (remember this was back in the days of airline regulation when capacity controls on fare classes had yet to be invented). Students discovered that they could usually get on flights that would normally have been sold out by calling and reserving a few seats in ficticious names. When these ficticious people no-showed at the airport, the student on his standby ticket got on the plane. Not only was this student standby fare phased out (and at the time the airlines pointed to this abuse as the reason the fares were disontinued), but it lead indirectly (along with the development of yield management and inventory management software) to the non-refundable and only partially refundable advance purchase tickets of today.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">I admit, I came up with a pretty good bumping scheme. (I won't reveal it). I even tried it. </font>

Bumping scheme????

Fill me in....

Yeah, I know, this is changing the topic. It is however, an well represented perspective from most people in this forum. I hear the infamous words of Newman from Seinfeld "Information is Power." http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/tongue.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Thumper:
One other poster responded that we were "forced into this" by the evil actions of the companies involved. I thought that was why America suffered its worst attack in history? Someone was entitled to do it due our bad behavior. So please don't use this excuse. </font>
Excuse me?!?! You're equating boarding in the wrong group with mass murder???? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

Here's one for you: Some airlines charge for carrying scuba gear, no matter if it's a single small item, or if it in no way exceeds the checked baggage allowances for weight or space. Golf clubs and bags are exempt from baggage restrictions, despite the weight and oversize shape.

Let's say you're carrying a small dive computer, equivalent to a watch, and nothing else besides your clothes. Would you "declare" the watch and pay $75.00 each way to transport it? Or would it be a matter of "don't ask, don't tell"?

[This message has been edited by taucher (edited 02-13-2002).]

I view flyertalk as a club where we share information. If there is a loophole and we share it with other crazy people who like to fly and stay in hotels, what wrong with that. A millage run fills up empty seats and that money go 100% to profit, because we would not be on that plane except for the millage. Cheating is cheating and than in the long run we will all lose.

Doc wrote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">FWIW, I truly believe that we each have to decide for ourselves! Usually it is clear to most, if not all, but there are surely many grey areas, particularly where miles and points are concerned, IMHO!</font>

I don't understand this post. If it is usually "clear to most, if not all", then what are the grey areas? What does it mean to say that "we each have to decide for ourselves"? What do the terms and conditions in your membership agreement with your affinity program state in black and white, not grey?

Let's see. A red light while driving is usually clear to most, if not all (we can only hope), as a sign to stop. We proceed on a green light or only when it is safe to do so (broken stop light, for example). Yellow is a different story and reactions may vary according to country and culture, but we're still not talking grey here. The point is that red clearly means stop. Thankfully we don't just "decide for ourselves" that the red might be meant for other drivers, but not ourselves, depending on the circumstances or if we decide to interpret red as grey.

While I agree with the original poster I only hope that the level of rightous indignation that some people on this board display is a mere shadow of their efforts in areas of their civic life (assuming they have one) that really count.

I see I have a reputation around here http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif !

I appreciate premex2000's comment and many of the responses.

DHacker makes a good point regarding where to draw the line and I think different people will of course draw the line in different places. There are important distinctions, however. For example, some ideas are fraud or plain stealing, while others are, in my mind, overworking a legally legitimate 'loophole' that will dilute benefits and/or cause program changes.

The former I abhor unconditionally.

The latter I fear, when combined with the power of the internet to spread information, will cause great harm because there are people who come to FT and take whatever ideas are tossed about here and carry them to extremes (I consider millions of Goldpoints for buying thousands of magazines extreme and harmful but not illegal).

Therein lies the rub. FT is about sharing ideas for maximizing participation. We all want to do well with the programs. However, without some form of self limitation, at least by most, I believe the programs will be damaged.

Then of course there is the issue of fairness, one that is by definition personal. I find some of the technically legal 'attacks' on promotions and programs unfair. They don't pass my 'pillow test' that is, when I lay my head down on the pillow at the end of the day will I rest easy knowing what I did was fair.

On top of this, I am dismayed by the arrogant and grasping nature of some participants... they hack off a huge chunk of flesh, and before things even have time to run their course they're howling bloody murder about how poorly they are being treated, faxing CEOs, and so on. That is ungracious in the extreme. It's a total laugh these people consider themselves good customers... they only came calling because they knew they could screw the business they were dealing with, then they want to be thanked for it!

Taken as a whole I believe the dynamic is one that threatens to the reasonable and fair person, the person who is a customer for more than simply to gouge out some points.

It has been heartening of late to see some of the more ridiculous and purely fraudulent schemes shouted down (and without my help!)

The larger challenge/issue is whether as community, in overall balance, we interact fairly with the businesses that offer us perks for our business so that we both can prosper.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by blairvanhorn:

Doc wrote:
I don't understand this post. If it is usually "clear to most, if not all", then what are the grey areas? What does it mean to say that "we each have to decide for ourselves"? What do the terms and conditions in your membership agreement with your affinity program state in black and white, not grey?

Let's see. A red light while driving is usually clear to most, if not all (we can only hope), as a sign to stop. We proceed on a green light or only when it is safe to do so (broken stop light, for example). Yellow is a different story and reactions may vary according to country and culture, but we're still not talking grey here. The point is that red clearly means stop. Thankfully we don't just "decide for ourselves" that the red might be meant for other drivers, but not ourselves, depending on the circumstances or if we decide to interpret red as grey. </font>

---

Yes, indeed, as you well note, the fact that "red means stop" means this is a bona fide non-issue!

How could it be grey when after all, it's RED! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Perhaps I am missing your point? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

If it is unlawful, it is wrong - and that is, of course, quite simple!

One recent example, (and the fact that I said that each individual should decide for themself strongly denotes that I prefer to not tell others what to do), of a personal grey area, is the "W" Times Square. It is not illegal, nor is it manifestly wrong, per se, to take advantage of an anomaly in pricing! After all economics is somewhat of an imprecise science, IMHO! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Yet I choose to NOT book it, since it personally did not seem to be, (to "feel") the right thing to do. Others did, however, (many in fact) and I most certainly respect their alternate views and actions. Admittedly, I live nearby, know some folks who work there and the added presence of the Starwood lurker, William, probably all played into the mix - and very much not to my credit personally, I found it personally embarassing. SPG has been good to me, and I truly appreciate it, and so I did not want to take advantage. Yet others are free to think, feel, do, whatever, as they may wish, IMHO.

Back and white is easy. Illegal is so simple. It's the "grey" areas that arise where we all need to perhaps give it some thought and at least marginally concern ourselves for the best interests of all - in my opinion.

Hope this clarifies my view for you! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by wormwood:
I see I have a reputation around here http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif !</font>

Go, wormwood, go! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/thumbsup.gif

For some people on this board, it is very convenient to be moral when it benefits them. For example, they have status on an airline and don't want "THEM" sitting in F or in their lounge. You are just telling people not to stretch the rules in order to preserve a benefit for yourself--that's not moral, its selfish and hypocritical.

Not every flyer on flyer talk has status on an airline. I understood the purpose of this forum was to learn how to maximize the value of what one has already paid for.

FT is not about exploiting the airlines. I would hope it IS about our loyalty to them, not our trying to get the better of them.

That being said, if we read on this board that there is a $30 r/t fare from LAX to NRT, common sense will tell us that there is a bug in the system. Trying to buy that ticket would be exploiting.

But if we read that there is a promotion (with specific guidelines and rules)...., and we go after the promotion ... that would be working WITH the system.

What about buying a domestic Y ticket on, say CO, showing up at the Pres. Club with the ticket and AMEX plat card, and then refunding the ticket without ever flying CO. I admit to doing this, and am now realizing that it is not quite ethical.

How about buying an airline club membership of one airline only to use it for another airline who had reciprocal access. Where does this fall?

I suppose we all have to hold a mirror to our faces.

[This message has been edited by zrs70 (edited 02-13-2002).]

you're not an idiot at all, i'm sure, but if you could be a bit more descriptive in your Topic title it would be helpful. thx. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

I have one of those conciouses that doesn't let me get away with too much.

As such, I see the right thing to do compared to what some are doing, quite often.

To avoid being like that sad character on MASH, Frank Burns, I try to keep in mind that I am not God, I am not a supreme being, I am nothing, therefore, who am I to judge others?

This tends to keep the world in balance for me ...

Of course, sometimes I forget this and come out sounding like the World Police but I, at least, have, thank God, never found myself in a position where I had to lower myself (or thought myself so exalted) to the point of becoming a narc.

And, I would certainly never go to that position willingly. Why?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Can anyone cite a specific instance of a cutback that was caused (correlation is not enough) directly or indirectly by people skirting the rules? </font>

CO claimed, a couple of years ago, that it was limiting international upgrades to 72 hours in advance because so many people were abusing the system by booking a discount fare and a full fare seat in BusinessFirst and then refunding the full fare one so as to make sure that open seats were available for the upgrade on the discounted seat.

I think I have the story straight, but if not, please correct me.

I am not arguing whether or not the reason for this enhancement to OnePass was a valid one, just pointing out what people at the airline stated at the time.

There are days you pull up to the stop sign and just slow down without coming to a complete stop before proceeding.
There are days you pull up to the stop sign and just slow down without coming to a complete stop before proceeding even though there was a police officer watching you.
There is a day you pull up to the stop sign and slow down without coming to a complete stop before proceeding and then you are pulled over and given a ticket.
Would your defense in front of the Judge would be that you thought it was okay because you had been doing it before?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by 767-322ETOPS:
Can anyone cite a specific instance of a cutback that was caused (correlation is not enough) directly or indirectly by people skirting the rules? </font>

AA started requiring ID in addition to an Admirals Club card to gain access to the club. They said it was "for the security of your membership." I think it's pretty obvious in this case that AA thought that a lot of members were giving their cards to friends or family members to use. Since these people, who were not paying members, were taking up space in the clubs and making use of whatever free services, food, beverages available, AA decided to start requiring ID.

While this, in itself, isn't a cutback, it is a change in the rules meant to stop people from defrauding them.

Also, there are a lot of people around here who claim that the airlines started requring photo ID to pick up a ticket so that people couldn't subvert the rules and allow a friend to travel under their name. I don't have any of the facts here, but it sounds reasonable to me.

(edited to add) Oh, and here's one where subverting the rules directly causes a cutback in the services received by other pax. In the case of the guy who wants to let his father travel under his name, with his elite status - each time his father travels he's taking away from real elites who earned their status by flying the required number of miles. Each time his father checks in at the FC line or elite preboards, there are real elites behind him who have to wait. Each time he flys on an elite FC upgrade and the FC cabin is full, there's probably at least one real elite who wanted the upgrade but didn't get it because there's a phoney elite sitting in FC.

That doesn't seem fair to me. If a true elite takes my FC upgrade seat, that's the way the cookie crumbles. But when some guy who's subverting the rules takes my FC seat - that is unacceptable.

d



[This message has been edited by Doppy (edited 02-13-2002).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doppy:
(edited to add) Oh, and here's one where subverting the rules directly causes a cutback in the services received by other pax. In the case of the guy who wants to let his father travel under his name, with his elite status - each time his father travels he's taking away from real elites who earned their status by flying the required number of miles. Each time his father checks in at the FC line or elite preboards, there are real elites behind him who have to wait. Each time he flys on an elite FC upgrade and the FC cabin is full, there's probably at least one real elite who wanted the upgrade but didn't get it because there's a phoney elite sitting in FC.

That doesn't seem fair to me. If a true elite takes my FC upgrade seat, that's the way the cookie crumbles. But when some guy who's subverting the rules takes my FC seat - that is unacceptable.

Uh, yah, right ... I caught you on the other thread on this. So, are those that didn't "steal" their status (as you so self-righteously and judgmentally claim that guy's dad did), but were comped in some way or made elite via a challenge, are they "phoney" elites or "true" elites, like you, who "who earned their status by flying the required number of miles"?

You might have to add a couple more soapboxes to include these other categories ...

[This message has been edited by lisamcgu (edited 02-14-2002).]

AA started to require ID for their Admiral Clubs becuase the company that prints/mails out the cards went on Vigra the Month of October and sent everyone 3 cards. AA asked everyone who got extra cards to mail them back in. The reason why AA decided to ask for ID is not becuase people were cheating but becuase they did not want to give people the chance to cheat. There is a differnce here.

The airlines started to ask for ID upon check in when the Unibomber made a specific threat torwads the LA area airports over a long holiday weekend. The airlines found lost of people flying on other people's tickets and have kept the rule in place ever since.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by PremEx2000:
DHacker: I got to hand it to you, that was pretty nifty research. But if you read United's Rule 8, I did not violate the rules.

Maybe people misunderstood my initial point. I am all for "bending" the programs within their rules.</font>

Well, PremEx, I think you're making a case against yourself here. As I understand them, the rules are not ambiguous at all - bartering of SWUs is against program rules and you are definitely breaking (not bending) them if you are doing what you ask to do in your post.

Let me be clear, though - I don't think there's anything immoral about that. And while I've never done that, I've posted my thoughts in other threads about Coupon Connection already - that would IMHO be a "no harm, no foul" situation. However, based on what you present in your posts, this is how I see it:

a) There's no way what you proposed in your SWU trading post is within program rules. Period.

b) It could definitely (conceivably) be within program rules to buy a full fare first ticket and then change one's mind later. While I've never used this as a "scheme," I can definitely tell you that in my business I've MANY times bought full-fare tickets at the last minute and then not used them - waiting at the gate with my cell phone to see if I really need to be in London the next day or not.

What do I think? Don't worry about what anyone else is doing and just do what you feel good about and makes you comfortable! If a few people want to sell their SWUs for a few hundred bucks, good for them. I doubt it'll hurt me. I definitely don't care about anyone doing either of the above scenarios and (as I've also posted before) I also believe that when you take into account how few the number of VERY frequent flyers is, THEN take into account how few of those actually care, know, or have the time to think about "schemes" like these, the chances that this stuff will actually affect how airlines run their programs/benefits is very slim.

PremEx - I hope you can take my initial comments in good fun. My intent is not to make this the "pick on PremEx thread" but it is amusing that you opened up the can of worms.

To take things back to a more general direction, let me present this scenario to you - one of the ways I OFTEN "bend/break" the rules. In much (4 of 8 legs in 2001) of my leisure international flying, the agents never ask me for my SWU and just print me my boarding pass. At that point I just get on the plane. I guess I'm officially "breaking" not bending the rules there. In this scenario, do you remind them they forgot and hand them the upgrade? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Thanks for your thoughts PremEx2000. You seem like a reasonable person and I belong to the idiot club also http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

For me, I try to treat the company in the same manner I hope they'll treat me. This is why I fly AA, stay at Hilton and rent from Hertz when I can. They aren't perfect but I think they do their best most of the time - just like me. They have gone out of their way in many situations to accomodate my circumstances and I appreciate it by showing support and abiding by the rules. If they become unreasonable, I'll go somewhere else rather than try to "get even."

It works for me.

Another fan of Wormwood. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by taucher:
Originally posted by Thumper:
[b]One other poster responded that we were "forced into this" by the evil actions of the companies involved. I thought that was why America suffered its worst attack in history? Someone was entitled to do it due our bad behavior. So please don't use this excuse. </font>
Excuse me?!?! You're equating boarding in the wrong group with mass murder???? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

Here's one for you: Some airlines charge for carrying scuba gear, no matter if it's a single small item, or if it in no way exceeds the checked baggage allowances for weight or space. Golf clubs and bags are exempt from baggage restrictions, despite the weight and oversize shape.

Let's say you're carrying a small dive computer, equivalent to a watch, and nothing else besides your clothes. Would you "declare" the watch and pay $75.00 each way to transport it? Or would it be a matter of "don't ask, don't tell"?


When I added that paragraph, I was concerned that someone would find that connection offensive. I apologize if it offended you. The reality is though, that "entitlement" has become the main cause for people doing things.

I am not saying that theft and murder are equal, but that I have a difficult time finding excuses for either. They are both immoral, as well as illegal.

We are continually hearing that people rob because they are poor, because things are so expensive, because things are unfair. I reject that, and feel that people have already begun using that same litany of woes to justify anything - even murder.

Will the courts soon decide how many times you have to be abused as a child in order for it to be OK for you to be a child molester? It wasn't your fault, you were a victim, and so on....

You want to steal, then be a thief. But don't explain to the rest of the world that the definition doesn't fit you, you have a note from home.

In the FF world, it starts innocently and snowballs. A poster writes that an FA spilled wine on a shirt and he got $50 from the airlines. Next day someone reads the post and bumps into an FA spilling a glass of wine in order to get a free quick $50. Fine for that person, but to then post how you did it, are proud, and then explain it was justified because the fare was so high, or the plane left late, or they were out of the main course you wanted?

That's where many of our fellow posters seem to have arrived at.


[This message has been edited by Thumper (edited 02-14-2002).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Back and white is easy. Illegal is so simple. It's the "grey" areas that arise where we all need to perhaps give it some thought and at least marginally concern ourselves for the best interests of all - in my opinion.

Hope this clarifies my view for you! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif</font>

Yes, black and white "is easy" (i.e., the law). So are red and green. I think I understand what you are trying to say when you discuss "grey" areas. But what does "at least marginally concern ourselves for the best interests of all" mean? You state that "others are free to think, feel, do, whatever, as they may wish, IMHO" and that "I most certainly respect their alternate views and actions".

Well, what does this mean, Doc? You are for loopholes and cheating and considering that a $25 rate per night at a brand new high-end NYC hotel is not a blatant mistake but is open to "alternative views and actions" even if you didn't feel right booking it yourself? I just don't understand your view on this subject.

With the amount of time (and the number of posts) you have here at FlyerTalk, I guess I expect a more definitive answer from you - even when it concerns so called "grey" areas (or non-red, non-green).

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Thumper:
I am not saying that theft and murder are equal, but that I have a difficult time finding excuses for either. They are both immoral, as well as illegal.</font>
Points of clarification:
1) I'm not advocating anything illegal; I don't support stealing any more than you do. But I don't support airlines attempting to extort money from pax for legal articles in checked luggage which do not exceed weight or size restrictions, either. There are zero extra costs involved for the airlines, and they refuse to accept liability for said items. They can't even argue the charges are based on high demand.

2) On the dive computer example, if the ticket agent doesn't specifically ask you if you have one, do you volunteer it?

3) Would you ever back-to-back ticket using different airlines for personal travel?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by blairvanhorn:

Yes, black and white "is easy" (i.e., the law). So are red and green. I think I understand what you are trying to say when you discuss "grey" areas. But what does "at least marginally concern ourselves for the best interests of all" mean? You state that "others are free to think, feel, do, whatever, as they may wish, IMHO" and that "I most certainly respect their alternate views and actions".

Well, what does this mean, Doc? You are for loopholes and cheating and considering that a $25 rate per night at a brand new high-end NYC hotel is not a blatant mistake but is open to "alternative views and actions" even if you didn't feel right booking it yourself? I just don't understand your view on this subject.

With the amount of time (and the number of posts) you have here at FlyerTalk, I guess I expect a more definitive answer from you - even when it concerns so called "grey" areas (or non-red, non-green).</font>

---

Blair- Much to my surprise, you appear to be far more of a "digital logic" kinda' guy than I ever would have imagined! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

I can explain to the best of my ability only and yet I can not necessarily compell anyone to understand! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif Nor would I want to! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

We all make choices everyday, I'd submit. Using your analogy, for example, a yellow light means, to me at least, "warning: slow down since it'll turn red soon."

Yet I'm from NY where many apparently feel a yellow traffic signal means "hurry up: hit the gas since it'll turn red any second!" http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/tongue.gif

We all decide on a kinda "threshold", if you wish, at which time we might apply the brakes. I'm probably in the middle or near it as I see it at least. My wife breaks very early. And so on.

Similarly, any observant traffic officer must, in effect, "decide" at which point the offending driver, literally becomes so, having run the yellow warning light! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

And then, if they have, whether or not to then issue a summons/citation/ticket, or perhaps just issue a warning slip, or just a polite "talking to," or even to simply not pull them over. And so on ...and so on....

You make your choices, and I make mine, and life goes on - hopefully happily for all -particularly if we all increasingly consider the consequences, both personally and for the common good - of course as we each see these matters!

Incidentally, I do also believe that your effort to somehow hold me to a "higher standard" is manifestly flawed - altough I naturally very much respect your right to an opinion - of course! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Blair- Much to my surprise, you appear to be far more of a "digital logic" kinda' guy than I ever would have imagined!</font>

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Incidentally, I do also believe that your effort to somehow hold me to a "higher standard" is manifestly flawed - altough I naturally very much respect your right to an opinion - of course!</font>

Again, http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif . No "higher" standards, ever. Just clearer. I learn a lot from everyone here, often the folks who have been around here much longer than I have and contibuted so much more. Given your experience here, I look up to you for your opinion on matters, including this one. I guess I just expected it to be more black or white (or red or green). No hard feelings. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by doc:

Incidentally, I do also believe that your effort to somehow hold me to a "higher standard" is manifestly flawed - altough I naturally very much respect your right to an opinion - of course! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif</font>

Doc, you're held to a higher standard because . . . you're Doc http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif Just another one of your supporters. Even in a virtual community you're attention to FT makes you a role model/authority figure (at least to new members such as myself). Take that for what it's worth. And if it means anything bending/breaking/manipulating/exploiting program rules has definitely created loyalty from myself to my programs. I look to stay at Hiltons whenever I can (despite paying a bit more here and there), and accept paying the small fee that NW always tacks on for the same routing that CO offers.

Absolutely none, naturally. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

I'm now headed off to make my regular Red Cross blood donation - I guess a "red area!" http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

At least when it's oxygenated! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Otherwise it'd probably be a "blue area!" http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/eek.gif

Have a great day all! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

2) On the dive computer example, if the ticket agent doesn't specifically ask you if you have one, do you volunteer it?

3) Would you ever back-to-back ticket using different airlines for personal travel? [/QUOTE]

Honestly speaking, I don't think I would volunteer the information. And I probably would buy back- to - backs if the savings were substantial.

So, at least in answering you I'm trying to be honest . http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

But I'm not certain that was the issue here.
Does doing something and getting away with it make it correct? That's where my issue is. Posters are trying to justify their actions by this logic as well.

On the corner of my block I saw an accident involving someone running a stop sign at 10 PM and plowing right into someone who had pulled out without their headlights on. It doesn't happen every time, but the law was written to prevent it from happening.
A defense of "I run the stop sign all the time and nothing ever happened before" is a pretty poor defense.

The end result, by the way was that the guy who ran the stop sign was the guilty party. While the lack of head lights was a mitigating factor, stopping at the light (obeying the law) would have prevented the accident.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The end result, by the way was that the guy who ran the stop sign was the guilty party. While the lack of head lights was a mitigating factor, stopping at the light (obeying the law) would have prevented the accident.</font>

Thumper, thanks for this post.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by doc:
Absolutely none, naturally. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

I'm now headed off to make my regular Red Cross blood donation - I guess a "red area!" http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

At least when it's oxygenated! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Otherwise it'd probably be a "blue area!" http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/eek.gif

Have a great day all! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif </font>

_____________________________

Very well said!

Another reason many of us look up to your posts!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Thumper:
Honestly speaking, I don't think I would volunteer the information. And I probably would buy back- to - backs if the savings were substantial.

So, at least in answering you I'm trying to be honest . http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif</font>
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif So would I. I also agree with you about the $50.00 intentional spill not being right. See, I'm not all bad. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Actually, we're probably similar in our approaches to this sort of thing, assuming you're close to the libertarian model.

It's just that the original poster tried to make this a clear-cut, black-and-white issue. It's not. It's something we will individually have to struggle with on a case-by-case basis. There are simply too many grey areas and varying degrees of harm to consider, otherwise.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Thumper:
But I'm not certain that was the issue here.
Does doing something and getting away with it make it correct?</font>
Depends. Isn't that how legal precedent is often set? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Thumper:
On the corner of my block I saw an accident involving someone running a stop sign at 10 PM and plowing right into someone who had pulled out without their headlights on. It doesn't happen every time, but the law was written to prevent it from happening.
A defense of "I run the stop sign all the time and nothing ever happened before" is a pretty poor defense.</font>
Granted, though I regard this sort of thing less of a moral issue and more of a risk assessment.

Is it immoral to break the law? It depends. One small town I occasionally drive through still has on the books an archaic law requiring drivers to stop at the edge of town, get out, run ahead, and loudly warn of the imminent arrival of an automobile (presumably to avoid scaring the horses). I must admit to breaking this law with joyous abandon...and without losing sleep over it. And then there are laws of the Nuremburg sort that scream for defiance...


[This message has been edited by taucher (edited 02-14-2002).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by lisamcgu:
Uh, yah, right ... I caught you on the other thread on this. So, are those that didn't "steal" their status (as you so self-righteously and judgmentally claim that guy's dad did), but were comped in some way or made elite via a challenge, are they "phoney" elites or "true" elites, like you, who "who earned their status by flying the required number of miles"?

You might have to add a couple more soapboxes to include these other categories ...</font>

I'm not on a soapbox, I just don't want to be sitting in coach while some guy who's breaking the rules is sipping my free drinks and eating my first class meal. He's breaking the rules; to me, that means he's not entitled to deny me the benefits of my status that I earned within the rules.

As I mentioned in the other thread, people who earned their status within the rules, whether by comp, challenge or some other method are real elites. People who subverted the rules are in effect stealing status. Why should people who subvert the rules get to decrease the value of my rule-abiding elite status?

d

Oh, I'm soooooorry ... I was under the impression that you only considered those who gained status by flying the required number of miles to be "real" elites ... oh, wait, what's this ... gosh, I guess I take back my apology:
______________________________________

Originally posted by Doppy:
... each time his father travels he's taking away from real elites who earned their status by flying the required number of miles.
______________________________________

Are you by any chance related to Richard (is this how you spell it) Riordan?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by taucher:
Originally posted by Thumper:
I am not saying that theft and murder are equal, but that I have a difficult time finding excuses for either. They are both immoral, as well as illegal.</font>
Points of clarification:
1) I'm not advocating anything illegal; I don't support stealing any more than you do. But I don't support airlines attempting to extort money from pax for legal articles in checked luggage which do not exceed weight or size restrictions, either. There are zero extra costs involved for the airlines, and they refuse to accept liability for said items. They can't even argue the charges are based on high demand.

2) On the dive computer example, if the ticket agent doesn't specifically ask you if you have one, do you volunteer it?

3) Would you ever back-to-back ticket using different airlines for personal travel?

Bravo! My sentiments exactly. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

There's not a whole lot that's been talked about in this thread that's "illegal," no matter how much you stretch the letter of the law. Against airline policies, sure, but not illegal.

In many of these cases, you're not talking about BREAKING THE LAW. If I needed to go somewhere on Tuesday, returning on Thursday, then my "moral dilemma" would come down to: Do I spend $400 of my hard-earned money for a couple of RT tickets on different carriers? Or give them an extra $1,000 on top of that, not because the law says I must, but because someone in the revenue maximization department some years back decided this was a good way to meet their earnings projections for this quarter?

Sorry, but my thoughts on that question are pretty cut and dried. If that makes me an immoral person, well, then so be it.

Certain of you may think FT, and some of its members, are putting our morals on the express train to you-know-where. I, on the other hand, like to think of it as a game. It's a game between large corporations, who want to maximize revenue, and individuals, who want to minimize cost. They hold all the cards. We just have to find the ways to do the best with what we're dealt. And by collaborating, we can bring about better results for a larger group of individuals.

How, exactly, is that immoral?

SP

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by lisamcgu:
Oh, I'm soooooorry ... I was under the impression that you only considered those who gained status by flying the required number of miles to be "real" elites ... oh, wait, what's this ... gosh, I guess I take back my apology:
______________________________________

Originally posted by Doppy:
... each time his father travels he's taking away from real elites who earned their status by flying the required number of miles.
______________________________________

</font>

I think we're both adult enough to understand the gist of my comments. Besides, both the traditional way of earning status and challenges require pax to fly a required number of miles to earn status. So, the only way of getting status that I didn't cover with my above quoted statement was comps. So, as you've already read, I clarified my comments to include those who were legitimately comped by the airline, per the rules and without intent to defraud.

d

I always follow these moral-ethical debates with interest, as FT seems to be a laboratory for how people make decisions in the bigger world. Also, as a criminologist I’m fascinated with how people rationalize decision making.

I think that it’s important to let people know where I’m coming from before giving an opinion: As I own a business, I buy stuff I would use anyway and get miles/points. So, it seems disingenuous of me to criticize someone for, say, buying magazines and selling them on Ebay. My buying and using magazines and Kelloggs and taking (a legitimate) business expense appears to me to be on no higher moral ground then buying and selling the same products; and certainly not higher ethically than giving stuff to charity.

Yet, I’m uncomfortable with the “everyone must decide for themselves” route. As has been pointed out, everyone benefits when everyone plays by the “rules”. Over-exploitation, like over-fishing, leaves everyone worse off.

Some things are plain wrong. Buying and then canceling purchases after the miles have posted cannot be defended.

I believe that we need to recognize (with our buying habits) that Gold Points, etc. are in business to make money. If one takes advantage of a loss leader promotion, it seems good manners to consider becoming a customer. I try to use Goldpoints as a portal, even when the return isn’t epic. Perhaps scoring big off Goldpoints means one should consider Radisson as a possible hotel option. And although Latinpass’s customer service blew, I will use them whenever possible, all other things more of less equal.

It’s hard to say where smart consumer-ship ends and exploitation of an offer starts. But, in general, it’s impolite to make a meal out of what should be a snack. Getting to a party early and eating all the bacon wrapped shrimp before the other guests arrive isn’t illegal, but it is boorish and will lessen future invite opportunities. So maybe it's boorish to buy a huge amount solely for points/miles, though how to define huge is hard to say.

We all know in our hearts that the people who put together the Valuemags promotion never expected that a smallish bunch of people would buy well over a million dollars in magazines simply for the points. That Goldpoints could have or should have known does not seem to be good enough reason to get ticked off at them for not posting “what is owed” immediately. It does not seem unreasonable for them to take two months to deal with the onslaught (and the losses) and then post the points.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Getting to a party early and eating all the bacon wrapped shrimp before the other guests arrive isn’t illegal, but it is boorish and will lessen future invite opportunities.</font>

Jailer: Once again, you post the words that escape me. Thank you for your eloquence. (P.S. I owe you an e-mail http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif )

I want to say that this topic has turned into a most interesting discussion for me. So many things pose a moral decision and the frank conversion that we are having helps to clear out the cobwebs. There are lots of gray, and it is "them" against "us". How far one goes in playing the game is the question.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
It’s hard to say where smart consumer-ship ends and exploitation of an offer starts. But, in general, it’s impolite to make a meal out of what should be a snack. Getting to a party early and eating all the bacon wrapped shrimp before the other guests arrive isn’t illegal, but it is boorish and will lessen future invite opportunities.
[/B]</font>

"Jailer" is right on, right here, right now.

Ol' Joe

For me, one rule seems to always come out on top, the "golden rule."

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Indurain:

For me, one rule seems to always come out on top, the "golden rule."</font>

Yep! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Thanks Jailer, for raising such fine points.

So how then might these thoughts apply say to this thread?

ETHICS - "$0" Rate Errors & Demands to Honor
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum1/HTML/005095.html

This has been a great thread.
I'm going to take it down a new avenue.

I get about 10 offers a week for magazine subscriptions. Some are obscure trade rags, but some are mainstream publications that I have and would again pay money for.

Each comes with a questionaire. I fill them out with abandon. The information is almost always fictional. As the my mentor at work told me - do you think the magazine police are going to come for you?

I'm not sure this is any more black and white than our driving examples, but it puts it in a different context.

Well, as the idiot who apparently inspired this thread, i thought i'd let it run for a while before i chimed in; i'm so much of a relativist (often to my own chagrin), that simply saying "rules/laws must be followed" usually doesn't cut it for me, because i can think of so many instances where it's be wrong to follow the rules/laws; having said that, i don't think they should be disregarded in their entirety, or it would literally be chaos; so how to decide? can't say i have a good answer to that, but somehow i think we all look at the equities involved in each situation (including those imputed to obeying the rules); let me put a twist on the situation; say an airline breaches the contract of carriage and screws you over (e.g. puts you on a bus instead of a plane and offers no compensation whatsoever-- it happened to me); your only recourse is to sue in small claims court, hardly an attractive option; would that justify you in somehow trying to "get over" on the carrier at a later date in an amount roughly comparable to the injustice it inflicted upon you? simply throwing out "2 wrongs don't make it right" isn't going to convince me; i'll throw out "an eye for an eye" and we'll be drowning in cliches; i'm interested in people thoughts; the 2 threads have been intereting; And Premex2000, I'd be interested in hearing why you believe bartering doesn't violate rule 8 ... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif