Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > TravelBuzz
Reload this Page >

what to do when airline warned me about numerous throw-away ticketing? ($95 vs $497)

what to do when airline warned me about numerous throw-away ticketing? ($95 vs $497)

Old Jan 2, 2011, 1:50 pm
  #31  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Home Airports: CAE/CLT
Programs: Hyatt Globalist, National Executive
Posts: 5,452
Originally Posted by xSTRIKEx6864
This is another area where improved consumer protections are needed. There is no "theft" from the airline when you skip a flight.
Sure there is.
You enter a contract to fly from A-B-C knowing that you really want to get off at B to save a few hundred bucks, you are taking money from the airline and their stockholders.
Gamecock is offline  
Old Jan 2, 2011, 1:51 pm
  #32  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,393
I don't know about the theft issue, it could be argued that it is a breach of contract... although even that may be hard to argue given the airline itself 'doesn't guarantee to carry you at te times listed on the ticket, or even to the destinations listed on the ticket'.

If the airline has that right in the contract, it would be hard for them to argue that the passenger doesn't have that right either!

I'm even not sure what the actual losses are to the airline for the breach of contract (it actually costs them less if you skip the last segment).

Are there competition laws in the US which prevent price gouging? The difference of $400 is extreme.

Edited (after reading the UK examples)... public transport operates differently in the UK - there are private operators and some tickets are sold on a destination specific basis. You must hold a valid ticket to travel a particular route. In the cases mentioned the holder of the ticket didn't have a valid ticket to the intermediate stop where they disembarked. Revenue is divided between different operators for very low fares based on the origin and destination. It may not make sense to not be allowed to disembark early, but I can see the difference in argument.

In the case of the OP here, he clearly had a valid ticket to travel between the points listed, just decided not to take the last leg of the journey.

Interesting case.

Last edited by LHR/MEL/Europe FF; Jan 2, 2011 at 2:00 pm
LHR/MEL/Europe FF is offline  
Old Jan 2, 2011, 2:05 pm
  #33  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Atherton, CA
Programs: UA 1K, AA EXP; Owner, Green Bay Packers
Posts: 21,691
Originally Posted by Gamecock
Sure there is.
You enter a contract to fly from A-B-C knowing that you really want to get off at B to save a few hundred bucks, you are taking money from the airline and their stockholders.
Show how this is true. At the very least, the airline is saving the fuel it would take to haul 200 lbs of passenger/luggage the extra distance.

This is simply an example of the airline gaming the system to charge more than a fair fare because of monopolies awarded by the government. IMHO, the airline is guilty of fraud, morally though not legally.
Doc Savage is offline  
Old Jan 2, 2011, 2:09 pm
  #34  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Home Airports: CAE/CLT
Programs: Hyatt Globalist, National Executive
Posts: 5,452
It's not about saving fuel but market demands.

B is a market that is more popular and therefore can bring in a higher cost.

Far fewer people want to fly to C, so to entice fliers the fare is lower.

It is no different than any other business.


Originally Posted by Doc Savage
Show how this is true. At the very least, the airline is saving the fuel it would take to haul 200 lbs of passenger/luggage the extra distance.

This is simply an example of the airline gaming the system to charge more than a fair fare because of monopolies awarded by the government. IMHO, the airline is guilty of fraud, morally though not legally.
Gamecock is offline  
Old Jan 2, 2011, 2:14 pm
  #35  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SFO
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 5,270
Originally Posted by Gamecock
Sure there is.
You enter a contract to fly from A-B-C knowing that you really want to get off at B to save a few hundred bucks, you are taking money from the airline and their stockholders.
There's no twist of logic that'll convince me that you can steal a flight by not taking it. It's a breach of contract, sure (and the airlines are fully within their contractual rights to take action against passengers who violate the contract), but not the criminal offense insinuated by some people here.
rjw242 is offline  
Old Jan 2, 2011, 2:20 pm
  #36  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Atherton, CA
Programs: UA 1K, AA EXP; Owner, Green Bay Packers
Posts: 21,691
Originally Posted by Gamecock
It's not about saving fuel but market demands.

B is a market that is more popular and therefore can bring in a higher cost.

Far fewer people want to fly to C, so to entice fliers the fare is lower.

It is no different than any other business.
Just what I said, gaming the system based on artificial, government granted monopolies to screw the passenger.

And you are mistaken, in this case B is a market which is smaller and less popular so therefore can be screwed over by charging higher prices for fewer miles flown.


Sorry, there is NO way the airlines lose money by not having to fly a passenger rather than having to fly a passenger.

Legalism is not reality. (Except for that segment of the society afflicted with the mental illness "juris doctor")
Doc Savage is offline  
Old Jan 2, 2011, 2:43 pm
  #37  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Netherlands
Programs: FB Plat, Privium
Posts: 277
Originally Posted by Doc Savage
Just what I said, gaming the system based on artificial, government granted monopolies to screw the passenger.

And you are mistaken, in this case B is a market which is smaller and less popular so therefore can be screwed over by charging higher prices for fewer miles flown.


Sorry, there is NO way the airlines lose money by not having to fly a passenger rather than having to fly a passenger.

Legalism is not reality. (Except for that segment of the society afflicted with the mental illness "juris doctor")
Fully agree to your posting. ^
troje is offline  
Old Jan 2, 2011, 3:18 pm
  #38  
TA
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: if it's Thursday, this must be Belgium
Programs: UA 1K MM
Posts: 6,480
Originally Posted by Kettering Northants QC
Hmmm not so sure. They're actively doing it on the trains in the UK now and fining people the difference on the spot for trying to leave the train before they're ticketed to do so.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...too-early.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...top-early.html
I think the UK rail scheme is taking it too far. They wish the mechanics of their physical route system would allow them to enforce fares and point to point pricing, so they create turnstiles to try to set it up and seem like an authority is barring you from leaving. I wonder what kind of legal backing that has -- preventing you from leaving a public train station... Just come and try to sue me!

Although I bet it falls under some form of trespass now.

(I should mention that I came to loathe the UK rail system after 2 years... "Competition" as in: if you didn't like your train service to Birmingham, you can take a train to Manchester instead! And a really great idea to make train doors that need to be physically closed by a full time staff at each station...)

Last edited by TA; Jan 2, 2011 at 3:28 pm
TA is offline  
Old Jan 2, 2011, 3:31 pm
  #39  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,703
Originally Posted by rjw242
There's no twist of logic that'll convince me that you can steal a flight by not taking it. It's a breach of contract, sure,... but not the criminal offense insinuated by some people here.
That's a little convoluted -- you concede it's breach of contract, but not theft?

Gamecock is right. When the aircraft departs point A, you have to think of it as two discrete, distinct flights: one taking people to point B for $497, the other taking people to EWR for $95. The airline prices those trips with both eyes on supply and demand. Obviously in this case there is not much demand for, or supply of, seats to point B... but plenty of traffic to EWR. A trip from point A to point B is more valuable, just as Heineken is more valuable than PBR, sirloin more valuable than hot dogs, etc.

It's an accident of airline logistics that the customers for these two discrete products are packed together aboard one plane, but that doesn't make it right for you to steal the more expensive product at the cheaper price. If you contract with the airline to take you to EWR, but disembark at point B, you are appropriating the more expensive product at the cheaper price, and wrongfully so. It is indeed theft of service, just as clearly as if you'd be caught in the meat aisle peeling the price stickers off hot dogs and transferring them to sirloin steaks. (Enough supermarket analogies though. I agree my firewood example upthread was flawed.) The airline's cost basis for providing these products is immaterial; the convenience factor is immaterial. It's theft of service.
BearX220 is offline  
Old Jan 2, 2011, 3:44 pm
  #40  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SFO
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 5,270
Originally Posted by BearX220
That's a little convoluted -- you concede it's breach of contract, but not theft?
Yes, and there's a world of difference between the two both ethically and legally. Companies and individuals strategically breach contracts every day; in many cases it's a smart business move to do so.

I understand why airlines impose these rules even if I don't agree with them. But unless breaking said rules can get you jail time and a felony record, it's not theft.
rjw242 is offline  
Old Jan 2, 2011, 3:49 pm
  #41  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,703
Originally Posted by rjw242
I understand why airlines impose these rules even if I don't agree with them. But unless breaking said rules can get you jail time and a felony record, it's not theft.
If you bought a ticket to BWI for $95, went out to the airport, and somehow doctored your BP and sneaked aboard a flight to SYD, sitting undetected in a $7,000 first class seat, that would be theft, wouldn't it? This case is no different. It just happens that in this case the "flight" to the cheap destination and the "flight" to the expensive one are both operated using the same plane.
BearX220 is offline  
Old Jan 2, 2011, 4:00 pm
  #42  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,393
Originally Posted by BearX220
It's an accident of airline logistics that the customers for these two discrete products are packed together aboard one plane, but that doesn't make it right for you to steal the more expensive product at the cheaper price. If you contract with the airline to take you to EWR, but disembark at point B, you are appropriating the more expensive product at the cheaper price, and wrongfully so.
good point. hadn't thought about it that way. I guess if your intention at the time of the ticket purchase was to throw away the last segment that might have implications.
LHR/MEL/Europe FF is offline  
Old Jan 2, 2011, 4:33 pm
  #43  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: West Africa
Programs: Flying Blue, Mileage Plus
Posts: 204
Anyone know of any actual case law to back up the argument one way or another? And what does the contract actual say?

Contract law is very complicated, but I know of no situation where breach of contract is equivalent to larceny. You typically cannot be awarded punitive damages for breach of contract. Contracts are broken all the time, and usually result in a negotiated settlement far less than actual damages or, more often than not, just a lot of huffing and puffing. (You think the airlines would waste one minute wringing their hands over breaking a contract with you if it was in their best interest?)

The lawyers may threaten hellfire and eternal damnation in their letters, but I'd call their bluff. Even after settlement, or an award of liquidated damages and legal costs, they would probably have a net loss of revenue and face. They may not sell you any more tickets and confiscate your miles, but I doubt they'd go beyond that for a few thousand bucks.
chelmkamp is offline  
Old Jan 2, 2011, 4:55 pm
  #44  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: ORD, DEL
Programs: AA (Plt Pro; 1.5 MM)
Posts: 6,179
To OP: If you have the kind of personality and temperament to stand the ordeal, you could let them sue you, win or lose, write a book about your experience, and become rich and famous. Seriously, there is a lot of anger about such "rules" and you can expect considerable sympathy and support if you go through with it.
aktchi is offline  
Old Jan 2, 2011, 5:06 pm
  #45  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SFO
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 5,270
Originally Posted by BearX220
If you bought a ticket to BWI for $95, went out to the airport, and somehow doctored your BP and sneaked aboard a flight to SYD, sitting undetected in a $7,000 first class seat, that would be theft, wouldn't it? This case is no different.
You really see no difference between forging documents and breaking the contract of carriage?


Originally Posted by chelmkamp
Anyone know of any actual case law to back up the argument one way or another? And what does the contract actual say?
Too lazy to wade through the contract right now, but from AA's own example letter to persons suspected of engaging in hidden-city ticketing:

Although the issuance and usage of hidden city tickets is not illegal in the sense that one could be fined or sent to jail by the government, it is unethical and a breach of a passengers contract with AA.
You can bet if there were any legitimate legal basis to classify this as a criminal offense, AA's letter would be all over it.
rjw242 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.