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, 5:10 pm
  #46  
fti
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: MN
Programs: Lots of programs, dirt on all of them!
Posts: 11,938
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. 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.
First of all, doctoring the BP and flying to a totally different destination is not what the OP did, so theft according to your definition is then ruled out.

And, yes there is a HUGE difference between your poor analogy and what the OP did. In the OP's case, there is no "doctoring" of BP's. And yes, there is a huge difference between breaching a contract and theft (in any scenario, not just this one).
fti is offline  
Old Jan 2, 2011, 5:17 pm
  #47  
fti
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: MN
Programs: Lots of programs, dirt on all of them!
Posts: 11,938
Originally Posted by rjw242
You really see no difference between forging documents and breaking the contract of carriage?

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:

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.
I love AA's wording in that letter:

Purchasing a ticket to a point beyond the actual destination and getting off the aircraft at the connecting point is unethical. It is tantamount to switching price tags to obtain a lower price on goods sold at department stores.
No, a better example is the one mentioned earlier of purchasing 3 bundles of wood but only taking 1 or 2. Or using the department store example, you buy the pants that include a belt, but you leave the pants and only take the belt. It really has nothing to do with "switching price tags" and more to do with not using all that you paid for.
fti is offline  
Old Jan 2, 2011, 5:34 pm
  #48  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Washington State
Programs: Delta Platinum, Marriott Gold
Posts: 330
It is equivalent to switching price tags

Originally Posted by fti
I love AA's wording in that letter:



No, a better example is the one mentioned earlier of purchasing 3 bundles of wood but only taking 1 or 2. Or using the department store example, you buy the pants that include a belt, but you leave the pants and only take the belt. It really has nothing to do with "switching price tags" and more to do with not using all that you paid for.
You want to go from point A to point B. You buy a ticket for that. Your contract with the airline is that purchase. It just so happens that the routing is A-C-B. But the better price is little justification for taking the service only to C. The airline only has agreed to take you to B. I'm not a lawyer, but it is unethical. The airline gets to set its price. You get to buy at the price they offer, or go elsewhere.

I you don't want the airlines to be unethical, then don't be so yourself. Bottom line, and don't flame me with what they do. If you think the airline is unethical, don't choose it.
yamaka is offline  
Old Jan 2, 2011, 5:45 pm
  #49  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,393
Originally Posted by yamaka
You want to go from point A to point B. You buy a ticket for that. Your contract with the airline is that purchase. It just so happens that the routing is A-C-B. But the better price is little justification for taking the service only to C. The airline only has agreed to take you to B. I'm not a lawyer, but it is unethical. The airline gets to set its price. You get to buy at the price they offer, or go elsewhere.

I you don't want the airlines to be unethical, then don't be so yourself. Bottom line, and don't flame me with what they do. If you think the airline is unethical, don't choose it.
Not at all. My point in my earlier post is that the 'contract' with the airline, by the airline's own Ts and Cs clearly state that flight times and destinations (etc etc) ARE NOT guaranteed. I don't know of an airline that does not have similar wording to that effect.

If the airline can rely on that clause then I'm pretty sure a court would imply the passenger has a similar right. Otherwise the contract would be manifestly unfair. So breach of contract by getting off the flight early - i'm not so sure.

Intention to deprive the airline of the actual fare due (in buying a lower fare)? Maybe. Although AA's letter only refers to it as 'unethical'. Which makes me think there is not so much of a criminal element here.
LHR/MEL/Europe FF is offline  
Old Jan 2, 2011, 5:50 pm
  #50  
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Easton, CT, USA
Programs: ua prem exec, Former hilton diamond
Posts: 31,801
Interesting thread in the responses.

The way I see it, it comes down to this.

You cost them over $400 each time you do it
They are aware you are doing it and have asked you to stop

I would expect if you continue to do it, they will insist you pay on the services you are using. If you continue doing this, I would do it on gift cards or some other card they can't charge you the difference next time should they go that route.
cordelli is offline  
Old Jan 2, 2011, 5:56 pm
  #51  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SFO
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 5,270
Originally Posted by yamaka
I you don't want the airlines to be unethical, then don't be so yourself. Bottom line, and don't flame me with what they do. If you think the airline is unethical, don't choose it.
Funny how the concept of "ethics" in business relationships only seems to apply to the individual (aka passenger). In the business world, any contract worth its salt includes repercussions for violating the contract: if company A breaks its contract with B in order to sign on with C, A will usually owe B a penalty. If this penalty is smaller than the savings brought about by switching to C, it's the right business decision. Similarly, if you buy a roundtrip LAX-DFW-FLL ticket and get off at DFW, you forfeit the rest of the ticket (and the airline reserves the right to charge you the fare difference). Depending on the amount forfeited, this can also be a smart financial decision on the part of the passenger. Of course, it's in the airlines' best interests to appeal to "ethics" and "morals" to keep customers from making these otherwise rational business decisions, but in the end it shouldn't matter whether you're a single consumer or a Fortune 500 company.
rjw242 is offline  
Old Jan 2, 2011, 6:06 pm
  #52  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Washington State
Programs: Delta Platinum, Marriott Gold
Posts: 330
Originally Posted by rjw242
Funny how the concept of "ethics" in business relationships only seems to apply to the individual (aka passenger). In the business world, any contract worth its salt includes repercussions for violating the contract: if company A breaks its contract with B in order to sign on with C, A will usually owe B a penalty. If this penalty is smaller than the savings brought about by switching to C, it's the right business decision. Similarly, if you buy a roundtrip LAX-DFW-FLL ticket and get off at DFW, you forfeit the rest of the ticket (and the airline reserves the right to charge you the fare difference). Depending on the amount forfeited, this can also be a smart financial decision on the part of the passenger. Of course, it's in the airlines' best interests to appeal to "ethics" and "morals" to keep customers from making these otherwise rational business decisions, but in the end it shouldn't matter whether you're a single consumer or a Fortune 500 company.
I try to go by my word. I expect businesses I deal with to go by their word. If a give a $20 bill and get change for a $10, I expect the business to give me my extra $10. If they undercharge me $10, I point it out to them. I guess some people feel better if they can get away with something -- sorry, I don't.
yamaka is offline  
Old Jan 2, 2011, 6:25 pm
  #53  
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 fti
...a better example is the one mentioned earlier of purchasing 3 bundles of wood but only taking 1 or 2. Or using the department store example, you buy the pants that include a belt, but you leave the pants and only take the belt. It really has nothing to do with "switching price tags" and more to do with not using all that you paid for.
The quantity of air travel used is completely immaterial. Flight sector length and price are not related. In this case the shorter trip is the more expensive trip, rendering this pants / belt analogy moot. The OP wants to avail himself of the more expensive product and pay the price of the less expensive product, which is wrong.
BearX220 is offline  
Old Jan 2, 2011, 6:29 pm
  #54  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SFO
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 5,270
Originally Posted by yamaka
I try to go by my word. I expect businesses I deal with to go by their word. If a give a $20 bill and get change for a $10, I expect the business to give me my extra $10. If they undercharge me $10, I point it out to them.
That's an example of a situation where you have a moral obligation to point it out, but no contractual obligation. Alls I'm saying is the two are not necessarily equivalent, but obviously there's a variety of views on this.
rjw242 is offline  
Old Jan 2, 2011, 6:46 pm
  #55  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Washington State
Programs: Delta Platinum, Marriott Gold
Posts: 330
Originally Posted by rjw242
That's an example of a situation where you have a moral obligation to point it out, but no contractual obligation. Alls I'm saying is the two are not necessarily equivalent, but obviously there's a variety of views on this.
I agree that contracts and ethics are not always the same. But the airline posts two prices. Price from A to B (via C) is $95. Price from A to C is $497. If you want to go to C, the price from A to B is immaterial for what THIS airline is offering you. If you don't like the price from A to C, find a different routing, a different airline, or a different mode of transportation. Just because you can get away with the $95 price doesn't mean you should. And, in fact, in the case in question you also have a contractual obligation. The contract of carriage prohibits hidden city booking, so in this case, contract and ethics concur.
yamaka is offline  
Old Jan 2, 2011, 6:51 pm
  #56  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: NYC
Programs: AA EXP / LT PLT / 3MM, Marriott LT Gold
Posts: 35,278
I think all of you who are calling this theft are off your rockers.

This is a contract violation, as others have said but the most stubborn airline defenders fail to recognize. The airline has remedies for breach of contract. It may or may not choose to avail itself of such remedies, depending on the estimated PR hit that it will take.

Case closed.
vasantn is offline  
Old Jan 2, 2011, 7:06 pm
  #57  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 404
Originally Posted by yamaka
I agree that contracts and ethics are not always the same. But the airline posts two prices. Price from A to B (via C) is $95. Price from A to C is $497. If you want to go to C, the price from A to B is immaterial for what THIS airline is offering you. If you don't like the price from A to C, find a different routing, a different airline, or a different mode of transportation. Just because you can get away with the $95 price doesn't mean you should. And, in fact, in the case in question you also have a contractual obligation. The contract of carriage prohibits hidden city booking, so in this case, contract and ethics concur.
No offense but your random personal pov only means YOU should not do this.
trajanc is offline  
Old Jan 2, 2011, 7:14 pm
  #58  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia; NYC, LHR, GVA
Programs: UA 1K 2MM; QF 1P; DJ WP; CX DIA, EK GL, HH DIAMOND; PC Spire RA; SPG PLAT; HERTZ PC; Avis CC
Posts: 255
Originally Posted by Rambuster
It's like ordering a three course meal at a restaurant and then skipping the dessert.
At least in Europe the airline would not have a legal leg to stand on. Seems to be different in the US though, even though I can't see the airline proving which damage has been done ?
This would also be the case in in Australia. I have recently received legal advice confirming this regarding product bundling for software. I would assume similar principals will apply to firewood or airline tickets.
chandi is offline  
Old Jan 2, 2011, 7:16 pm
  #59  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: CLE
Programs: UA Gold, HH Diamond, Marriott Gold
Posts: 3,647
Didn't read all the posts about theft etc.

Have you tried a multicity: A-B stopover, B-Newark, Newark-B-A? You would have to fly the extra segments, but it might be within the cheaper fare and you wouldn't be rubbing against the airline rules.
manneca is offline  
Old Jan 2, 2011, 7:29 pm
  #60  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PHX
Programs: UA *Alliance
Posts: 5,549
It is the airline's own routing/scheduling that allows hidden city ticketing. If they want to maintain their high dollar monopoly from A-B, they should not offer flights from A-C with a stopover in B. Fly directly A-C only.

I see absolutely no equivalent argument to switching price tags or theft. You are simply throwing away a service that you don't want. The analogy of the pants and belt is perfect.
SWCPHX 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.