sensei

I think that analogy only goes so far (defrauding by taking less of the good than the seller offered?). We don't live in a economics textbook world and I continue to believe that it is unreasonable to expect the average consumer to ever read the CoC or understand the terms of its contents, but I think at the end of the day we will just need to agree to disagree. I don't condone hidden city ticketing for people who know better, but it seems the current fare rules often are a relic of a different time. I understand that you have a different view and I appreciate that. In fact, I find it truly fascinating to see these issues through your eyes.

In my view, the legacy carriers need to adapt and be more consumer friendly. Byzantine fare rules and restrictions are outdated. If we truly had a working system of supply and demand, there would be nary an unsold F seat. As it is, the pricing of J and F fares is out of reach for most. Clearly, the UFC and new mileage co-pay offerings are a step towards changing that. Likely this will be uncomfortable both for elites who are used to constant upgrades on cheap fares and employees who are used to ridiculously cheap standby-pricing. With UDU, you have already lost many opportunities for non-revving in F unless you choose to use your 20% employee discount on revenue tickes. (But having recently gained access to the world of non-rev travel on AA through my SO, if the loads on UA in 3-cabin F are anything like on AA it is still a pretty sweet deal.)

Starman

So this conversation comes up here about once a year. And I think most folks, although perhaps not most attorneys, would agree that just as UA has a right in a free market economy to try to maximize its revenue with fares that charge less for more mileage, and more for less mileage, like xxx-ORD-MKE, the consumer has a right to try to minimize his costs through careful purchasing procedures. When I buy a large box of corn flakes at a unit cost cheaper than the small box, if I throw away half the box uneaten, I don't expect to get an invoice from Kelloggs stating that I should have paid a higher unit price because I actually consummed less of the product than I represented when I made the purchase. Forgive me Fastair if this is elsewhere in this thread, but does the CoC actually state that the passenger will fly every single leg? What happens if he gets lost at ORD and misses the last ORD-MKE leg? Is he in violation of the CoC? I note the CoC quote by rob in post 34 covers a different situation, namely trying to join an itin in the middle, not failure to fly 100% of the legs. By the way, I don't begrudge UA its authority to cancel the remainder of a reservation if it doesn't like the way a ticket is used.

fastair

Star,
Yes, post 34 covers the whole thing, while the 2nd part, about boarding at the midpoint is there as enforcement is simple, but the part before it, where it is defined, covers either way.
Buying a ticket is not buying an actual seat, but rather a license to fly. Just as many computer firms don't sell the actual disk, but a license to install/use. Many have terms an conditions (many of those are govt issued for exportation of technology, but others are there by the manufacturer like MS to protect their revenue stream.)

The analogy of corn flakes is not a good one. You buy a hard product that does not have terms of use, vs the better comparison of a software license that does. The physical disk is not the commodity, as if it was, then you could buy a blank disk, copy it, and sell the other disc. Rather the license or the code/intellectual property, along with terms is the commodity, just like a physical seat on a plane or the (old days) paper ticket isn't the product but the right to fly from the ticketed origin to the ticketed destination. Buy a ticket to a cubs game. Use it in a way inconsistent with the agreement (bringing in alcohol, throwing cups onto the field) then try to argue you bought that physical seat for that time, and can use it anyway you want.

Of course, you are right, enforcement is difficult with the throw away, but not at all technologically impossible. And yes, agencies that are shown to book these to a noticible pattern, have been charged, and had their plates taken.

nnn

Fastair seems to have a point. You enter into a contract with UA when you fly. Let's assume the contract states that you will fly from ticketed origin to ticketed destination. (This may be a fair assumption based on the portion of the CoC pasted by another poster above.) By not flying from origin to destination, United could argue you have breached the contract and therefore owe damages to UA for that breach.

Someone asked what's the legal damage to UA by not flying all the way to the destination? UA could argue it was damaged in lost revenue by your not paying the higher cost to disembark at an earlier point. Indeed, you purposely bought the ticket as you did to lower the cost. The Corn Flakes analogy above fails because you never promised Kellogg's that you would eat the entire box of cereal. Also, just because the pricing system is arachaic doesn't mean you have free reign to game it all you want.

Now, is this fraud? I'd think that if you unexpectedly ended your trip at the hidden city, then no fraud -- you never intended to deceive UA. But if it was all along your intention not to fly to the destination, I could see an argument, though I don't know how it would come out if tested in court.

ptspellman

So obviously true. Or what if the person just didn't want to rush on a tight connection and was told the next flight was in ten hours? How would UA know that they didn't take the bus to Milwaukee rather than stay in Chicago? UA is pricing the system on the assumption that most people won't deal with the hassle of figuring out how to get to Chicago from MKE. If the incentive gets high enough -- they will.

Like I said, I have no problem with UA pricing the way they do you just shouldn't be surprised when normal people react in unusual ways. And I don't think you should call it fraud. Otherwise my wife would accuse UA of fraud for promising to get us to MKE (which is where we wanted to go) but so inconsistently be able to do it. I understand UA's position which is to maximize revenue by using limited take off and landing slots for planes that actually make money not the ones they lose money on...

I blame it all on WN for ending the Saturday stay requirements of the mainline carriers! This was so much easier when there were business flights and recreation flights.

BTW, when told there were no flights to MKE and that we could take the bus the RCC folks never volunteered to refund that part of our ticket. Should I have to know to ask, or is that too fraud that it wasn't done automatically? Now I am getting righteously indignant even though 1) I love UA and 2) I wasn't even using hidden city routing!

I think you will find that most legal frameworks will permit you to use something you rent pretty much any way that you like as long as you return it in the same condition. Licenses that govern how you use things are coming dangerously close to being legally invalidated. Especially software licenses -- because you can't read them until after they are purchased. While UA CoCs are available they are much too complicated to understand on your own. The airline industry will not survive if everyone needs a lawyer to fly. If an airline has to resort to legalese to ensure its profits from its own customers they are doing something wrong.

notquiteaff

I'd say it's not fraud if you accidentally get lost in ORD, miss your flight to MKE and make other arrangements. On the other hand, if you "get lost in ORD" all the time and drop your last segment, I'd say that's the same as UA never actually operating the ORD-MKE flight and just telling you to take the bus even though you bought a ticket on that flight.

Hopefully they are also prioritizing bigger planes because it gets more people where they want to be and to a destination that isn't reachable by bus.

I think yes, the agent should have refunded the difference in fares when informing you that you can't fly. No prompting should be necessary.

fastair

Your example of software terms is valid (not being aware until after purchase) and has been shown to be so in court (I forgot the case but have seen an article on one case.). This doesn't apply to all software, as many are downloads and when installed require you to accept the license agreement before paying for an activation. The software is free, the right to use it after agreeing comes prior to payment.

As to requiring a lawyer, it doesn't take one to realize a ticket is sold based on origin and destination prices, that being "savy" enough to know how to manipulate that to cheat an airline out of the price of the desired product, might be wrong, and might violate the rules. Hidden city ticketing is usually done by savy, yet immoral, intelligent, yet dishonest, self serving, caring nothing of rules, agreements, or their own word as bond, cheap flyers, who are very much aware of the rules when they purchase it this way. Those who might leave their car in MKE on the outbound, get tired of waiting for their return connecting flight to MKE, and pay for(or call a friend) for a ride back there to get their car...well, I don't classify them in the same light as those who have no intention of flying to MKE when they buy their ticket because they live in the Chicago burbs and don't feel the tariff they contract to buy/fly is the price they want to pay, so they purchase with the intent to deceive for gain...fraud.

Look, if you don't want to pay for the Mustang, that's fine, but don't think that paying for the Festiva and taking what you want, the Mustang is copastetic (is that still a word?) Sure, one could argue the Festiva is a more valuble thing, as it gets better mileage, and therefore based on the logic of the offender, it is all good. The offender doesn't get to set the prices, only the seller, and the offender either agrees to them (and an agreement is acceptance of them) or he doesn't. Walk away, if you don't like archaic pricing rules, just don't steal because you can, in your mind, justify it. By knowingly agreeing to something, and then knowingly not doing it...well, call it whatever you want, but it is greedy, self serving, immoral, untrustworthy, decetful....all the qualities one looks for in another person....NOT!

Not implying it is criminal, but plenty of wall street people are in white collar prisons for entering into contracts with people, and having no intention of fulfilling their ends of it, for their own gain at the expense of the other and the contract. Most people look on this behavior as deplorable as they are robbing people's savings. To do the same to a corporation doesn't make it any more morale or right, just people sympathize when individuals are hurt not corporations. But corporations are people...employees that lose jobs, investors that lose money (including many industrial investors that are people's savings and retirements.)

As others have posted this comes up a few times a year, and people will never agree. Ethics seem to not apply to some when an individual's obligations aren't met at the expensive of a corporation, but if a corporation pulls the same thing to an individual, they demand action and are sympathized with. Immoral people can justify anything, that is what makes them immoral, just as a sociopath has no guilt or caring of others, the same behavior can be justified by some when they don't put faces to the theft only NASDAQ letters, and people seem to accept this.

fastair

double post...delete please

MSPGabe

I have this come up at work once in a while, someone purchasing a ticket PWM-ORD-MKE, and wanting to check bags just to ORD. They're always shocked when I tell them it can't be done, unless we reticket the reservation.

The person agreed to fly AAA-BBB-CCC, which is very frequently cheaper than the fare AAA-BBB, even though the flights are the same. Obviously this is due to competition and supply and demand.

IF UA wanted to (though it would be incredibly difficult to PROVE intent), they could charge someone the full fare AAA-BBB.

I'm trying to think of a way UA could indeed prove intent. It's almost for sure not worth it for them, hence they don't REALLY enforce the hidden city ticketing, minus canceling out any return flights.

Colin

Real smart. Let the passenger get to ORD and then tell the gate agent he's not flying the last segment. Cost UA more to delay flight and pull bag.

TerryK

I don't think they pull bags for domestic anymore.

jamesdenver

I think Fastair's points are very well written and laid out. But I would dare say the majority of "hidden city" participants are not immoral people or shifty types looking to jump on any opportunity to gain profit.

See my post a few pages back. When UAL fortressed Denver back in the late 90s I knew of someone who frequently traveled to the west coast but purchased tickets originating in MCI, ABQ or STL. They used portions 2 and 3 of four part tickets and were never challenged. (Carry on only, no mileage accounts and always paper tickets.)

O/D Denver routes were often over a hundred dollars higher due to lack of competition, and had I been a frequent traveler then I also would have felt screwed at having to pay top dollar in order to subsidize other markets' cheap fares.

It's understood price can't be based per mile, (city taxes, fare matching, etc) but when a pricing structure is so illogical and upside down in reality I completely understand how it invites those who are savvy enough to find the loopholes.

My local movie theater charges $5 for Junior Mints. There is a Walgreens next door that sells them for $1. Am I a dishonest and immoral person for finding a loophole (my pockets) that allow me a $4 savings? If so I am a person of poor character. I'd think if the loss of revenue to the theater is that great they'll revisit the pricing of Junior Mints, or install better security en route to the movie seat.

Is the person who "swindles" a cheaper fare using hidden cities, or a person who "cheats" a movie theater out of $5 of the same bad morals and poor character level as someone who swindles Grandma out of a her life savings? Or sees a someone on the street drop a $20 and doesn't immediately return it?

nnn

You can justify it to yourself all you want, but it's still akin to stealing at the end of the day.

To put it another way: It seems to be an unstated assumption of your hypothetical that the theater does not allow outside food. This rule presumably would be intended to force willing buyers to pay $5 per box of Junior Mints, say for a $4.50 profit per box to the theater. Maybe you argue you would never have paid the $5 -- so the theater is out nothing -- but then again maybe out of 100 trips to the theater you might have paid the $5 once -- so such a practice can take money away from the theater eventually.

As for your security comment, just because nobody is watching doesn't mean it's not stealing.

In any event, I'd say the airline ticket situation is a worse situation than the Junior Mints because you're using a seat that the airline might have sold to someone else for more money.

Finally, I'll note that I've used hidden-city ticketing myself. I'm not saying don't do it. I'm just calling it what it is.

fastair

It costs the taxpayer more to police drug running then to just tax drugs, but we choose in a civilized society (as a whole) to try to enforce rules, otherwise the system has no integrity and society degrades. Are you recommending we eliminate enforcement of all rules in the land, where there is a cost involved?

Heck do you have any idea how much a capital murder case costs the state, or a life incarceration in a max security prison is? We don't just let the people go because it is cheaper in the short run.

Colin

Yes, of course. Legalize murder.

UA thinks it has the right to compete on price in the MKE-LAX market without affecting the margins in the ORD-LAX market. I just disagree. And the next time I need to fly to IAD, you can bet your bottom dollar I will be spending $490 on the A fare to MHT and not $920 to IAD.