LilZeppelin

I guess the only thing United cannot do is to have its cake and eat it too, I doubt that WN or other low-cost airlines face similar problems.

mecabq

I have been involved in many debates about hidden-city ticketing, too, and agree that a passenger is ethically, as well as legally, obligated to fulfill his end of the contract with the airline. Moreover, I believe that it's in all of our interest to do so because undermining airlines' pricing structures may well lead to even more customer-unfriendly tweaks in the future.

However, has anyone ever heard of an airline enforcing this rule? I am talking specifically about dumping the last segment, e.g., purchasing MKE-ORD-DCA round-trip and getting off in ORD on the way back? Two things that I suppose the airline could do in theory is (1) charge the passenger's credit card for the routing actually taken or (2) penalize the passenger's frequent flier account, by denying miles for that trip or worse.

Of course I find it extremely likely that an airline would take these actions, especially (1). But has anyone heard of it actually happening?

weero

The 'ethics' runs diametrically against this assumption: you do not inflict any form of delay or harm or loss upon United by not flying the additional segment. UA abuses its pricing power to seel a connecting flight for less than a nonstop one.

I know that this is an ongoing issue in the States but in Europe, the courts consistently decide that airlines enforcing segments flown in order with no omissions is not rightful. It might also have to do with the lack of expressed acceptance of the CoC on behalf of the passenger.

Why would I?
And I do not seriously suggest that US courts follow EU decisions, not remotely. I am solely addressing the fact that some here seriously think that a pax skipping segments commit something 'unethical' when EU courts clearly see the airlines at fault. Hence I regard the ethical argument as silly or irrelevant.
My point. Calling something a penalty which describes compensating someone for a voluntary action is a linguistic stretch. To put it mildly.

rob_flies_ua

The applicable CoC rule appears to be "Application of Tariff", section E, pages 3-4 of the 13May09 Coc, which states:

E) FARES APPLY FOR TRAVEL ONLY BETWEEN THE POINTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE PUBLISHED. TICKETS MAY NOT BE ISSUED AT FARE(S) PUBLISHED TO AND/OR FROM A MORE DISTANT POINT(S) THAN THE POINTS BEING TRAVELED, EVEN WHEN ISSUANCE OF SUCH TICKETS WOULD PRODUCE A LOWER FARE. WHEN THROUGH OR CONNECTING PASSENGERS ENPLANE AT AN INTERMEDIATE POINT BETWEEN THE ORIGIN AND DESTINATION SHOWN ON THEIR TICKETS, UA MAY REQUIRE EVIDENCE, SUCH AS A BOARDING PASS, OF USE OF A PRECEDING FLIGHT FOR THE PORTION OF THE TICKET FROM POINT OF ORIGIN TO INTERMEDIATE POINT. ABSENT SUCH EVIDENCE, UA MAY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL FARE COLLECTION FROM THE PASSENGER FOR ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FARE PAID FOR THE TICKET FROM ORIGIN TO DESTINATION AND THE FARE WHICH WOULD APPLY FROM THE INTERMEDIATE BOARDING POINT TO THE DESTINATION.

It does not state that United may require additional collection from the passenger for the difference between the fare paid origin to destination and the fare which would apply from origin to disembarkation point. However, if United believes you to be doing hidden city ticketing, they could just cancel the ticket as invalid. This section appears to be aimed more at ticket agencies, especially when United is the one issuing the tickets in many cases.

ua_to_ord

It is the threat of this action that is the largest deterrent to many high-status passengers, as losing hundreds of thousands of banked miles, status, upgrades, etc would be an intolerable penalty. Don't forget that people are risk-averse (and studies prove most would opt to take small losses rather than risk a catastrophe, even when the expected value calculation does not make strict rational sense).

weero

This is not what the OP plans on doing. If the OP is skipping the last segment, there is opportunity to 'collect' anything.

Tinman

Is there a way on the UA website to easily search for hidden city fares for the return flight through ORD, or is it a trial and error process?

Goal would be to throw away last segment, stop in ORD, to save on the return fare.

fastair

No, UA does not allow hidden city ticketing. I know of no airline that does. It is expressly forbidden it the contract that a passenger has with UA. Why would UA give you a tool to help you commit forbidden fraud against it?

DarF2001

The ITA tools is a good way to do it. Use ORD as a layover, and a big list of destination codes with semi-colons. Quick way to search.

As stated on other threads, doing this too often will put your mileage account at risk, but for a one time occurrance chances are the United IT folks have bigger fish to fry.

rob_flies_ua

Just FYI, WN specifically allows hidden city ticketing in their customer service commitment.

ptspellman

FASTAIR, I have really enjoyed reading your comments in dozens of other threads and I don't recall disagreeing with you before but on this issue it seems to me your approach is perhaps a bit inflexible. In my experience UA treats ORD and MKE as equivalent endpoints when it is suitable to them (i.e. when moderately bad weather strikes and they cancel all of these puddle jumpers and leave passengers on their own for the last 90 miles, as has happened to my sister and I several times each). The customer is paying for a service and choosing not to use it. UA has some ability to enforce this by canceling the return trips but it is not fraud to throw these segments away. From time to time I have had trips booked and needed to go somewhere else after the initial booking (i.e. SFO-IAD, return with a new ticket IAD-JFK-SFO added). I am not committing fraud by not canceling the first ticket and getting a one way, at least not fraud in any reasonable definition.

UA is attempting to maximize revenue by making flyers pay a premium for ORD (because they have so many of the flights there) and are competing with the lower cost carriers that service MKE so that they have some reason to fly planes into ORD and I am fine with that but it is not unethical to recognize this and exploit it, just as it is not unethical for UA to charge twice as much to fly to ORD that to MKE. Ethics and business rarely mix. That is why we have external regulators (and rules about monopolies and price fixing, etc...). As long as flyers understand the risks and what the CoC states it is not unethical.

fastair

Pt,
While I understand your logic, I disagree that it is not fraud. To enter into am agreement or contract with the intent of deceit for personal gain, well, that is what one is doing. Fraud: 1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.


If one buys a tkt to say in your example MKE, and UA is unable to fulfill their end, a refund can be requested which pays mote that the prorated by mileage fare. ORD and MKE have separate tariffs. The destinations are different, the fares are different, and the contract is different.

As to why the rules/prices are nicer to MKE, you hit it on the head, competition. If you want the competitive fare, buy the competitive product and use it in the contracted way. Use by drceipt of a product for personal gain against the agreement, well, look up the def of fraud.

smn

Actually, if I remember anything from my legal classes (it was in an MBA program, so take it with a grain of salt) the definition was something like

"A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury."

(from: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud)

It specifically mentions: "Fraud is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage. A person who is dishonest may be called a fraud. In the U.S. legal system, fraud is a specific offense with certain features."

So I would argue, what "legal injury" is United subject to by this happening? If anything, they benefit, because they don't need the fuel for that one person who did buy the ticket, and they don't owe them a refund for the seat.

fastair

That's easy. The injury is lost revenue. Ya has factored in the carrying cost, yet still prices the longer ticket less. The reason, supply and demand have dictated the "premium" product is to the big city. Carrying cost could be argued by the person that breaks their agreement, bit that is a losing battle, as it is not they that determine rules and price, but the airline. Robin Hood who robs the rich and gives to the poor doesn't win a legal battle because his morales seem sound, he loses because he has harmed another and broken the rules. He could argue that the rich are burdened by the weight of the gold and the fuel cost to move it, but the rich determine what is of value to themselves, not the man in tights. Clearly the scammer realizes the value in the product, if he didn't, he would buy what he wants at the price that is offered. By paying for one thing (cheaper) and taking a more expensive thing for your own profit, well, you don't get to determine the value to the seller after, it is the seller who sets terms and price and consumer can accept and buy, or not.

mikew99

How ironic: Most airline advertising falls into this category.