Originally Posted by
Starman
I know this has been argued countless times here before, but I just can't resist. A foundation of capitalism is that the seller can choose how to price the product, hoping to maximize return, and the buyer can choose which product to buy, hoping to minimize cost. If UA is crazy enough to price the product so that two legs are cheaper than one, they have to expect the customer to exploit that at least occasionally by flying only one leg. If I leave a football game at halftime, or throw away a half-eaten box of cereal, does the seller have the right to argue there's an ethical violation because he priced the product presuming full consumption?
And by the way, UA doesn't _always_ plan to fulfill it's part of the bargain. They overbook, and occasionally have to pay a penalty to the pax. They call this capitalism and shrewd load management, not poor ethics.
And when a pax is VDB'd, UA does pay a penalty, as you mentioned. When a pax violates the COC by leaving in a the middle of a journey, then why should they not pay a penalty?
If it's in the way that the pax initially suggests - then they do, by having to buy a new one way ticket home. In the case of leaving just before the last segment, UA chooses to look the other way the other way in most cases.
I agree with Fastair on this one. If the pax only wants to go to ORD - then pay for a flight to ORD. Or pay for a ticket to MKE, and then find a way to get to ORD and back via other transportation. If you, or the OP, doesn't see the logic in how UA builds fares, that's ok. Most of us don't. I may think that the federal government charges me too high a tax rate for my earnings. But guess what, I have to pay it anyway. If the pax needs to get to ORD and feels that UA charges too much, then they should vote by taking their buisness elsewhere.