You mean you ought to have the right to open the door and jump out at 35,000 feet?
Here's another analogy: You agree with an attractive girl's dad that you can take her on a date, but only if you also take he unattractive sister on a date afterwards. You decide to renege on your deal after the first date. The father comes after you and beats you up because you are dishonest. He's right, too.
Not so fast, nsx.
I'm the one who brought up the wife/date thing (hat tip to Queen of ... for looking up the exact reference.) In that contract, it was Rachel and Leah's DAD who was dishonest, not Jacob, the once and future bridegroom.
But in the main, you got my drift. The endpoint is the issue, for one is contracting on a qualitative basis, not a quantitative one.
This is, quite literally, an age-old issue, at least 2000 years old in fact, given that we have an example in the Bible. In the Genesis case, the contract involved marriage. For Dad to insist to Jacob the endpoints - the candidates for wife - were exchangeable is not on, especially since Dad revealed his position only after the marriage was formalized. Similarly, for airline passenger to maintain that endpoint (city C) is exchangeable for endpoint (city B) is not on, even if endpoint C is geographically or chronologically closer, since one did not buy so many miles of air passage in the first place.
Look at it this way: You live in Boston, and buy a ticket to NYC. Airline takes you to Godforsakengrod, in eastern Siberia, and then, when you complain, maintains that they took you at least four times as far as what you contracted for, so what's the problem?