QueenOfCoach

Thank you. You have set out the legal issues in a very clear way. I believe there are three main issues being discussed in this thread, and much of the disagreement comes from people not understanding which of the three points a poster is discussing.

1. The legal obligations that a passenger agrees with when purchasing a ticket. This is the part that the previous post by QueenOfCoach makes very clear. It is difficult to disagree with this.

2. The likelihood of the contract being enforced. This covers the airline's decision to go after the passenger for the difference in fare, whether through the courts or simply charging their credit card (if they already have it). It also covers potential legal arguments by the passenger about the contract of carriage being unavailable, too long to reasonably read etc.

3. What should, morally, be allowed as pricing practices. Before you say that all that matters is the contract and it does not matter what is morally right, this is why we have fair trading laws (at least here in NZ and I'm sure in most countries). The reality is that companies do not have the absolute right to set whatever prices they like (an obvious example is different prices for different races or genders). It is of course a matter of opinion whether hidden city pricing is an acceptable trading practice or not. I fear that many people here are simply expressing an opinion that the practice should not be allowed and other posters are just throwing the conditions of carriage at them. If someone books a ticket and then tries to argue with the contract of carriage later, in my view they are wrong. But that does not mean there isn't room for a theoretical debate about what should be allowed in the contract of carriage. In my mind, the distinction is clear.

Cheers