Originally Posted by
HONcircle
In a hypothetical situation, what would the UA apologist say if the the airline only sells etkt A to C via B, and no etkt A to B?
This issue has nothing to do with UA specifically; almost every airline (barring Southwest) has clauses against hidden-city ticketing. Perhaps you meant, "airline apologist?"
Originally Posted by
HONcircle
For those who believe in it, they might still claim the pax commited a sin and broke the CoC. But in this particular case, they can not claim that the airline suffered from a loss of revenue in any way.
I'd say that you are correct - despite the breach of the CoC (which is fact, not belief - though I have no idea what you mean by "sin"), the airline would suffer no loss of revenue, in this ludicrous, completely unrealistic, hypothetical situation. No airline would
ever routinely transit a city to which they would not sell a ticket ("B" in your example). The only time I've ever seen a regularly-scheduled landing in a non-serviced city was for a fuel stop, and no passenger was allowed to deplane there, anyway.