Originally Posted by
cbn42
Why would the onus of proof be on me? One can't prove a negative, but can very easily prove a positive.
So re-phrase it to a positive and go from there: "The airlines can charge for theft of service." You disagree with that statement: prove it is the case. Otherwise, all you've given us is, "No they can't."
People are demanding that I accept their argument without proof, or even credible evidence, but refuse to accept mine because there is no "proof".
You've just said you
can't provide a proof. Make up your mind.
Several people have said it's theft of service and have pointed to examples of laws and it being done IRL.
Are you using the word "proof" in the same way the rest of the world does?
I'm talking about US here. I don't know much about the laws of other countries. It may very well be a crime in NZ, although once again I doubt anyone's been prosecuted for it.
As another nice poster has said, this is a global forum and I happen to be talking in a global context. Someone else has already pointed out some US law. I've pointed out NZ law because that's the one I work with most and had to hand most readily.
Again, I don't see that the fact of prosecution matters. The NZ law is very clear: it's "obtaining by deception." The law is on the books and NZ law is pleasantly clear on this point, so it's not a stretch to say "it's illegal" and "you can be arrested for it."
How do you know it's illegal? There is no statute specifically against it. There is a broad "theft of services" law, but whether it applies to this situation is anyone's guess until there is some case law. Reading the New York statute posted above, I don't think it would apply. We can discuss the details if you want.
As an (mostly) aside, and just to engage in a bit of gross generalization for a moment, that is an interesting insight into the mindset of Americans; the idea that unless something is specifically and explicitly said, it doesn't count. It's a very literalist interpretation of how law works. Moreover, I simply don't think it's relevant: on most any ethical grounds it's theft (of one sort or another) and you said it wasn't illegal when it clearly is under several country's laws.
Maybe we are talking about different situations here. The posts you link to appear to be situations where people were told to move back to economy and refused. As I clearly stated earlier, that would certainly make it theft, among other things. The situation I described, when I said "they can't force you to pay later" was assuming that you got off the plane without incident and then got a bill.
It would be very simple IMO: they charge you later for the service. It's trivial that the airline
can charge the cost. When you say "They can't" I assume you actually mean they have no
right to. But you haven't said anything to back up that assertion and whether you meant moral, ethical, or legal right.
If you contest it the CC company is unlikely to side with you. But if they do then you are, by default, admitting to theft of services or obtaining by deception. It's a no win situation for the thieving pax if the airline decides to pursue it.