Originally Posted by
Often1
Fairly typical FT rant involving picking a sub-section of an obscure rule published by one federal agency to suggest that it excuses the underlying wire (maybe mail) fraud involved when an individual purchases a ticket which he does not intend to fly. It doesn't.
Fraud? go figure.....I buy a ticket - price goes down, I cancel the ticket and buy another one. I buy a ticket, my plans change, I cancel the ticket....buy another one. There is no value in doing this if one does not intend to fly....so your point is?
Originally Posted by
Often1
And,
Carriers are certainly free to fire customers so long as they don't use inappropriate reasons such as race, religion and so on.
The carrier isn't legally required to have a reason (please explain how commercial air carriers are subject to state laws which may or may not be derived from the UCC),
Just because you are involved in interstate commerce does not exempt you from state and local laws, particularly those intended to protect consumers. And refusal to sell does require a reason - there's sufficient case law that makes it clear, arbitrary and capricious is indefensible.
In any case, refusal to sell requires a defensible reason. Its not that simple.
Originally Posted by
Often1
but of course, commercial entities act in commercially reasonable ways. Put simply, it's bad business to be irrational. But, firing a customer who engages in inventory spoilage is hardly commercially unreasonable and the public -- perhaps outside of a few on FT -- absolutely understands it. More important, so too do the enforcement folks at DOT.
and you know this how?
Originally Posted by
Often1
Same thing is true for FFP's, including miles and perks such as upgrades. Easy to terminate participation. In fact, that's a more common and less draconian approach as evidenced by those carriers which have recently gone after the MS crowd churning tickets through CC bonuses.
Bottom line is that you can't use a regulation as a means to skirt the law.
Which law is being "skirted?"
That's the question - since there is a regulation that requires airlines to refund/change within 24 hours (with additional conditions acknowledged) , what regulation or law is being violated if one cancels a ticket in accordance with the rules?
As for sellers refusing to sell, there are limits to what a seller can do. Exercising your right as defined by regulations as a basis for refusal is not going to go over very well if its ever adjudicated.
What the OP proposes is well within the rights as defined by the DOT regs. Because you don't like it doesn't change the regulation - doesn't extend or limit the regulation - and doesn't provide safe harbor for an airline to punish travelers for using the regulation to their advantage.
Absent the reg, airlines had the flexibility to implement policies, in the presence of the regulation, they no longer have that flexibility.