Originally Posted by
drsmithy
And, consequently, equally arbitrary and irrelevant whether or not the passenger decides to alight at point B.
Wrong. The price of providing that service is not what the passenger paid.
Originally Posted by
drsmithy
There's no ethical issue here. I purchased a service from a vendor and only partially consumed that service.
You are again making the essential mistake that shows up again and again in this endless, repetitive thread, e.g. measuring the value of air travel services in terms of volume. The amount of the service you consume is not relevant to the price paid. If you pay for one service and consume another, higher-priced service, you are in ethical breach.
Originally Posted by
LHR/MEL/Europe FF
I believe the price from A to C, via B, only exists because the airline can't sell A->B and B->C at their regular published fares*.
No, absolutely incorrect. The service of getting you from A to B and the service of getting you from A to C are two different offerings, with different prices. When it flies A-B-C, the mechanical device used to deliver those two services happens to be providing both at the same time, but from a service-pricing standpoint that's irrelevant. The A-to-B price may be higher than A-to-C. But that is a function of local competition, supply and demand for the A-to-B service. Buying A-to-C and availing oneself of A-to-B is essentially theft of service.