raehl311

But it doesn't matter. Just because a company puts a term in it's CoC doesn't make it enforceable.

Unless someone can show me some existing case law that an airline was awarded damages for a passenger NOT flying a ticket they paid for, I don't believe United has any actual recourse against a passenger doing throw-away ticketing beyond refusing to have that passenger as a customer in the future.

And I don't believe United would even attempt to enforce such a provision because it's just too big of a PR risk.

"United charges passenger who couldn't fly their paid-for flight charged $600 more after United refused to change passenger's flight."
"Passenger banned from United Airlines after not buying more expensive one-way ticket and forfeiting the return."

Sometimes things companies do appear stupid because they actually are.

Imagine if you walked into a hardware store and they were selling two-packs of florescent lights for $2 and single florescent lights for $4, and there was a sign at checkout that said, "Customers who buy a two-pack but don't use their 2nd light will be charged the difference between the two-pack and single bulb price."

Now imagine what would happen if a hardware store learned that one of the lights you purchased broke, and then tried to collect an additional $2...

Any rational person would find that to be entirely stupid.

Which is exactly what the public's reaction would be if an airline tried to take action against a passenger because the one-way was $3,000 and the round-trip was $1,000 and the passenger bought the round trip and just didn't get on the plane for the return.

Businesses are free to set whatever prices they want. Customers are free to choose what they want to buy. Airline pricing desires do not equate to passenger pricing agreement. If the airline is offering round-trips at less than the cost of one-ways, that doesn't obligate the passenger to buy a fare that makes no sense for them.