Originally Posted by
nk15
The argument is really simple, and it actually doesn't need any assumptions or presuppositions of how inventory management works. Let me repeat: Certain budget-constraint passengers will never buy the higher A-B direct fare, and if they buy the A-B(layovercity)-C fare and drop C (HCT) they have not deprived UA of any revenue, because the fare was offered, and these passengers will NEVER buy the premium direct fare. I am not saying that no one will. Many business passengers will pay the higher direct fare.
Courts, wherever the case has been presented, have either dismissed the airlines' case (US, Germany) or ruled that passengers can skip flight segments (Italy, Spain). You can claim whatever you want here, but the courts disagree with your position.
As noted above, you are correct, certain customers won't buy the higher A-B fare, and that's their prerogative. That shouldn't invite someone to scam the system, and buy A-C when that's not what they want and not what they are flying. That's fraud.
Second, you can't in one sentence say that HCT customers aren't losing UA revenue, while in the next saying that 'many business passengers' will pay the full price for A-B. In fact, by doing so, you are showing your own argument doesn't work. If business passengers are willing to pay the correct A-B fare, but they can't find a seat because someone bought A-C for 50% less, and just left at B, you are showing how UA is losing revenue specifically because of HCT.
As for court rulings in Italy and Spain, last time I checked, those rulings don't set precedent in the US, I'm not really sure how that applies (note: I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I'm sure there's a lawyer posting in this thread who can confirm my layman thought about court rulings in EU countries not automatically applying in the US, but what do I know?).
Originally Posted by
prestonh
If it was fraud there would be criminal complaints and prosecutions in the respective jurisdictions for HCT. There aren't so it isn't. HCT is a civil contract loophole UA enforces with remedies within the COA, no more, no less.
No, that's not how it works. Just because someone has never brought something to court, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. UA has a CoC. The conditions UA puts in its contract don't have to also be written in law (though fair, they do need to be consistent with law). If UA goes to enforce its CoC conditions and loses, I suppose you have an argument to make. Until that time as someone challenges those conditions, and its been found unlawful, than it still stands. Feel free to challenge and see what happens.
Originally Posted by
findark
So if I poach an F seat I "would NEVER buy" -- I have not deprived UA of any revenue either? And it's okay to, say, cancel a refundable F ticket at the last minute to ensure a seat goes empty for me to swipe (let's assume a world with fewer/no CPU)?
You seem to be stuck in a world where some number of seats on the A-B nonstop are "reserved" for pax flying specifically from A to C, so that someone paying for one of "those seats" isn't causing a problem by getting off at B. This is just not how selling airfare works. Those seats do not exist, and UA would be happy to sell the entire plane to more profitable customers if they happen to show up. HCT arises in cases where UA is reluctantly offering A-C at a loss (or a smaller margin than they would like) so that they offer a competitive overall product ex-A and get more pax from A to fly UA also on more profitable journeys.
For those who may not understand your sarcasm, no, you can't cancel a ticket last minute to ensure there's an upgrade for you. Forget the exact specifics, but AA has already kicked people out of their program for doing exactly this.
Originally Posted by
thetaxman
So all of this comes down to a Risk V Reward decision for the passenger based on their specific facts and circumstances. Probably a small risk I get caught saving some dollars if I don't do it repeatedly and I'm unlikely to be sued by an airline as one pax can't materially impact the profitability of a single flight. However, if I do it and the airline decides to go after me, then they have multiple choices available to them through the CoC I agreed to when I voluntarily bought the ticket. In some instances, the penalty from non-court action (loss of status, accrued miles etc) , is going to be painful on some (but not all) travelers. Travel once a year to see Grandma - meh. Four segments a week and a mortgage payment or job that relies on being able to travel - I may think about it more, but unless I'm stupid or there is a change in enforcement policy by the airlines that starts to move towards zero tolerance then the pax may still see a immaterial risk.
I guess you could look at it that way, but many have morals/ethics, and realize that HCT'ing is not actually following through on their end of the agreement of purchase, and is the wrong thing to do. To each his own I guess. But of course, you don't know when you're luck will end.
Originally Posted by
COSPILOT
I had no idea this was such a hot topic, but apparently so. I have better things to do and simply book travel that I need, not find HCT options. I thought this thread would fall off the radar in a day or two, but apparently given the passion, some of you must be taking advantage of this, and apparently defending why it is ok to do so.
I guess I'm too focused on what I need for travel. I need travel from A-B. Maybe UA could combat this with a secret connection. We will sell you travel from AAA-BBB, but we won't tell you anything about the city between until you check in. That would throw a wrench into those of you gaming the system...
Likely wouldn't work unless all airlines agreed to make connections secret, but it would solve the problem. Make crap like this pure BE tickets, we will take you to XYZ in said time frame, but won't confirm your connection until you arrive at the airport. Take away your knowledge of potential flights and airport delays, and I would assume those of you gaming the system will cave in fear.
Yes, some people like trying to screw the airlines because they feel the airlines screw them. They don't like the $200 change fees they need to pay in exchange for getting a far lower fare then they would otherwise. They don't like having to pay a bag fee, or for food onboard, which wasn't the case 10 years ago. They want to get prime rib for the price of McDonalds. They want the first class service at the price of basic economy. And they want to show others that they can get it (especially on an anonymous internet board).
As for the 'secret' method, there is an option for that - Priceline (And I think Hotwire does it too). They give you a departure window (say, departs between 8:00am and 11:00 am on August 15), and arrival window (say, arrives between 1:00 pm and 4:00 pm on August 15), and you don't know the specific airline, flights, connection points, etc. Maybe UA should try that kind of fare?