Originally Posted by
cmd320
Perhaps I should send AA a bill for all of the PDBs I’ve missed, all the inedible/crap food they’ve served, all of the operational failures they’ve caused, all of the negative equipment swaps I’ve endured, etc.
There's no legal or contractual basis for suing. AA specifically even states that services can vary.
Originally Posted by
lowfareair
As far as I know, the airline would have a hard time enforcing a flight ban for this, as it is considered a common carrier and there are limited reasons they have for wholly banning a passenger for flying them (mostly related to things like health/safety risks). It's why the usual recourse for an airline is to close the FF account for a terms violation and call it a day.
I also agree that an airline would struggle to recover money from a passenger for HCT after it happens (and I can't imagine them having much luck doing so at the origin city on day of departure), hence why we haven't even seen a case filed against a passenger by the airline. It's not because the cost of a lawsuit is too high, it's that the airlines know that HCT isn't as firm as they make it out to be and would be very hard-pressed to show real damages given that they can't prove the customer would have paid the extra for the nonstop, that the customer would have even flown their airline, or that the customer would have flown at all if the HCT wasn't available.
The FF program closure is the only real recourse they have, and that's because consumer protection laws around FF programs are close to non-existent in the US.
Being a common carrier doesn't mean they must transport a person who has previously not paid the applicable fare. Yes, it's easier to revoke FF membership. (You don't even own the miles!) However CC are entitled to ban passengers for more than health/safety risks.
Originally Posted by
the phoenix
Here’s some thing I’m not understanding: if hidden city ticketing involves getting to landing at the stopover destination, and the second leg doesn’t get flown, right?
So if you book this is a round-trip, doesn’t the leg that wasnt flown get canceled and the return gets canceled too? Seems like it’s difficult to pull it off With the risk being greater than a hassle
Domestically/ Canada/NORTH&CENTRAL America most OW are half price of RT. Thus simply book OW. International, OW can cost more than RT. However generally in that case book RT from a city, fly there, fly out, and on return not take last flight. Ie booking Canada-US-China RT and skipping US-Canada flight on return.
I've booked AA Vacation Packages (when I
was flying AA
), between JFK and ZRH where the airfare + hotel was
cheaper than just the airfare. If I didn't stay at the hotel which was part of the package (but stayed on my $ at a better hotel) would I be in breach of the COC and/or Federal statutes noted above.
AA Vacation isn't AA. It's a travel agency. There's no contractual requirement to use the hotel. It's same as going to McDonalds, ordering a combo, and throwing the fries away. There's no contract with McDonald's requiring you use the fries.
Originally Posted by
LAX_Esq
To enforce the HTC clause in court, AA will have to withstand two separate challenges: 1) a challenge to the condition itself, and 2) a challenge to its purported calculation of damages. A court may find the provision valid, but not side with AA on damages. IMHO, #2 is a tougher argument for AA.
#2 is really easy to show. Despite what some have said AA doesn't need to prove that is what their costs were. They simply need to show that ticket for the route flown cost X amount and you paid a lower amount. As another posted, no different then a store using someone that switched UPC codes on an item. Instead of paying $300 for noise cancelling headset, they paid $99 by switching UPC code. Store doesn't have to show that the item cost $300, only that they charge $300 for it.