ekartash

i love flyertalk. good discussion. i do apppreciate everyones view.

ticket booked. i just hope that i am able to find my gate for my connection to yyz. i really would not want to miss my flight. hahaha

gemac

Very sensible. We all hope that this doesn't result in a black mark on your permanent record.

onobond

Can't quote anyone getting caught by AA, but one of my former collegues, travelling a lot on LH, had his account set to zero and Senator status withdrawn after they dicovered two hidden city trips.

jrockway

Sounds like they did nothing but lose a loyal customer.

Zeffer

Hear hear. I've done the same kinda thing before by accident -- i.e. plans changed and I had to stay in what I initially thought would be a connecting city, or clearing immigration took longer than expected and I missed my connecting flight which made the whole trip pointless, or while on a stopover work arose that prevented me from completing the rest of the trip.

Airlines know that plans change and stuff happens and people miss flights for all sorts of reasons. They will not even notice. If they do, you've got a billion reasons why it was unintentional.

Just don't make it a regular habit so it becomes a glaringly suspicious pattern, jusssssssst in case.

SteveinA2

The real risk of hidden city ticketing is in the event of flight cancellations

If you are flying EZE to JFK to YVR and the EZE JFK flight is cancelled they may reroute you EZE to DFW to YVR. You'd be in DFW or YVR without a ticket to JFK.

So hidden city works best for full fare travelers that can walk away if a flight is cancelled.

Steve

dayone

There's a statement that is false on its face.

FT tendencies are:

1. Push the rules to the fullest extent.
2. Exploit any exception, ambiguity, loophole or contradiction.
3. Not read the rules and then blame AA for their limitations.
4. Misunderstand the rules and then quote them with authority.
5. Concoct new rules based on anecdote, hearsay or whim.

martin33

Contract law is tricky and often counterintuitive. I am not a lawyer, but I will try to outline some of the issues as I understand them. First, a contract like the CoC is by its nature one-sided since passengers have no opportunity to negotiate its terms. Such one-sided contracts can be and have been voided as illegal or unenforceable if found (legal term, not regular definition) "unconscionable". Second, if the passenger in this case (EZE-JFK-YYZ) gets off at JFK, the airline would have a difficult time demonstrating legal "injury" since the passenger is not using the whole set of the airline's resources to which he was entitled. Third, fulfilling the contract would require "specific performance" by the passenger--- that person, and no one else on his behalf, would have to phyiscally travel JFK-YYZ on a particular flight. That promise isn't enforeceable, and both parties know that up front, yet the contract pretends otherwise.

Even if you usually believe "a contract is a contract", as I do, you can still believe there is potentially something different and not quite right about CoC's as they currently stand. I want my airlines to be profitable, but I don't want it to be so based on bullying contractualese. If the entire system would have to be more expensive to accommodate only fully clear and enforceable contracts, then so be it. In the meantime, we are not there.

For a thoughtful discussion of the issues, both the illegal vs legal aspects and the illegal vs unethical aspects, see here. The one individual case referenced is discussed also here (the passenger won summary judgment, but the case is now very dated and just goes to prove how court-shy the whole subject really is), and the travel agency mass suit (which I was unaware of), is wending its way through the courts and is discussed at length here.

AMR and the agencies continue to litigate, but the ARC dropped out of the case in 2004 and settled with the agencies, agreeing "(i) not to participate in the enforcement of contested airline debit memos seeking payment from agents for hidden city, back-to-back or point-beyond tickets, (ii) to issue a statement to agents informing them of ARC�s agreement not to participate in such enforcement, and (iii) not to terminate the accreditation of any agent that refuses to pay a contested debit memo seeking payment for hidden city, back-to-back or point-beyond tickets."

pauleeepaul

6. Complain on FT how they were wronged.