oklAAhoma

Weeks later and I'm still confused as to why only the first spelling is proper.

(John Riefenschneider)
(John Riefenschneider)

What's the difference betwixt the two?

^^ Well said.

jordyn

Obviously he is saying exactly that, and wonder what the consequences of violating that agreement might be.

I think the question has already been answered in the thread, though: probably nothing, but it's a violation of the conditions of carriage, so penalties could include being charged the $100 difference (or possibly even the walk-up fare for IAD-LAX) or American deciding that you can't do business with them any more.

aktchi

We do agree that this phenomenon happens. The difference is that you seem to think that we should accept it, while I think we should reject and resist it. At least the extra creep.

Some usage is obviously grandfathered - for example, people may refer to any pain killer as aspirin. However, it would be another escalation if it started becoming acceptable for people to say "aspirin" when they mean any tablet including vitamins. We can be resigned to the first while still reject the second.

In the cases of chess or baseball, there are centuries- and decades-old rules that have generally been followed whenever and wherever those games are played. There is no known tradition of one team/player inventing new rules for each game, and giving no choice to the other except "play or not play".

However, each airline invents new rules for each and every fare it offers. These rules are often sneaked into fine print and anyway come and go like bubbles. These are clearly not at the same level, to me at least, but YMMV.

It is certainly true that airlines are encouraging people to think of any violation as "illegal", and some careless people are falling for that, but all of us need not go along.

jordyn

So, you're saying, essentially, that the use of the word "illegal" to mean "against the rules" only applies when the rule has been around for a long time? None of the definitions I've found support this notion, but it's an interesting idea.

So, by this line of reasoning, I suppose next time the NFL or NCAA updates football rules to allow for different formations, they'll have to stop calling the penalty "illegal formation" and start to call it "disallowed formation" or something like that?

If you would just accept that "illegal" means something different than what you think it does in this context, the fact the airline was calling it "illegal" probably wouldn't upset you so much.

aktchi

No, let's go over it slowly. Illegal means "against the law", not "against an agreement". People who write their own "rules" into an agreement want the respectability of the former meaning. Sometimes we may let it slide, other times not. That is a personal decision people can make, based on who is making the rules, how established the rules are, etc.

My opinion of this situation will certainly be colored by the fact that NFL/NCAA are independent bodies, not one of the teams, and their rules apply to all teams from now on.

I shall feel differently if the formation "rule" had been made by Team A, indeed one rule for its game against Team B and another one against Team C, both subject to change whenever Team A's "yield management" suggested that it would advantageous to change the rule.

Do some thinking. I hope you'd agree that there is a difference.

In the airlines' case, the analogy would be (i) Rules made by FAA, or even IATA, which apply to all carriers and all passengers, and (ii) "Rules" made by an individual airline, new ones for each fare, each revision, and changed frequently.

You are right. Of course, if I agreed with something, it would not have bothered me.

However, from governments to Madison Avenue, Wall Street, and individual corporations, language is often used to manipulate people. It is true that each case is not worthy of getting truly upset about, life is too short for that, but this also doesn't mean we cannot express our disapproval.

Of course, apologists of such manipulation tend to get all upset when it is pointed out to them.

In the meantime, can you explain to us what linguistic barriers you perceive that would prevent a violation of an agreement from being called a violation, what it really is?

moman

I've done this a few times in the past year, especially where I need to return home a day earlier. Instead of paying the change fee + fare difference, I just bought a new one-way flight on the day. AA came out ahead as they sold me a one-way fare for much more than the original iten, and I got home in time, and still saved money by not paying the change fee + diff.

moman

If you were flying ORD-LHR and needed to get from BWI to ORD, and the best way was BWI-ORD-DFW for $160 vs. BWI-ORD for $450, I would say it's a safe bet that you can fly BWI-ORD and throw away the DFW segment, and then continue on from ORD-LHR and no one would know the difference.

<Redacted> I don't want to attract scrutiny for my use of the refundable vs. non-refundable tickets.

woojink

Had no issues. Just pulled my bag after passport control and did not re-check. I did call EXP desk and let them know to release the seat (ORD-LAX) so I would assume that the upgrade did clear for someone and they got the seat. EXP desk said that this should be no issue at all and thanked me for calling them.

woojink

Yup. Exactly what happened. This was one reason I was able to do this. If it was a "through checked" domestic flight or Int'l w/o convenient ORD stop, I doubt I could have done this.

JumboD

I have a very similar scenario in a few weeks: SAN-LAX-MIA r/t is about 1/4 the cost of LAX-MIA r/t in F. I looked at the various scenarios, but decided to just drive to SAN. Easier, safer and cheaper

jordyn

I've mostly given up on this conversation. It's clear aktchi simply wants to disregard one of the well understood meanings of the word "illegal", even when there's ample evidence of its long-term usage in the context he doesn't like. There's really nothing more to say about that, except that I encourage people to refer to the dictionary when in doubt about what words mean.

Nothing at all. There are lots of synonyms in English, so something can be called multiple things and they can all be correct. It could also be called a "breach" or "prohibited" or "disallowed" (which I previously suggested). There's probably a lot more, too.

aktchi

So long, then, and cheers.

oklAAhoma

What's so long? Oh... you were bidding someone an informal farewell. I have to say I'm surprised by your use of that phrase (so long), rather than proper term (goodbye). Aren't you worried such usage will eventually erode the meanings of "so" and "long"?

jerry a. laska

While doing it a few times may not attract attention, doing it repeatedly may attract quite a bit of negative attention from the airlines. In the past airlines have attempted to confiscate mileage accounts and in some cases brought civil suits and issued debit memos to travel agents for some repeat and seemingly knowledgable offenders. It's true that violating the ticketing rules is not normally illegal in that you normally can't go to jail. Even AA acknowledges this. See this AA sample letter.
That said there was at least one criminal prosecution a number of years back in federal court for wire fraud, false pretenses, and a scheme to defraud. A Minnesota corporation, Katun Corp., for a number of years through their in-house travel department stickered tickets improperly, used back to back ticketing, and made changes to return flights that violated saturday stay requirements. The corporation was prosecuted in federal court for fraud and pled guilty. Here is a link to the information. The corporation's scheme to defraud the airlines was quite extensive and cannot be compared to an occasional use of a prohibited ticket practice.

imajes

Hey,

I've got a somewhat complex itin planned. It turns out that booking the entire thing in one go is at least a third more expensive than booking each segment by itself - which I ended up doing.

However, one of the returns is a three airport trip, one of which i want to stay at...

let me explain

LHR > JFK - Jun 12th
JFK > SFO - Jun 18th
SFO > LAX - Jun 24th
LAX > MIA - Jun 24th
MIA > EZE - Jun 24/25th
...
EZE > JFK - Dec 11/12th
JFK > LAX - Dec 12th
LAX > JFK - Dec 12/13th
JFK > LHR - Dec 13th

so i'm kinda wanting to skip the MR on the JFK > LAX > JFK run, as it's going to cost me close to $220 (according to today's price) and I am not not sure the miles are worth it.

any tips on skipping the JFK > LAX route back from EZE and then going on to LHR ?

thanks