What things 'are today' is that it does actually happen for airlines to penalise travel agents who make it a habit to sell return flights to people who want to fly singles. There have also been reports of frequent offenders seeing their FFP accounts desactivated in retaliation. As mentioned by ojs555, airlines do monitor no shows and they do so for a reason. Typically, they do not want to start a war on passengers who do it once in a blue moon because the commercial effect would be disastrous, and we don't necessarily have great knowledge of when they make exceptions, but apparently they do.

The example you provide (people flying TLL-HEL-x and back instead of HEL-x and back) is of course typical. You have the same with KLM (people flying ex-DUS), LH (people flying ex-Strasbourg using the bus-connection), etc. Airlines try to discourage it by (for instance) refusing to only part-check luggage unless you have an overnight stay planned (so they will refuse to only tag your bag to HEL if you have a connection to TLL, etc) and again cancelling the itinerary if people do not make the first segment. They do not start an all-out war on 'itinerary cheats' because right now it is not worth it, but in fact their legal argument should they want to looks fairly strong, and certainly strong enough to have already convinced a German court.

Thanks, that's interesting info. I don't think I'd very often find myself needing to book a single when return would be cheaper, but sometime I could be somewhere on cheap nonflexible tickets and have my employer book a different return leg should plans change mid-trip (leaving the original unused). As long as it's the company travel agent getting charged I don't care, but if they touched my FFP account I wouldn't be very happy.

Still, it's surprising to hear about the German court decision, I think a fairly strong case could be made for the opposite: that a ticket is entitlement to travel, not obligation; airlines already acknowledge by overbooking that people don't always show up, and this allows them to make extra revenue. They don't even guarantee that you will have a seat on the flight. Claiming you should pay extra for not using a service you already paid for (the unused segment) is rather steep when it actually costs them less to fly the plane with you not on it.

This takes me back to the opening of the T5 lounges and a 'similar but different' case!

A group of FT'ers decided that it would be fun to have a look at the lounges and sample their hospitality. The plan was to buy one-way tickets to, say, Manchester, to get airside, and then decide not to travel. There was NO intention to claim a refund on the ticket price - BA would have kept the money.

However, there was a strongly held minority view that this was hugely immoral behaviour and it led to quite a fight at the time. I never saw the logic myself, but there you are.

Back when tickets were made of paper, doms were priced differently, and I was younger and more clueless than now, I went to the BA ticket desk at LGW (I was working at LGW, though not for BA) to buy a one-way LGW-GLA. The very nice lady behind the counter actually told me to just buy a return and not use the second leg!

So I did!

If you want to fly MAD-LHR do you
1. pay €911
or
2. buy a return ticket and don't use the return leg
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16507275-post8.html

It would be also interesting to see an airline take action in a situation where a passenger "says" that he arrived at the airport late - was therefore refused boarding and told that his seat had been sold to someone else and so therefore took a flight on another airline.

Would a court really say that the airline was entitled to the higher fare?

Sorry if I've missed someone else making the same point, but what is the difference between a person deliberately not taking a return leg and another person who, for whatever reason, misses their flight and doesn't even make it in time to the airport to check in, realises they're not going on their original flight and decides to make alternative arrangements themselves?

Practically, it is an empty seat on a plane, or one space that frees up so that someone on a waitlist can be accommodated, or solve an over-selling problem.

Legally, it may be a matter of intent, though I'm not a lawyer and stand to be corrected.

Personal experience of this - I have bought a one way ticket on BA and have also enquired at a travel agent about buying a return and not using the return leg and was assured by the person I spoke to, that it wasn't a problem. Given that "all calls are recorded for training and quality purposes", they surely wouldn't make that statement if it wasn't ok, even on a practical level.

It's a ^ from me for RJ

It gets even crazier! Flying RUH-LHR-MAN and return in J is cheaper than RUH-LHR return (in J). Plus there always seems to be a one-leg upgrade to F...

So: RUH-LHR-MAN in J and Dom and MAN-LHR-RUH in Dom and F

is cheaper than

RUH-LHR-RUH in J

No wonder people chance it! ;)

I don't think they would let you on at LHR if you were a no show at MAN though.