|
Can I nominate this for the dumbest post ever?
Originally Posted by Buccaneeratheart
(Post 16280531)
If you practiced in either federal or state Court as I do you would know the folly of your comment, and two other posters would know the folly of their comments. In all 50 states in order for a "breach of contract" cause of action to succeed, the Plaintiff must prove financial damages in order to prevail at trial.
And how is there no financial damage? If someone back-to-back tickets in order to pay DL $400 for what DL was only willing to sell for $800, that is $400 in damage.
Originally Posted by Buccaneeratheart
(Post 16280531)
If you practiced law you already know where I am going with this, but you don't, so I will explain it:
In order to prove financial damages (and even, to successfully "cancel" an SM account) Delta would actually prove that their contract of carriage and this unenforceable rule IS an artificial price support. Then, if you have any legal experience or knowledge at all you should be able to intuit that there is NO FINANCIAL DAMAGE WHATSOEVER when someone purchases two published fares whether the trips intersect or not. THAT is why I (over 400 times) and every single other smart traveler has done this. And even if DL and FL got together to share data to allow them to identify back-to-back ticketing, it would not violate the antitrust laws (although some inane lawyer might file a lawsuit). Information exchanges to detect consumer fraud are not unlawful under the rule of reason. While they could not agree on a remedy, the exchange of information itself would be proper. Seriously, where did you go to law school?
Originally Posted by Buccaneeratheart
(Post 16280531)
THAT is why Delta and no other carrier, ever, has attempted to enforce this pointless rule. Bottom line: If a carrier can screw with customers, customers have a precisely equal right under law to screw back.
But they depend on people like three people here to instill pointless fear in those otherwise willing to provide Delta with revenue. I am done with this argument because the facts are now exposed. Arguing this subject makes the arguers embarassed. Anybody who has any questions, including you Delta employees out there, please PM me. |
Originally Posted by slipbeer
(Post 16288118)
SamuelS - that is sheer genius and despite the risk of crashing delta.com for the foreseeable future, I gave it a shot.
Multi City priced out all 4 legs for a total of $669.80. This is like a Buy One, Get One deal. How long do you think it will take before they figure it out? If Delta.com sells you a ticket that is automatically pulled up via a multi-city search on their own site, and it tickets all on one PNR, then you are not "circumnavigating" any rules - you are just putting in your dates, and you are booking a ticket they are offering you - so this is great if it worked out. I just booked a similar circuitous routing ticket via Multi-City and it priced out the same as me booking the legs separate but without the "worry" about it being seen as back to back ticketing, as it's all on one ticket/PNR. |
Originally Posted by ExAAerOnDL
(Post 16289489)
Can I nominate this for the dumbest post ever?
If I hire you to install blue carpet in my house, and you install red carpet instead, can I not sue you? Even though the carpet is worth the same amount? Ever heard the words "benefit of the bargain"? And how is there no financial damage? If someone back-to-back tickets in order to pay DL $400 for what DL was only willing to sell for $800, that is $400 in damage. Can you please point me to the case that says an "artificial price support" violates the antitrust laws? Last time I checked, the Sherman Act prohibited agreements in restraint of trade and monopolistic practices. Delta unilaterally prohibiting back-to-back ticketing is neither. Nor is this a violation of the FTC or Robinson-Patman Acts. And even if DL and FL got together to share data to allow them to identify back-to-back ticketing, it would not violate the antitrust laws (although some inane lawyer might file a lawsuit). Information exchanges to detect consumer fraud are not unlawful under the rule of reason. While they could not agree on a remedy, the exchange of information itself would be proper. Don't let facts get in the way of a good argument though, this is FT. :D |
Yikes!!!!
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:50 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.