Originally Posted by andryas (Post 16300135)

But they did fly the entire two itineraries. I don't agree that the trying to find the best deals is identical as stealing. I just take it that back-to-back ticketing is frowned upon by airlines, but not for the reasons (especially lying about O/D) that you mentioned in the previous post.

Using your logic than the following would also be considered setaling:
- Flying to a nearby town beacause it's cheaper
- Flying on a different day/time than what is intended because it's cheaper
- Flying one airlines half-way, than continue on different airlines (nested ticketing) because it's cheaper.
All of the above constitutes loss of income to the airlines, due to the passengers lying about their true O/D.

Am I stealing if I choose to fly DL to SIN even though my true destination is CGK? ( I could book an itinerary to CGK on delta.com at a much higher price, so i chose to fly SIN-CGK on an LCC) I did misrepresent my O/D to Delta. Is it also illegal?

Originally Posted by ExAAerOnDL (Post 16296388)

Taking your questions one at a time:

(1) It's lying because you are masking your true O&Ds. Moreover, you start the second trip before you complete the first trip. It's manipulating your itinerary for the purpose of evading a fare rule. Thus fraudulent. No different than buying a youth subway ticket for your kid, and using it yourself.

(2) It is still back-to-back ticketing if you do it on another airline, but harder to catch. While it would be legal for the airlines to share data under the antitrust laws, there is still litgation risk. And if you rented a car and drove to avoid the higher fare, then you really don't value your time very highly :)

(3) As I've said before, nobody's going to try and prosecute this criminally. Much easier just to cancel all downline bookings, close the FFP account, and debit memo the travel agent. But it's still fraud.

Originally Posted by Allvest (Post 16300662)

There is no such thing as fraudulent ticketing in cases where you purchase one or more tickets offered for sale and you actually pay for them. Other than forcing you to use coupons in sequence there is no recourse. Anything else is airline baloney.

Fraud is buying tickets on a stolen card or some such thing.

Hidden cities are the same thing. If I can get a ticket beyond the point of my destination cheaper and get off where I want to there is nothing wrong or illegal about it.

Originally Posted by ExAAerOnDL (Post 16300723)

So is it okay to change the pricetag on something in the store if you don't like the price the store is charging? Is it okay to use your a subway card for kids under 18 if you're 52 years old?

Explain to me why it is an airline can't impose conditions of sale by contract and expect you to abide by them? Why are airlines the only companies that should be forced to endure consumer fraud with no recourse?

I just don't understand the moral relativism that allows people to think it's okay to lie to a seller about the underlying facts relevant to the terms of sale. If you did it in any other transaction it'd be clear fraud.

Originally Posted by ExAAerOnDL (Post 16300620)

Business travelers are willing to pay more than leisure travelers. Business travel typically doesn't include a Saturday night stay, so by putting in the rule you can segment between the two. So it's a mechanism to enforce price discrimination - which is a good thing overall (leads to more output and a wider spectrum of fares).

Originally Posted by MikeMpls (Post 16300974)

Baloney.

Please explain why Southwest (which explicitly permits hidden city and back-to-back ticketing) has been profitable for decades while the legacy carriers have been in & out of bankruptcy or (in some cases) liquidation? They also don't waste fare rules on Saturday night stays and other nonsense. Southwest is now a larger domestic airline operation than Delta and is about to become even larger.

The legacy carriers have a business model that isn't viable. They have evolved pricing policies that basically extort whatever they can from captive segments of their market. It's only to be expected that a wise consumer will push back wherever possible.

Originally Posted by Allvest (Post 16300860)

It's ok for an airline to charge a different price for the same seat on the same flight. Their marketing people offer fares, i buy them. Nothing more to it. No morality involved.

Originally Posted by Allvest (Post 16300860)

Is it amoral to buy a bunch of toothpaste on sale even though i can't use it all until after the sale is over?

Originally Posted by Allvest (Post 16300860)

Is it amoral to not fly at all because i can't afford to go on a single full price ticket instead of two back to backs? What does that do to the airline revenue?

Originally Posted by Allvest (Post 16300860)

Is it ok for an airline to keep my fare if I am unable to fly?

Originally Posted by Allvest (Post 16300860)

There is no way to enforce this and there is no need to. It's neither fraudulent nor immoral to buy available fares. Low price tickets come with lots of restrictions which the flex business flyer cannot abide by and therefore would not purchase.

Originally Posted by Allvest (Post 16300860)

Save the high moral facade for a better cause.

Originally Posted by MikeMpls (Post 16300974)

Baloney.

Please explain why Southwest (which explicitly permits hidden city and back-to-back ticketing) has been profitable for decades while the legacy carriers have been in & out of bankruptcy or (in some cases) liquidation? They also don't waste fare rules on Saturday night stays and other nonsense. Southwest is now a larger domestic airline operation than Delta and is about to become even larger.

Originally Posted by MikeMpls (Post 16300974)

The legacy carriers have a business model that isn't viable. They have evolved pricing policies that basically extort whatever they can from captive segments of their market. It's only to be expected that a wise consumer will push back wherever possible.

Originally Posted by MikeMpls (Post 16300974)

In any case, the OP's example is still a "legitimate" example of end-on-end ticketing that almost never violates fare rules. Delta & Air France should even check his luggage all the way through in both directions if his layovers in London are < 24 hours.

The OP's question did not deserve this ridiculous moral condescension.

Originally Posted by ExAAerOnDL (Post 16301040)

But if you trick the airline into selling you a fare which requires a Saturday night stay when you don't have a Saturday night stay, you've committed fraud.

Originally Posted by ExAAerOnDL (Post 16301057)

It is not your job to tell DL how to run its business. It is free to put whatever conditions it wants on sale. If those conditions are economically uncompetitive in the marketplace, the market will make that decision. Not you. That's called a free market.

Originally Posted by ExAAerOnDL (Post 16301057)

As I've said before, Southwest's network model is not nearly as exposed to hidden-city and back-to-back ticketing schemes because it is point-to-point and does not have large Saturday night stay discounts (if any). Thus they have less incentive to enforce against them.

Originally Posted by ExAAerOnDL (Post 16301040)

But if you trick the airline into selling you a fare which requires a Saturday night stay when you don't have a Saturday night stay, you've committed fraud.



Logically irrelevant example. The terms of the sale are not that you use all the toothpaste before the sale is over. The terms of the sale of a round-trip ticket with a Saturday night stay requirement are that you stay Saturday night at your destination (which in the back-to-back ticketing fraud, is really your origin). You can't compare an example where the consumer complies with all terms of sale with one where they don't.



Yes. If the airline could do better financially by letting you by the two back-to-backs, it would let you book them. But they have not made that decision. Rather, they established rules. If you don't like them, don't fly that airline. That's how a free market economy works. It does not work by using fraud as a form of self-help.



It depends on the terms of sale. If it was a non-refundable ticket and you didn't change it before the departure time of the first coupon, yes. If it's a fully refundable ticket and the terms allow you to no-show, then no. Again, why do you believe that you have a right to just ignore contracts? Or defraud sellers into entering into one with you based on a false premise.



So is it neither fraudulent nor immoral to buy a youth subway card and then use it as an adult? I mean, the youth fare is available, and who cares if you're not eligible for it because you're not a minor? I assume you're avoiding answering this question because you cannot.



I happen to think freedom of contract and general ethics and integrity are good causes. Call me old-fashioned.

Originally Posted by MikeMpls (Post 16301078)

*ROTFL*

Nobody's "tricking" the airline into selling anything. An airline offers to sell us a fare, we buy it. Real simple. If there's any deception & trickery, it's in what the airline tries to bury in the its fine print (fare rules & CoC).

Originally Posted by Allvest (Post 16301087)

None of your arguments have legal value. If it is your personal choice to follow arbitrary, outdated, unenforceable one sided conditions and forego publicly available fares then so be it. But don't try to fool people into thinking there are legal or even criminal implications from the purchase of any fare or ticket combination.

Originally Posted by AUDirt (Post 16301116)

I see ExAAer's point -- the Saturday stays are basically promotional rates. If I take a free trip offered to me by someone wanting to sell me a timeshare (hi, Hilton!) I can't be shocked when they charge me the full rate after I duck out of the sales pitch.

That having been said, as long as the legacy carriers continue to use completely facetious arguments to justify non-refundable and (especially) non-transferrable tickets, they give up any moral high ground on the subject of fare hijinks.

In short, if they're going to play games with the consumer, they can't be shocked when the consumer plays games with them.

Originally Posted by javabytes (Post 16301131)

Wrong. None of your arguments have legal value. Arbitrary, outdated, and one-sided have no bearing on anything.