Of course you would change my mind if you had any valid arguments. If you show me anywhere, that any court, ever, determined, in its final instance, for back-to-back or hidden city tickets to be CRIMINALLY FRAUDULENT, I will change my mind, because then, and ONLY then, does an airline's internal rule become the law of the land. Until then, I am a smart shopper, and NOT a fraudster. So stop scaring people with this unnecessary and inflammatory, if not defamatory label you put on their actions.

You are showing no such evidence, and keep relying on your own opinion. If this were such a big deal, or in the public interest at all a) the government would prosecute such alleged fraudulent activities, and b) the airlines would pursue these things in court, which they appear to be avoiding to do for obvious reasons, and c) such rules would not have been found to be unenforceable by other jurisdictions.

Besides, this is all really bad PR and customer relations for airlines who already enjoy a poor reputation for customer friendliness. Let it go already.

I feel like the are potentially situations where one could book those tickets for completely legitimate reasons - not trying to get around a fare rule at all. If I had to work in SFO for two weeks, and booked a RT ticket, and then later found out I would be needed back at home over the weekend, I may book something like this.

In that case, Delta would have to guess what my intent was, which again, is a slippery slope.

From what I understand, airlines typically only do anything to people that have a repeated pattern of these types of ticketing, so I suppose it would be hard to accidentally get penalized for something like this.

Even so, what if I routinely traveled to various places for two week stretches, and know that I would need to come home on the middle weekends only about half the time, but had no way of knowing which weekends until 2-4 weeks out. This is a situation where I could repeatedly book the type of ticketing mentioned above, repeatedly throughout the year, without having any intention of circumventing fare rules.

I realize this is a fairly unlikely hypothetical, but it still possible, and it shows the trouble that the airlines could face when trying to determine a customer's intent in purchasing tickets.

Would this be back-to-back ticketing?

TYS-ATL-LGA on May 27 (Confirmation AAAAAA)
LGA-MSP-LAX on May 28 (Confirmation BBBBBB)
LAX-JFK on May 29 (Confirmation BBBBBB)
LGA-ATL-TYS on May 31 (Confirmation AAAAAA)

Obviously it's cheaper as two reservations, but I don't want to risk breaking DL rules. Thanks!

No, it's a nested ticket and perfectly legal. You'll be fine.

Why is it cheaper as two reservations?

I suspect it would be just as cheap with one reservation using two fares (sum-of-locals). But easier to book as two reservations, since doing sum-of-locals on the website is not all that easy.

And agree with mAAine - nested tickets are not violating fare rules.

Fraud is both a civil and a criminal issue. The fact that no airline or prosecutor has ever chosen to go after travel agencies for fraudulent conduct changes neither the facts, nor the ethics. Since airlines can simply debit memo travel agencies, it is no surprise that the airlines do not take them to court. I have repeatedly connected the facts of ticketing fraud to the elements of a fraud claim. That you choose not to accept the validity of the arguments doesn't change its validity. Moreover, that you don't accept my arguments means less than zero to me. You are no more a "smart" shopper than the individual who changes the price on an item with a pricing gun. Hell, Bernie Madoff was pretty smart too. Doesn't make him a paragon of ethics.

Again, why pursue in court what they can remedy through debit memos and pulling plates? That airlines don't see the value in dealing with hysterionics from travel agents and their industry associations, and tolerant judges and juries who repeatedly refuse to impose contractual rules against those who refuse to abide by them is - in my opinion - more a symbol of how our free market society governed by a rule of law has continued to plunge into a ends-justify-the-means cesspool of moral relativism.

This is why Nordstrom lets people leave the store with stolen goods, rather than having security tackle them. The fact that they choose PR/customer relations over enforcement does not make the theives "smart shoppers."

And as I said last time, I'm letting it go. I'll never convince you that your fraudulent ways are ethically repugnant. But you are right that I should care less about the fact that you disagree with me. Your Robin Hood ethics render your opinion meaningless to me. Adios.

Actually, agencies HAVE been getting debit memos, and those debit memos come right out of any commissions or overrides due to that agency from that airline. So someone IS paying, and sometimes it's unwitting travel agencies. Delta was one of the worst offenders and Travel Weekly posted article after article about 18 months ago about DL's heavy handed and unsympathetic behaviour with regard to debit memos. I don't know if things have improved much in the last year or so.

In some cases TA's were getting debit memos after ticketing a completely 'legal' (in the airline sense of the word) itinerary, but the passenger threw-away the inbound and bought another roundtrip for return. How an agency is expected to enforce a passengers behaviour when they are out flying is beyond me, and getting a debit memo for a passengers action is not the norm, but not unheard of (particularly from DL).

How does that scenario fit into an ends-justify-the-means cesspool of moral relativism?

This is where ExAAeronDL lost me. You are only stealing if you are depriving someone of something that is theirs. Clearly he/she doesn't understand the meaning of the word.

Next, he admits that he works in the airline industry. As we know, it is virtually impossible to convince someone of the truth when his or her livlihood depends on him not understanding it.

Finally, no company or contract can dictate their customer's intent or even their usage of a legally purchased product or service. Could Ford sell you a car if you only agreed to use it for business or personal use? Could they bill you for a different price if you were caught doing otherwise? The notion is absurd.

The examples of nested travel on another airline or another mode of transportation really highlight the traveler's intent aspect of this bogus fraud argument.

I'll take it further. What if you go JFK-AAA-JFK with AAA-LGA-AAA nested? Would that still be considered "fraud" by Delta? Would ExAAeronDL consider it so? (Who probably considers him/herself more catholic than the pope).

I won't bother rebutting those points I have already addressed. But I do have two glaring ones I just can't leave untouched:

Where have I admitted that I work in the airline industry? I used to work in the airline industry. Past tense. The only interaction I have with it now is as a customer. So not only does my livelihood go unaffected by airline profitability, but in fact having learned most all of the tricks of the trade, I could probably do pretty well joining your merry band of ticket fraudsters. But I don't. Why? Because I thought it was wrong before, I and still do.

This may be my favorite. Really, really a softball. So let's begin.

Is it absurd that electric, gas, water and telephone companies charge one rate for residential usage, and another for commercial? I mean, it's the same water after all. Same power. Same telephone lines. Would it be ethical for you to tell the telephone company a phone is being set up in your home, when in reality it's a business line? Would that not be fraud?

Is it absurd that museums give free admission to professors? Or discounted rates to students? I mean, it's the same museum ticket after all. Would it be ethical for me to use my old faculty ID to get into museums for free?

Is it absurd for car rental companies to restrict where their cars can be driven? I mean, so long as it comes back in good shape, what do they care? Why should I have to pay more if I drive to Mexico. Nothing wrong with telling them you won't leave the country, then doing just that?

Is it absurd for software companies to offer an academic rate? I mean, Microsoft Office is the same product whether you're a teacher or a business. So nothing wrong with me using that faculty ID again, this time to purchase a bunch of software for me to use in my business?

Would you like more examples of businesses conditioning the use of a product based on the price paid? Reduced fare subway tickets for students? Car leases restricting the lessee to private, non-commercial use? Disneyland offering a discount to Southern California residents?

So really, who's the absurd one here?

Just to be on your side on this point:
Most home alliance warranties are void if used in commercial settings

All these distinctions are blurry nowadays with people working from home and living far away from their hq and customers. Let me just say that your era has largely passed. Your ethics might have been useful when you worked in the industry but they are now obsolete. Move on!

However, ignoring a company's one sided coc is not criminal fraud. You might disagree with it on your own ethical grounds but don't label those who buy cheap tickets as fraudsters. It's defamatory.

None of the above examples hing on the intent, the actual thoughts, of the customer. Student or professor is not intent. You either are or are not. Private or commercial, same thing. Residency requirement, same thing. Certainly driving a car outside of the agreed upon location is a very material breach of contract and not a matter of intent.

So help me out. How about you address my hypothetical trip from NYC with the following tickets: JFK-AAA-JFK with AAA-LGA-AAA nested. Is that "fraud", "theft", "stealing" or a just crime against humanity? Substitute EWR for LGA and then tell me. Next try BDL and so forth. Do you actually believe that if I nested a ticket from another carrier, would that still be fraud? Am I (paradoxically) only defrauding Delta if I give THEM my money and not another carrier? What if I drove or took the train back to my origin? What are the geographical boundaries of my trip before I have committed fraud? Do you think I am legally forbidden to return home to NYC during my trip to AAA? How close could I get to NYC before I should be sued for fraud?

If I book a hotel at a business rate, but during my trip, I sneak over to my friends house, is then leisure and therefore fraud? Should I confess to the hotel that I had fun and ask for they higher rate? Is Delta, or any other business really supposed to be the thought police, or do they just offer products and services that free people can legally consume regardless of their intent?

Not sure I follow why my ethics should change depending on whether I work in the industry or not. I choose not to engage in ticketing fraud.

Nor is it defamatory to label others to do engage in ticketing fraud as such. Airlines have the right to set conditions on the sale and use of their product. Circumventing those conditions for the purpose of buying at a price they aren't willing to sell to you at is fraud. It's not an "era [that] has largely passed." The basis for enforcing fare rules is the same today as it was 20 years ago.

So let me get this straight. I intend to drive a rental car into Mexico. I go to Hertz, and they say "Don't drive the car to Mexico under this rate." I say "No problem, just staying in California." We agree that is breach.

Now I intend to take two weekday trips to New York. I go to Delta, and they say "Don't use this fare for weekday itineraries - you must stay in your destination city Saturday night." I say "No problem, two weekend trips." You somehow think that's different.

Not sure where you are drawing this "intent" distinction. The question is whether you are misrepresenting your true itinerary to avoid a fare rule and thus pay a lower price. The "intent" is intent to misrepresent yourself. The underlying facts - whether it be my current employment as a professor, or intent to have a weekend stay - are misrepresented in both cases.

I'm not sure what you want to hear. If you nest those itineraries for the purpose of evading a fare rule, and do so with intent, you're defrauding the airline. Not sure how much more clear I can be. There is nothing wrong with nesting itineraries to take advantage of sum-of-locals pricing (since you're not evading any fare rules), or if you want to do a stopover (again, since you're not evading any fare rules). But if you break up itineraries with the intent of evading a fare rule, you have engaged in ticketing fraud. As for "crimes against humanity," the only one I see here is the torture of logic running through your post.

Again, your hypotheticals are absurd. What do you mean by "business rate"? A rate with rules designed to apply to business travelers? Or a rate negotiated with a business for business use only?

If you mean the former, then so long as you are not violating those rules or misrepresenting your itinerary, there is nothing wrong with it. Now you can't really back-to-back ticket hotels. But if it was a weekend rate, and then you checked out of the hotel early, and somehow the total price for the full stay was less than the actual stay (again, unlikely in the hotel context), the hotel should be able to collect the amount for your true itinerary.

If, on the other hand, you mean a rate intended for business use only - i.e., a corporate discount, then your example is not fraudulent. If the primary purpose of travel is business, the fact that you engaged in some leisure activities does not render the booking fraudulent. However, if you utilize your corporate discount for a family vacation, then you absolutely have engaged in fraud.

Finally, as for "thought police," I've reported yours missing to them. Your arguments are based on strawmen so weak that the crows are nesting on them.

So in the end, I'm done arguing this one. Go about your merry ways. Steal from the airlines. Trick them into charging you less than the fare rules dictate. Feel good about yourselves for being clever. But don't fool yourselves into thinking you're doing the right thing.

I really hate to wade into this mess, but I just can't take much more of the "fraud" allegation being tossed around. I'm not a lawyer, but I am quite certain that buying four legs on an airline and arranging them in the most cost effective manner does not constitute criminal fraud.

The airline controls its reservations, now more than ever since so many tickets are issued via the airline's own website and since each reservation has a unique FF number on it that easily allows the carrier to see all reservations that a given passenger is holding at one time. If the airline doesn't like what you have booked, it could easily cancel the legs and refund your money, on the spot, or perhaps even refuse to issue the offending ticket in the first place. I would maintain that by accepting your reservations, printing your boarding pass, and allowing you to fly your evil concocted tickets, it has accepted -- and blessed -- the way you arranged the segments. As technologically sophisticated as the airlines are with inventory management, don't tell me that they could not institute an automated system to immediately cancel any booking that created a non-contractual (I refuse to term it "illegal") set of itineraries.

At the very most, engaging in back to back ticketing constitutes a breach of the passenger's "contract" with the airline, and if the airline felt damaged by this it could sue the passenger for said breach. To even hint that this sort of thing rises to the level of criminal behavior is patently absurd.