mattp1987

That wine analogy works pretty well for open seating on WN. The exit row seats are clearly more desirable, and WN doesn't charge extra for them. Instead, anyone can grab exit rows from the "buffet" until they're all filled. It doesn't work on a legacy airline with multiple cabins where 1. the cabins are clearly delineated and 2. the customer had an opportunity to book the higher cabin for a (presumably) higher price when purchasing the ticket.

Obviously you've never heard of DOUBLE DEPUTY DIAMONDS with AIR SHERIFF :-: their badges.

phillykp

+1^. I have done the same before. And will absolutely do it again

thesaints

The term "buffet" may be confusing. Try "self-serve wine tasting"; you can buy a basic ticket for cheaper wine, or the luxury one. Wines are left on the table and when you basic ticket holder reach for the 1994 d'Yquem nobody stops you.

It is clear that passage in D1 costs how much more than Y ? A normal person wouldn't have any way to know.
If the carriage contract had a provision that upgrade on board go for this much dollars for a flight this much long you would have a point, but they don't. Nor it would be a slam dunk to get payment if the passenger decides to go back as soon as the FA says he can't sit there without paying more.

No. There is to be determination beyond any reasonable doubt that the perp intended to obtain the service and get away without paying. This to be found guilty; to be charged... anybody can be charged with anything.

LEO's enjoy a rather ample latitude in doing whatever they want due to the nature of their work. If their action stands in court is another matter.
The notion that going to sit in J may constitute theft, a felony, is simply laughable.

jeet

WOW! I have watched this thread in amazement. This is classic FT!
Someone with a skewed moral compass boasted about using(stealing actually) a service, which they didn't pay for and here we have 6 pages of hair splitting analysis of was it right or wrong and if its wrong which statute should apply and much more...

I'd say this is ripe for locking.

MSPeconomist

A more interesting question is what would a coach passenger do who had paid for a higher fare class and tried unsuccessfully to upgrade with miles?

indufan

Does a person doing this exercise unauthorized control of airline property with intent to deprive the airline part of its use or value, yes or no?

Whether it is a felony or not, depends upon jurisdiction.

davetravels

I don't think anyone here said that it isn't wrong, just, perhaps, whether or not someone may or may not actually be charged with a crime, in the scheme of thingz.

BOSTransplant

I don't understand your reasoning at all. Why would someone have to know how much D1 costs in order to know they don't belong in that cabin of service? The point being made is that a normal person (and in this particular case, most CERTAINLY the OP) would know that they didn't pay for the service they made use of surreptitiously. Whether or not they know how much that service actually would have cost them had they paid for it is irrelevant.

And for your second point, I understand the difference between charged vs found guilty, but are you saying you think the OP wouldn't be found guilty here? I'm not disagreeing that DL may not think it's worth the effort to press charges and just let him off with a stern warning or by suspending his SM account, but I certainly think that the OP COULD have been found guilty in a court of law. The fact that the OP intended to (and did) make use of a service for which he knew he had not paid and was not entitled to use, and did so without paying or ever intending to pay DL for that service is clear beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't even understand where there's room to disagree on this thread. The simple facts are:
1) What the OP did was theft, which almost everyone believes to be unethical/immoral.
2) The OP and every poster on this board knows it was theft.

I guess the only thing I can see people having different opinions about is whether or not they would report said theft. I personally would, even though all my international trips are either in C+ or up front via GUC. In my mind, it's no different than reaching into an unattended cash register and taking $1,000 out, and I would report that, too.

thesaints

No.
If inside a supermarket I start eating a chocolate bar I got in the candy aisle would you be (have been) that sort of LEO that handcuffs me on the spot, only to see charges dismissed in court because it ain't theft until I leave the premises without paying and you can't demonstrate that I was not going to have the wrapper scanned at the register with the rest of my groceries ?

Is there a jurisdiction where theft is not a felony ?
Are you saying it could be considered petty theft, depending on the amount "stolen" and therefore subject to current level of ticket prices ?

Where is the surreptitious part in openly sitting in D1 ?
Knowing the additional cost is absolutely material since then you would have a slim hope of enforcing a contract, implicitly entered into, in court.
It is not enough to generically know that "passage in D1 costs more than in Y". How much more ? Maybe I thought that after takeoff an empty seat would be a rapidly depreciating asset (it's value is certainly zero upon landing) and that I could sit on it for $5, the airline lacking a better offer.

It is a sure thing that your hopes would go unfulfilled. There is nothing to charge with. It is an ordinary commercial transaction where a buyer reaches for goods on display and can withdraw after the seller let him know the price. It is not that by the act of sitting he made that seat unavailable for a future paying customer, or forced the airline to incur any additional expense.

The only fact that is abundantly clear is that several FT friends are not too familiar with the definition of theft.

I don't see the similitude at all. The OP didn't take that seat off the plane.

gooselee

All bolding mine. Some snipping, as well.

1. Actually, I don't see anyone but you agreeing on this.
2. IANAL, but I might guess that somewhere in the CoC or the ticket OP purchased, which could also be construed as a contract accepted by both parties, there is language which states that the airline will provide passage from origin to destination in a certain class of service in exchange for a certain sum of cash. For OP, this would be coach. OP took part of his passage outside of coach, thus violated the contract he had with the airline.
3. The higher price of J seats (and often pictures/descriptions of them) is made abundantly clear during the purchase process. Also, aren't their many laws that distinguish what someone should be expected to know based on "common and ordinary sense" or something like that?

1. Doesn't make any difference to your argument, which is still quite ridiculous. I suppose if I got into an unlocked vehicle that did not still have its pricetag in the window and drove it to a chop shop without anyone stopping me along the way, I wouldn't be found guilty of any crime, right? That's a pretty sweet deal.
2. A normal person knows that a business class seat costs more than a coach seat, and sees that difference at the time of ticket purchase. Also, common sense applies.
3. OP most certainly intended to (and did) obtain a service/product and get away without paying for it.
4. Not all thefts are felonies. The fact that you think they are is evidence of...something.

This.

thesaints

To have a valid contract the airline has to specify how much more.
If your landlord gives you a contract where staying in the apartment next year "will cost more than this year" that is not a valid, enforceable, contract even if by staying one could argue you implicitly accepted it.



Entring an unlocked car is legal. If nobody stops you, you will never be found guilty. If they do stop you, driving somebody else's car without their permission is grand theft auto.

Yeah, at time of purchase the difference was X. Two weeks later it was Y. Who knows how much it could be during the flight; read what I wrote about depreciating assets.
The key point is that such a generic information is not enough to form a valid contract.

I don't know it. You don't know it. A jury of his peers may know it. But the airline has to ask for the money first; he has to refuse and he can challenge that the airline should have informed him of the price change.

Some are misdemeanors. I'm not writing an amicus curiae, yet.

ATOBTTR

Um, the airline did display how much more it would have been when the OP purchased the ticket and also has drop down menus to select your cabin of choice.

The airline did ask for money first. At booking the airline would have said "Economy is $X, Business Class is $Y". Just because OP wasn't caught using the product that would have cost $Y at time of purchase while only paying $X at time of purchase for the lesser product doesn't mean theft didn't occur. Getting caught doesn't mean it wasn't wrong or wasn't theft. being able to drive home from the bar with a BAC above .08 but managing not to get pulled over on the way home doesn't mean you weren't driving under the influence. It simply means you didn't caught. Doesn't make it less wrong. The fact that OP specifically used "sneak" in the thread title should be enough to know that something was wrong and immoral.

Well, seems at least one person doesn't know it wasn't theft.

PayItForward

Maybe if OP was only approaching the seat and had not actually used the product. In this case, OP already took a looonnng nap in the seat. This is like eating that chocolate bar you mentioned and tried to return the half consumed chocolate bar when told that the price is $x (but you disagree with the pricing). Whether you took a bite, half the bar or the whole bar, they can demand payment for the whole bar. Consider this: some food like fresh sushi have a shelf life e.g. 2 hours after which they had to be thrown away. Just because the original price was $20.00 and at the 1hour mark, they even reduced the price to $12.00 does not mean that you can assume to eat the sushi for free (or $1.00) at the 1:59:59 mark as it was about to expire. If you ate it, expired or not, they can ask you to pay up $12.00, the last displayed price. Your presumption that it should be only worth $1.00 or free or you only ate 1 piece out of the 10 pieces will not matter. Refusal to pay after already eating a piece of the sushi will be viewed as theft. Similarly, having slept in the seat constitutes to consumption of the service. Delta can press for fee collection if they decide to although if you are apologetic about it, they will probably just let one off with a stern warning.

There is no doubt that the perp (OP) intended to obtain the service (Delta One seat) and get away without paying. OP certainly did not offer to pay Delta with miles or cash. He did not even ask if he might take the seat which he knew he was not entitled to.

As for the question will I report if I witness this. Unfortunately, I will unlikely report because I prefer not to be involved nor become one of the primary parties. If this however becomes a contentious issue and Delta seeks witness statements, I will be happy to provide one.

thesaints

Because even a lick makes the rest of the bar unusable for another buyer.

What's the last displayed price for a D1 seat, with the plane en route ?

If the price is not displayed, how do I know how much they want to charge ?
What I'm saying is that you can go sit in D1 and if the FA comes and says it will cost $2,000 more it is perfectly legal to go back to your seat instead of paying.
It remains the case of the FA realizing only near landing that you sat in D1 for hours and maybe even ate a D1 meal. That would say a lot about D1 service and your refusal to pay could certainly be disputed in court where it would be a matter of civil law.
All the people who write "theft" clearly don't know what they are talking about.

Yes. In civil court.

You would have to find another 11 people, vetted by the defendant's attorney, who have such low standards about what constitutes reasonable doubt. Conceding a DA with even lower standards could be found previously.

ATOBTTR

So wait? If I go to a restaurant where on the menu it has prices, but there's no price for drinks on the drink portion of the menu, I can order drinks and as long as the server doesn't specifically say "Okay, that will be $X" right after I order, I can drink it and then walk out without paying for the drinks and claim "I didn't know the price"? Interesting logic.

What would you do in a Middle Eastern bazaar where there are no prices displayed because prices are based on what you negotiate? Can you just take stuff out of the bazaar since there's no price tag?