I have, and I've mentioned this from time to time in other threads, flown to Europe from Boston via Chicago solely for the miles. As suggested above, I first got the idea when I wanted to meet with a colleague from Grand Rapids before flying over the pond, but since then I've done it whenever fare and schedule work out. Once I even returned from London via both ORD and MIA.

AA knows what I'm doing (if I booked the trip with a human agent) or told the computer to allow it. Nobody forced them to. I surely didn't. They decided it was a good idea. Who am I to dispute their wisdom?

A couple of times I've been asked, at check-in, if I wanted to switch to a non-stop. My usual answer is "No, thanks, I want the miles." Never the slightest push-back. AAgents find this quite normal. (Maybe not mentally normal, but within their usual range of experience.)

As mikeef suggests, the airlines could fix this by switching to origin-destination credit. I don't like the idea, it would take some of the fun out of this, but it would make planning simpler.

I see nothing unethical about doing mileage runs. If we were to add in their obvious price mistakes (hotels for $1 etc) then its another issue.

For me, it comes down to this: they set the rules. All of them.

The airlines know mileage-runners and segment-runners exist. If they decide to put an end to the game, they can do so immediately. Minimum-stay requirements, maximum-segment limits. Some of these are already in place on certain routes/fares. (For example, there is a limit to how wacky a routing AA.com or United.com will book, isn't there?)

My take is that airlines should do more to embrace mileage-runners. (Disclaimer: I have never taken a pure mileage run in my life and doubt I ever will.) These are some of the most knowledgeable people about the product, and they are likely also some of the best brand loyalists. I'm talking beyond the normal level of "loyalty" instilled by FFP's in general: I'm talking about active, viral loyalists who are known in their various circles of influence as devoted fans of their airlines. People with the credibility to educate and convert additional customers.

Why Delta (or others) would seek to push these people away or discourage them is a mystery to me. It's not like an airline ever takes an incremental loss when a passenger completes a mileage run. AA's approach makes more sense to me.

How did you board a flight and get off without the gate agent noticing? Weren't they suppose to take you off the flight list if you decided not to flight, even after you already boarded.

I have mixed opinions on those. I think I had more sympathy when the first fare mistake occurred in the online do-it-yourself travel booking era. (I don't know exactly when it was, but say...late '90's.)

These days, I wonder if they are really mistakes. We're talking production systems supporting a booking channel that is now very mature. If there is a $1 fare out there today, it's because it was either completely intentional or because internal software or process testing didn't take place correctly. In either case, the provider owns total control of the situation and its consequences.

Add in the fact that a lot of zero-fares or cheap-fares are intentional. They are either overtly or virally marketed by the provider with great pride in some cases. I've unfortunately never been in the right place at the right time to catch a $1 fare (I guess they are more common in Europe among the low-fare airlines there?), but if I booked it, and the airline actually completed the sale to me, I'd expect them to honor it.

The exception would be if somebody hacked the airline and was maliciously setting the incorrect fares. That would be akin to someone robbing Best Buy and selling me a stolen TV. I might be disappointed in the poor security in place that allowed the hack to happen, but I wouldn't expect to be able to keep the goods.

Things were done a little differently five years ago. Per the first post:

Ethics is Dead
 

Basically.

It's rather quaint.

The law of the jungle is back.

I don't really see anything wrong with taking a multileg flight to get from A to B. I'd think a very small minority of passengers would choose to take a multistop flight if there was a direct route available. Just check out Orbitz, etc. When searching, the user can choose a maximum number of stops.

I think most people will pay a premium for more direct flights, so if you want to take a circuitous route, then fine. If they sell you the ticket, it's fine.

The airlines can change fares by the second. They can decide to increase award redemption levels. I'd argue that it's more unethical for the airlines to allow you to earn miles under one set of rules but be able to change the rules before they can be redeemed. Mileage programs have become cash cows for the airlines. One might argue that mileage earned under one set of rules should be redeemed under those rules.

Just my opinion, of course, but between my family we have plenty of miles and can rarely use them for anything!

fuzz

That's a key point. As long as there's just a few of us, statistically speaking, we're cute but we don't make much difference. People who take some mileage runs generally earn most of their miles "legitimately" (I do) and might switch all their flying (including the "normal" stuff) to another airline if their current one became less tolerant of MRs, so an airline has to consider the potential loss of profitable business if it tries to clamp down*. If mileage runs ever became a significant enough number to affect plans, schedules, whatever, it might be a different story.

_____________________
*If AA only gave BOS-LHR credit no matter what route I took, but UA gave full miles for BOS-ORD-LHR, would I switch? Not just for that, at least not now, but at the margin some people would and at some point they'd lose me too. AA makes money flying me BOS-ORD-LHR, though perhaps not as much as they'd make if I took a non-stop. Do they want to give that up over a few FF miles?

Also keep in mind that airlines book outstanding FF miles as a liability at miniscule levels compared to how FT'ers generally value them. The fact that you are earning a boatload of miles on a wacky routing isn't terribly relevant to them.

Their bigger concern with wacky routings would be if it prevents them from selling those seats to people who want to book the intermediate cities as standalone tickets. For example, if you're booked on BOS-ORD-LHR, and all BOS-ORD flights are oversold to the max but BOS-LHR (nonstop) has seats, I can see AA wanting to nudge you over to that nonstop flight so they can sell 1 more full-Y ticket to Chicago.

In today's model, it wouldn't cross their mind that you were mileage runner: they'd hopefully try and offer you a VDB tease to get you to give up your seat. If mileage running were widespread, they might change some rules - or at least reserve the right to move you over to "saner" routings at their discretion where it gets you to your destination ontime or earlier.

For the past couple of years NW has had a promotion in December for the most EQMs flown during that month. They actually state that they know a lot of flyers try to top up their accounts. Those who fly the most during that month for each tier gets some extra miles.

First off, thank you for not flaming me too much (so far). Or amybe I just have a thick skin.

Second, I see that today the Lincoln Zephyr miles (2500) just hit my AA account. A couple possible scenarios:

1) I test drove the Lincoln Zephyr.
2) I went to the dealership and the salesmen filled out the form and didn't make me test drive it.
3) I just signed it myself and sent the thing in without going to the dealership.

My take on the three:
1) Is completely ethical.

2) Grey area

3) Unethical, possibly fraudulent.


Maybe ethical is the wrong word. A word that seems a bit dated but seemed to have some meaning during the civil war:

1) completely "Honorable"

2) Not really Honorable but depending on the actual salesmen's attitude, understandable.

3) Unhonorable but, if you get away with it, is it really that different from 2 since you didn't drive the car in either scenario (the intention of the offer)? And maybe if you had driven the car you would have bought it....?

Look, this is a bit off topic, but maybe the invention of the corporation has changed our perspective. It seems I am willing to screw a corporation in a way that I would never screw a fellow human being. And even the people working at the corporation seem to have no problem with it--and encourage me to do so! Jeezus

Incidentally, I am horrible human being with no ethics or honor--yes, I did option 3.

I'm surprised you could get away with #3. I just figured you had to get a salesman (with some sort of unique ID code or whatnot) to sign the form.

As for #2, as long as you position it as the salesman's call, I think it's ethical. Basically, the offer got you to show up at a dealership, willing to drive a Lincoln. That was the purpose of the promotion. The salesman can then make the call as to whether or not he thinks you are a real buyer.

On the Buick one a few years ago (for a Marriott cert), I showed up and was totally honest with the sales guy: I saw the promo online, wanted the certificate, was willing to take a ride in a Buick with him, but really wasn't in the market to buy the car. I felt like that was the most ethical thing to do - more ethical than pretending to be a serious buyer and wasting 30 minutes of the salesman's time.

The guy signed my form and sent me on my way.

The underlying questions: Was it ethical for me to even respond to the offer, knowing I wasn't going to buy a Buick? Was it ethical for the salesman to take the easy way out for both of us by not making me take the test drive?

I don't know...I would think that if you asked the marketing team that launched the campaign to begin with, they'd say "Yes, please respond, please come to the dealership and drive a Buick, even if you know you aren't a buyer right now. It's worth the Marriott certificate to us to get you to experience the brand - even if it doesn't immediately pay off with a sale right now." But they'd probably also tell their sales guys "Get these Marriott Fans to drive the cars! Don't let 'em out the easy way."

So, this leads us back to the car salesman being unethical. :D ;) Whoa...stop the presses for that breaking news!! :p

Yeah, I missed the deadline but sent it in anyway. Got lucky.

I actually was in the market to buy a car -- and trade in my SUV -- but not sure if the salesmen would have sensed that.

Every time I go in on one of these, the salesmen just signs off on it. Never gone for a test drive when I've showed up for a promo. (6-7 times)

You can get the required dealer code off the bottom of a window sticker (or, I think, from an FT thread in the AA forum).

Exactly what I did - after parking a shiny BMW in front of the window so they'd know for sure that I really, really wasn't a customer. I said I'd drive it if they really wanted me to, but did they? They didn't.

However, truth be told, I got the bimmer because of another promo. It wasn't for airline miles, it was for something else, but it worked! Had it not been for that, I wouldn't have thought of one at the time. I'm sure car companies know this goes on and accept it as part of the cost of a promo that will sell at least a few cars.