MRs and Ethics of flying for mileage
 

If this has already been covered ad naseaum please forgive me. I did a search. Nothing.

OK. I am not a convicted felon. But I have been know to cut some corners when it comes to Award Programs. For example. I was short one segment to attain a certain level by a certain time. I couldn't get time off for work. So here's what I did: I bought a 98$ r/t LAX-LAS ticket. Went to the airport. Boarded the flight, then got off...

You get the picture. I never actually flew the leg. Stayed in town at my job. Got the credit for the one segment.

Even if it was not illegal, it probably would not be looked on kindly by airlines and perhaps even the FAA. This was before 9/11.

Would I do this again? Absolutely not. Times have changed.

My point: It was a way of gaming the system. Getting something that I didn't deserve in a way that was unethical. Using a flight boarding pass in a way that was certainly not the intent of the corporation that issued it.

OK. I was clearly in the wrong ethically.

Now don't flame me too hard for this, but....

Is it possible that MRs are in a bit of an ethical grey area?

OK, OK. Probably not. But it strikes me that many MRs go against the intent of the corporation issuing the ticket. They're expexctation is that you fly from point A to B. For business, for fun. Not just to rack up miles. Instead, we go from A-C-D and then to B in an effort to "game" the system and garner more EQMs.

Often people will not use the last leg of a ticket. I do this myself.

Am I the only one having these thoughts about MRs? Yes. Probably. I already regret writing this. Sorry. Nevermind.

I can understand why there could be an issue with purchasing a ticket and not flying the segments (though that, too, is debatable!)

But why would a mileage run, where a customer purchases a ticket and proceeeds to fly the leg, be unethical? You are purchasing a ticket and carrying through with the trip. The airline gets its money for the flight and the seat is filled. I my opinion, no, there is nothing unethical about a MR (I have never done it and don't have elite status).

As for skipping the last leg, it may be against the "rules" of the ticket, but airline pricing structre makes zero sense to me, so I won't go into that.

fuzz

If you truly regret writing it, your edit button is right down there.

They get to make the rules of the game. Then we get to play the game within their rules. Anything that's allowable is, IMHO, fair.

Airlines' attitudes toward mileage runners varies. Delta's RPU (Revenue Protection Unit) and its clampdown on anything they perceive as bending the rules is legendary.

AA, however, is much more tolerant. At one point, booking a flight from Boston to London, their phone agent asked me "Would you like to route that via Chicago for the miles?" (I had flown Boston-Paris via Chicago a bit earlier - to pick up a colleague who lived in Grand Rapids, but the agent didn't know that and assumed I just wanted the miles.) On another occasion a promo, I forget which, was announced with a big banner behind the check-in stations at BOS which read in part "Mileage Runners Rejoice!"

As for not flying the last leg of an itinerary: a lot of us have done that, I have, but it has nothing to do with mileage runs, everything to do with absurd one-way fares.

Good point. I should have deleted it. Or at least posted it in the correct place!

If a customer purchases a ticket and flies the leg from A-B. Totally ethical.

If a customer purchases a ticket tof fly A-B, but instead flies A-C-D-E then to B, not convinced that is not taking advantage of the system.

Look. The airlines have never treated me particularly well, so maybe this goes under the category of 'Stickin' it to the man'.

I am a bit of a scofflaw by nature so I am the last one to be any kind of authority on this. Maybe someone that took ethics at harvard bussiness school could enlighten.

Flying is fun... so if I want to spend $200 to fly across country with five stops, eat lunch and turn around, SO BE IT.

I pay, they fly me. Nothing wrong with that.

Agree completely. They make the rules, we purchase a ticket within the rules, fly the route, done deal.

Don't need to go to Harvard Business school and study ethics to know that when a website can spit out the fare, it's a go. They sold it - they're allowing it - I don't feel bad about it.

I mean, that's what the airline is charging for the services. So what if I go SAN-LAX-SFO-IAD-PHL? An airline may price that out at $300 RT or $3000 RT, it's what I'm willing to pay to fly what they are saying I should, or I want. They don't have to charge me $300 but $500. Will I fly it then? maybe... depends, depends on what the market bears.

It's all about routing and fare rules. Some airlines are tighter than others... but then again, 99.99% of all flyers want to go A-B and the .01 are psychos like myself. :D

All's fair in love and miles :D

The OP should address himself with his question to Randy Cohen, who has an "ethics" column in the Sunday New York Times. This is very much Mr. Cohen's sort of question, and whatever he opines, you can safely ignore it. His responses are so silly that when I read him it is only to go over it with my daughter and mock what he has to say.

I'm not sure what you mean by "illegal" here.

Statutes and torts aren't the same thing. What you've commited above *may* be closer to breach of contract (fraudulently obtaining FF miles) than violation of a criminal or civil statute.

Well, I guess that flying A-C-D-E-B is taking advantage of the system, but I'm not sure that I see what is wrong with that. If airlines wanted to change the system and only give you credit from A-B, they could do so easily. All it takes is one press release stating, "We have enhanced our Frequent Flyer program! Now, you will automatically receive the miles as the crow flies between your origin and destination! No more worrying about trying to add up segment miles or figuring out your routing." Airline passengers, regardless of the routing, add significant variable revenue above and beyond the variable cost of flying that passenger. In other words, if your butt is in a seat, the airline is probably making money off you.

Two other things worth nothing: First, if you do consider mileage runs to be ethically-challenged, then saying, "I'm gonna screw the airline because they screwed me" is not ethically acceptable, either. Two wrongs don't make a right even though, as somebody's signature correctly points out, we would not have mileage runs without two Wrights making an airplane. Second, I went to business school, and let me be the first to assure you, ethics as they are taught (or at least learned) at business school are often very different than what society may deem ethical.

Mike

I saw take advantage while it lasts. I don't envision this system being in place forever.

So true! For a long time I thought Randy Cohen was a humor column, like Shouts and Murmurs in The New Yorker.

Expedia once booked me on a flight that was very roundabout for the route I was flying (FAY, NC to ABE, PA). There is a direct flight from CLT to ABE, but for some reason, Expedia found a cheaper fare that was FAY-CLT-Dayton-PIT-ABE. I don't know how or why they booked me that route, but in the end it was 5 segments and 500 miles/per segment (2,500 miles) for an approx. 600 mile flight. So it is often the airline or travel agent who offers these weirdo routes.

I took the miles with no complaint, and it helped me to get silver on US.

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.

:D

dont know why but after reading that post I felt like I am at amateur night at the local improv theater...

Re: OP. Well, my all-time fave was SDF-ATL-OMA on a $58 RT WN-match fare that was morphed into an ATL-OMA RT by getting boarding passes in advance and just walking on the plane on both sides of it. Sometimes you could get the last segment credited by giving your boarding pass to the gate agent if he'd take the coupon and stamp the boarding pass.

Then again, that was long ago and there's no way you could do it now. People tend to forget that security got tighter gradually BEFORE 9/11 with new computers and ID-checking mandates, among other things.

Also notable that back then in the wake of the Eastern demise ATL was being treated like a fortress hub, with high fares to many places that haven't been topped in the years since. The competition situation is much better now and there isn't the need to play the tricks.

for me its a really simple way of looking at it

Airlines maketh the rules
I maketh the rules work for me

no dilemma

I think that ethics of mileage running have more to do with the egological impact than cheating something out of airlines.

Growing air traffic is contributing to global warming, pollution etc. So my (mainly theoretical) hesitations about mileage running have more to do with that than whether I am stealing something from the airlines.

There was a thread on this several months ago that someone can probably find with a search. The consensus as best I recall it (which disagreed with the premise of the OP in that thread and of the post quoted here) was:

1. Since the cheap seats mileage runners buy would otherwise be empty, MRs do not contribute to increased flights.

2. The environmental (not ecological - look it up) impact of having one more passenger on a plane that is going to fly anyhow is negligible.

3. The mileage runner would not be in stasis during the time of the MR. He/she would be doing something else. Whatever that might be, it would have its own environmental impact. There is no a priori reason to believe that this would be less than the environmental impact of getting on an airplane.

Expedia & Travelocity, etc. find such routes mainly on 1-ways. While FAY--clt--ABE thru fare was probably automatic Y or almost so, US had reasonable 1-ways FAY--DAY + DAY--ABE.
BTW, your routing was 4 segs, not 5 ;).
I want to fly most nearly directly to each of my destinations. I am willing to pay $70 more to fly Traverse City, MI--atl--wILMington taking 4.5 hours than a double connect xATLxCVG taking 7.5 hours. I don't fly enough to earn status anywhere anyway.

But the FT question - perhaps not the rational question in our few lucid intervals, but the FT question - is this: if you did these things, could you?

No, efrem, because most of my long-haul flying is on award tix earned by credit cards, car rentals, Lending Tree once, etc...

True, the MR may not be in stasis, but perhaps the person could be doing something envi-positive (e.g., the person could be planting trees or doing something along those lines). Would that matter?

We could all spend more time building housing for the poor, recording books for the blind, and generally trying to do our poor imitations of Mother Theresa. We could all also give more to charity, purchase smaller vehicles and drive them more slowly, heat our houses less when it's cold and/or cool them less when it's hot, abandon environmentally extravagant hobbies such as motor boating, darn our socks instead of replacing them, come up with reasons why we don't need to take a business trip instead of reasons why we must ... If we did, the world might be a better place, but is this thread about idealism or reality?