cepheid

Sure there is: breach of contract. People and companies are sued for breach of contract every day. Whether it's cost-effective for the airline to do so is a different matter, as is whether they would win... but they certainly have basis to bring suit, should they desire to do so.

Let's look at this from two different perspectives:

1) Let's say a passenger bought A-C via B (i.e. A-B-C, but paying an A-C fare), intending to disembark at B. "Something" (let's say a mechanical problem) happens and the airline reroutes the passenger on a non-stop A-C flight, and let's assume that the non-stop A-C leaves at approximately the same time as A-B would have. The passenger now cannot disembark at B as he planned, but he also has absolutely no standing to cancel or change the ticket for free; the Contract of Carriage (to which he agreed when he bought the ticket) allows the airline to make such schedule changes at no penalty, and guarantees passage only from origin to destination - very importantly, the intermediate cities are not guaranteed, and in fact are merely a consequence of the airline's route structure. In this example, the passenger has no standing to sue the airline, because the airline is providing exactly what it is contracted to provide. The same would be true if the airline tried to reroute as A-D-C, as long as the total schedule change was within the limits set by the Contract of Carriage.

2) Let's say a passenger bought A-C via B, as above, but actually wants to continue to C. Let's say the airline cancels B-C, does not refund the passenger for the price difference, and does not make accommodations to get the passenger to C via some other carrier. The passenger can very easily sue the airline, because the carrier would have breached its own contract and failed to provide remuneration for such breach.

Both sides can leverage the Contract of Carriage in their favor when necessary. In the case of a breach, the wronged party has a perfectly legitimate basis to bring suit.

cordelli

They don't need to sue you.

They can just charge you for the trip you took instead of the one you booked. They already have your credit card.

When they went after travel agents they didn't sue them, they just issued debit memos.

In their contract of carriage they will say if you do things like hidden city or any of the other stuff on the list you agree not to do they consider prohibited they can (sorry for the caps, it's how it was in their page, using United as an example)

ASSESS THE PASSENGER FOR THE ACTUAL VALUE OF THE TICKET WHICH SHALL BE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FARE APPLICABLE TO THE PASSENGER'S ACTUAL ITINERARY AND THE FARE ACTUALLY PAID;

cepheid

Unless one pays in cash (difficult but not impossible) or (much more easily) uses a prepaid card which would simply decline charges in excess of its balance; in such cases, they kind of have to sue you to recover damages.

CyBeR

The problem being the lack of actual damages.

cepheid

Incorrect. The Contract of Carriage specifies explicitly what the damages are, as posted by cordelli: the difference between the fare paid for the purchased itinerary (A-C via B) and the fare applicable to the passenger's actual itinerary (A-B). The airline can produce documentation for both of those, along with the contract to which the passenger agreed - therefore, there are "actual," provable damages. The airline does not have to suffer a real monetary loss (i.e. expense) in order to have damages; they only need to have suffered a loss of contracted (promised) revenue, which they did.

vasantn

This is the heart of the matter.

http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/20...to-the-lender/

aviators99

So, in terms of actual damages (not promised revenue), the airline only loses money if one or more of two things are true:

1) The passenger took the last seat on the plane on the first leg and there were other passengers who just wanted to take that leg and were willing to pay full price.

2) The passenger, if (s)he couldn't get this deal, would say "shucks" and pay full price and take it anyway.

From OP's post, it seems that 2) is definitely not true. We don't know about 1).

Also, note that on the second leg, if there's anyone who wants to fly standby, they will be put on the plane, so there's an opportunity for additional revenue *because of* the passenger's action.

SQ421

How? The airline got the revenue for A-B-C which was promised by the customer. Whether the customer flies or not at all, the Airline sold a ticket which it would've sold anyways, at a price that apparently would cover its costs. (And going a step ahead, the passenger saved the airline fuel costs because of the lower weight they had to carry on the segment B-C).

bniu

an airline that would be dumb enough to sell the last seat for a $95 A-B-EWR fare when a $495 walkup A-B full fare opportunity exists deserves to have customers doing the hidden city trick. Furthermore, the IDB compensation given to a displaced $95 A-B-EWR would be more than adequately covered by overbooking with a $495 walkup A-B full fare.

Airlines should have one Golden Rule: NEVER SAY NO TO FULL FARE REVENUE

and btw, Southwest even explicitly allows hidden city ticketing, with a simple warning that checked bags will not be short checked. How come Southwest will allow such a trick?

wanaflyforless

Sure they do, in the form of lost revenue.

What if:

There are rather few people who want to fly between A and B.

There are many people who want to fly between A and C, as well as competitors serving the market with different connections.

The only way service between A and B will make more $ than it costs is if every passenger who only is flying between A and B pays $500. That way the service can pay for itself even though the planes are pretty empty.

Now, the airline could only sell A to B ticket for $500, but since the plane is already gong on from B to C, why not also sell some ticket from A to C via B, to fill up some of the many empty seat on A-B flights? Now, there are other cheap options A-C, so no one will pay for the ticket if it is priced high, all they can sell the seat A-C for is $100 (market price).

If airline decides to sell A-C for $100, does that mean they should not sell A-B for $500, if $500 is what that route needs (with the low passenger demand) to cover costs and make a modest profit?

KevinWI

Sorry, I'm a Randian archo-capitalist at heart and I can't side with the airlines on this.

If the airlines can afford to fly A-B-C for $100, then they shouldn't charge $400 for A-B.

wanaflyforless

$100 is WAY below their cost of flying A-B-C

The reason they fly A-B-C is becasue A-B and B-C fares sold separaratly for much more than $100 can generate more revenue than it costs.

Now consider that A-B-C is already being flown for the above reason, and demand is VERY low for A-B-C (perhaps a diffrent airline flies A-C non-stop or more direct or better times/frequencies). The airline has the option of pricing A-B-C at $100 and sell some tickets or if they charge more than $100 they will sell 0 tickets.

What should the airline do?
Sell A-B-C way below cost to fill empty seats or not?

baliktad

They probably can't afford to fly A-B-C for $100. They are likely making up for the loss on that route by charging $500 for A-B.

Most people here siding against the airlines seem to assume that the carriers are obligated to price airfare to reflect operating costs (a function of distance) + a profit margin. I'm not sure why that notion keeps popping up, because that is in no way the case. Fares are based on what the market is willing to pay. If people are willing to pay $500 to get from A-B, who are you to tell the airline to run their business less profitably by not charging so much?

santaclaus002

Still curious to figure out what these city pairs are. The Amtrak reference threw me off but based on the 230 miles and 700 miles data points, is it ORD-DTW-EWR with ORD-DTW being the desired route? Is it really $500 for ORD-DTW and only $100 ORD-DTW-EWR?

wanaflyforless

As the OP says only one airline serves A-B, it is a far more obscure route than Chicago - Detroit, served by AA, UA, DL, and WN. There is no reason the OP should tell us the route - it is not important to this discussion.