drsmithy

It is according to some people here.

But, then again, so would drinking the cheaper Champagne you bought in August on New Year's Eve, so don't feel bad if you ignore them.

lg10

I think it basically breaks down into two schools of thought:

1. The map is important; I'm paying to get all the way to C and it's no skin off their nose (is it a boon to spend less on fuel even?) if I get off the "bus" early.

2. The map is unimportant; there is an A-B trip and an A-C trip that happens to go through B, and I bought one and not the other with a contract.

It seems that the CoC defends #2 but to my mind, sense and logic and morals defend #1.

All the analogies (bus, wood, coke, copies, etc.) mean nothing to those who see it in terms of the #2 scenario, but everything to those who see it in terms of #1.

--LG

cordelli

Did you agree with the public bus company that you would not do that? Does their contract of carriage specifically state that you will not combine fares like that? Did they inform you it was against their regulations for you to do that?

Betting it's No, No, and Nope.

Virtually none of the comparisons in this thread have anything to do with this thread, as you do not enter into an agreement with any of those companies like you do the airline, where it specifically states you won't do that, and if you do they can charge you.

Again note that if you did it for a car rental, rent weekly and return it after three days, you would in fact be charged the probably higher daily amount.

tobegold

All this discussion seems to be about one way ticketing. What if you fly A-B-C but on the return only do C-B, all on one return ticket skipping the leg back to A.

cordelli

If you are doing it to obtain a lower fare than you would have gotten had you booked A - B - C and than C - B, that too would be against their regulations.

drsmithy

How is that relevant from the perspective of operating costs ?

The main argument being used is equating discarding unused segments with *theft* - ie: that there is an actual loss being suffered.

Not making as much profit is not, in any way, the same thing as suffering a loss.

Agreements that are ridiculous will be treated with the contempt they deserve. The CoC might insist I only fly wearing red underpants, but no-one sane would seriously entertain the idea of not flying if the only clean pair they had were blue.

I have returned cars early numerous times and never had this happen. Indeed, if it ever did my first stop would be the complaints department, since by practically every reasonable calculation, I would be doing the rental agency a favour by returning the car early (at the very least, their vehicle is suffering less than expected wear and tear, at best they can rent it out again within the remaining time period and make twice as much).


If a vendor - of anything - tells me they can deliver some product or service at a given price point, then that's that. They put a price on their product and I paid it. Whether or not I use their product in its entirety is completely at my discretion and absolutely none of their business. If they choose to operate at a loss, that's not my problem, nor my fault.

Flyertalker01233

I’m pretty surprised how poor the analogies have been. First, stop using goods as an example. An airline fare is for the actual flight not the boarding pass so we are talking about a service. You’re not going to find many good examples that make logical sense because this has to do with a government supported oligopoly (at specific airport hubs).

In a competitive market the market price will be determined by supply and demand eventually landing a price point where the two curves meet. The cheaper it is to fly from A to B the lower the price point will be. Simple economics. The airlines however aren’t always acting competitively at some airports (hubs). Since they can exert market power they are forgoing some sales in favor of increasing the price which results in more profit for the airline. At other times an airport may be highly competative and the price falls down to where supply hits demand. This is why they are pricing a flight that costs them $75 at $95 and one that costs $30 at $475.

Flyertalker01233

When is this “contract” entered into? When I purchase the ticket? When I check in? When I board the first plane? When I board each segment? When is this contract voided by the airline. The moment the itinerary changes? A Delay? A gate change? No overhead space…

Flyertalker01233

What if I am flying A-B-C for $500. The flight is canceled an I’m re-ticketed on A-C which cost $200 the day I booked my original flight. Am I entitled to the $300 in value that I was denied by not laying over in B?

Flyertalker01233

I would expect to pay 7x(weekly rate)/7. I don't think anyone would expect to be charged 3x(weekly rate)/7

channa

Another faulty analogy. Safeway doesn't care what you do with them so long as they leave the store.

If the bundles are $5/each or four for $10, and you take three, but give the cashier a $10 and walk away, are you stealing or not?

rjw242

A rational cashier would punch "bundle of four" into the register rather than "three individual bundles" and let you walk out with anywhere from 1-4 bundles. This was exactly how it worked during my dark days as a fast food drone: sandwich + drink + fries costs less than sandwich + fries, customer doesn't want a drink, so you ring them up for the full meal deal and don't give them the drink. Happened all the time.

Flyertalker01233

As I mentioned above the sale of goods doesn't pertain to airlines, but to your question I would say no. You paid for the right to take 4 bundles which includes the right to take just three.

Flyertalker01233

I think a better analogy would be if you rent a home that costs $4,000 for 3 months or $9,000 for a full year. After 9 months (and paying the full $9,000) you move away. The landlord then rents the house to someone else for 3 months and sues you for $3,000.

To make that an even better analogy consider yourself an indentured servant who is forced to rent from either this particular slumlord or if you are lucky the one of the 5% of houses that do not belong to him.

channa

You need to flip it. The shorter term needs to more expensive than the longer term.