rjw242

No, they can't put a gun to your head, but they can refuse to do further business with you if you don't follow their rules (and/or initiate a cheap-for-them-but-financially-disastrous-for-you court case if they're so inclined).

rjque

It doesn't sound like "theft" to me either, but it does sound a lot like fraud, because the OP is (1) entering into an agreement (the COC) with the airline in which he agrees to fly from A-B-C and not throw away B-C, with no intent at all of flying A-B-C (i.e. the OP lied); (2) the airline agrees to fly him at a lower price for flying A-B-C rather than the much more expensive A-B rate (reliance on the lie); (3) the airline would never have agreed to fly the OP from A-B for the A-B-C rate (the lie was material to the agreement); and (4) the airline delivers on its part of the bargain of transporting him from A-B in reliance on the OP's original false promise to fly A-B-C, and is out $400 in the process (damage). Whether the airline would prevail on a fraud claim is a much more complicated issue, but this looks on the surface to be a pretty straightforward case of civil fraud.

biggestbopper

I'm having trouble not LOL at the posts that claim the airlines are about to start suing OP.

I'd love to hear about someone who really got sued by an airline over this--with actual specifics.

All those suits against customers have worked out real well for the recording business, haven't they?

srirams

I needed a new router with some specialized functions. Cisco's solution would cost a couple thousand dollars. Instead, I buy a $20 Cisco router, and install dd-wrt on it.

Have I just stolen a couple thousand dollars from Cisco?

Nope. This is just rational consumer behavior. I take certain risks (dd-wrt is not supported, may not work, and voids the warranty) for certain rewards. Similarly, in this case, the airline may change the stopover city or come after you for breach of contract. Risk vs. reward. Nothing to do with ethics or morality.

And I find it rather disingenuous of AA to bring ethics into this.

Mr H

I think for an analogy, it would be like a company offering a special deal for new customers (more product, less price) as an incentive to join - and then having existing customers trying to claim the introductory offer several times. After all, the airline is offering the relatively cheaper price to try to open up or sustain a particular route. In this case, if you did it a couple of times it would be cheeky - if you did it repeatedly it would start to look very wrong.

srirams

I look at it as buying a ticket from A-C and using your knowledge of airline routing to get to B. The airline is only responsible for getting you to C, so you're assuming some risk (stopover city may change, etc). If you want a guarantee of getting to B, buy a ticket to B.

rjque

As with all fraud, there is a risk one might get caught and not reap the benefits of the lie. The fact that one might get away with it does not change the fact that the OP is agreeing to comply with the airline's terms even though he has no intention of complying, and doing so specifically because he knows that the airline would never agree to the terms he wants.

rjw242

Lie, fraud, theft. You know, since you're making these rather serious accusations, I'll be at LAX tomorrow evening. Feel free to perform a citizens' arrest and see how far that gets you.

zpaul

Yes.

Be thankful for the amount of money you've saved up to this point, and look into alternatives if you need to continue living in A and working in B.

rjque

No hard feelings - and, as I pointed out above, I didn't say this was theft. I'm just pointing out that this likely satisfies the technical definition of fraud, in part, because there was a promise to do one thing (flying A-C) with no intention of actually doing that. That would be one of the claims I would expect the airline to make if it were to sue the OP on this. Whether the airline would actually sue (or prevail on the suit) is a much more complicated question.

G.S

So next time I buy a ticket to a movie no matter how boring the movie is I have a contract with the director to see all of it ?

What happens on a football game when my team is losing can I leave the game at half time ?

lazy_flyer

This is a fascinating discussion. I have tried to think of a few more analogies. Here are some I have come up with.

1. Coca-cola. Supermarkets often have large (say 1.5L or 2L) bottles on special, while charging a higher price for a small (say 600ml) bottle. One can easily buy the large bottle and only drink 600mls. Is this ripping off coca-cola?

2. A taxi. You get in, state your destination but during the drive you receive a phone call that changes your plans, so you ask to be dropped off at a different place. If the drive is shorter than your originally planned journey, should you be liable for the fare for the full journey? Does it matter here that it wasn't your original plan to shorten it? In that case, should the OP's actions be ok if he intended to go to Newark when he bought the ticket but plans later changed?

3. A rock concert featuring multiple bands. Your favourite band is the first one to play and you don't care for the others so you leave after the one band. The promoter has chosen the price of the ticket taking into account that, on average, people will purchase drinks from the bar during the concert over (say) a four-hour period. Should you owe some money for leaving early?

I realise that none of these examples have a "conditions of carriage", I am simply asking about what the law should allow, not what it does allow. After all, in most countries companies cannot just charge what they want. Perhaps people of one race or gender are known to have more money than another. It would be likely be forbidden by law to charge a different price based on race or gender. This is not analogous to the current situation but the line must be drawn somewhere. Where?

rjque

In the instances above, you didn't make a promise to drink all of the Coke, ride the entire way in the taxi, or watch all of the bands. You bought more than you needed and just discarded the rest.

The OP's example is different. He actually made a promise (via the COC) to the airline that he would fly A-B-C and not just A-B - a promise he had no intention of keeping. That's what sets this example apart from pretty much everything else that has been posited as an analogy.

This is all a matter of private contract and not about "what the law should allow." The airline and the consumer, as free private parties, can agree in advance on what they want to do (with certain restrictions), and the government will step in if requested to make sure both parties comply with their promises. When you make a promise that you do not intend to keep, and you harm someone as a result of it, the harmed person can go to the Courts to make you pay.

rjw242

Ever hear of a 2-drink minimum?


I think perhaps the question is, why are such contracts overwhelmingly required by transport companies (at least for individual consumers; I'm aware they're commonplace for transactions between companies) but not others? And why are they allowed to collude such that they all have the same terms and conditions? It doesn't seem like Coke and Pepsi could get away with such a thing, despite this:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/coc...mandatory,218/

lazy_flyer

Agree that the COC sets the OP's example apart legally. I have no problem with the airline exercising their legal right, regardless of whether it is ethically correct or not. But we, as a society (or, more correctly, many societies on an international forum) set certain standards that prevent two private parties doing what they want. An airline is not allowed (I assume) to charge different prices based on skin colour, even if they put it in the COC. Why? Because society finds racism unethical. If racism was generally accepted in society, perhaps an airline would try this. So airlines cannot put whatever they want in a COC to override the law.

My question is, should they be allowed to charge more for someone using only half a service, even though the current law allows them to do so? Monopolies are sometimes outlawed, this pricing structure seems to be a sneaky way of getting around anti-monopoly legislation.