Twickenham

With all due respect, it's not an expense, but rather lossed revenue. Big difference. Indeed, one could argue that the airlines expenses are lessened by not having to transport the extra passenger and their luggage.

Very interesting thread. Lots of analogies; let me add my own: it's as if a store were selling 1 item for $10, but 3 of the identical item (same size, format, etc.) for $5. You purchase 3, but only take 1, leaving the other 2 at the store.

I think the lack of real legal teeth in the wording of the letter is a clue that the airline realizes that they don't really have much legal backing for enforcing their rules. While I personally would never do it, I don't buy the 'stealing' claim, and even find the 'fraud' claim stretching it a bit.

lg10

The OP is taking a risk that the airline might not actually cut through city B, as someone else mentioned. The airline is taking a risk that someone might get off on a stop-over city. I can't really see where this is unethical.

What if I planned to go A-B-C but then got sick right before the B stop and got off the plane instead? What if I went to the airline and apologized but said, this is the end of my trip.... Does that somehow make it a different situation?

I still think that it is obnoxious for the airline to charge $400 (!!!) more for the shorter trip. Can you imagine any other [less-monopolistic] industry doing this?

At copy stores, there sometimes used to be promotions that would make copying 100 copies of something cheaper than making fewer. I can't see any ethical, legal, etc. problem with paying for the 100 copies and then not making the rest, or perhaps making them and then recycling them. When people actually started doing this at copy stores, the stores made their prices more rational.

Some are saying that it's not like the 100 copies (or three bundles of wood, etc.) examples, because they are envisioning a theoretical map where the airline sells A-B and A-C tickets and you do what you pay for. But it's not a theoretical map; the airline is actually travelling A-B-C. The real costs are actually borne in each segment accordingly.

As far as I can see, the OP's only "penalty" will be if the airline does a surprise re-route. However, it's probably wise not to do it under his own FF# for a while, if he doesn't want to be harassed. OP, did you consult a lawyer?

--LG

alanR

OP got caught out for doing it on a regular basis, someone who does it once ina while is not going to be.

If more people start doing it then all that will happen is that the cheap fare to C from A will be stopped. Can't see how that's a win for the customer.

erik123

I believe there have been legal cases brought in several European countries (Holland and Germany spring to mind - maybe also Canada?) and the outcomes have been mixed. In most instances I understand that airlines have lost.

I understand that typically such cases do not end up in court as airlines would prefer the status quo to legal clarity.

caGALINDO

The airlines lose "possible income" because they could have sold that empty seat had they known you were not going to use it.

Start buying the tickets with a different card, dont hook up your freq. flyer account. Claim the miles later down the road, maybe.

arvin charles

Possible income? That empty seat was already paid for by the guy who chose not to fly the 2nd leg!

rjw242

Sure - one night in a Vegas hotel on New Years Eve can cost as much as a week in the exact same room in February. Airlines vary their fares based on the popularity of certain city pairs, hotels set rates depending on the popularity of certain nights. And I don't think anyone would argue that a single company has a monopoly on hotel rooms in Vegas (though with consolidation in recent years, perhaps it's become something of an oligopoly like the airline industry).

rjque

That absolutely makes it a different situation. Rather than making a false promise to get the airline to give you a lower price, you made a promise that you intended to keep but then circumstances changed down the road.

ralfp

That a pretty significant chunk of lost potential revenue, not additional expense (pardon the non-technical terms, IANAEconomist). An early rental car return may actually result in new expenses for the rental company. Not so for the airline; when one leaves the aircraft the airline has already "lost" its potential revenue.

If the flight is full, the airline can still "sell" the last seat to another customer (take someone off the standby list). It happens all the time.

Do a no-show often enough and the airline's systems should learn to increase the allowable oversell by 1 seat on that flight. I would imagine that AA and UA allow significant oversells of their ORD-MKE flights.

Of course there would be commercial reason to do so: induce more food & drink sales.

Lots of people pay to see half a movie; people frequently walk out of theaters early or arrive late.

telloh

This is the most accurate analogy to the OP situation, and it highlights a couple of points. The consumers behavior is not illegal or unethical, merely a violation of a business contract. There are plenty of times in the course of business where it makes perfect sense to do just that and pay the penalty.

Maybe Hertz will choose to charge the daily rate agreed to in the case of early return, and maybe they won't. Maybe the airline will choose to do something to the OP and maybe they won't.

Either way it is just business, not legality or morality.

vasantn

I don't disagree, but I view it as equivalent to the fraud that you are perpetrating every time you buy a refundable ticket to get airside to meet someone, even though you have no intention of flying. The damages to the "defrauded" party are negligible.

On the face of it, this appears to be a good point. But it a weak argument if you think about it a little more. If the B-C flight goes out with empty seats anyway, the airline obviously has been unable to sell additional seats on that flight for $400. And if it goes out full, the point is moot. The only time the airline would be damaged would be if the flight went out full except for the OP's seat, which I think you'll agree is a rare eventuality, since if the flight were that full there would generally be a few people standing by.

Just as an aside, I personally view contracts of adhesion as not ethically binding, although of course they are legally binding for the most part.

alanR

But if he'd book A to B then that seat would be available for B to C - hence lost income.

If people book A to C intending only to go to B then the reason why the airline is encouraging A to C (generally a hub) ceases and the airline will withdraw the offer

caGALINDO

Correct. The profit margin of selling A-B and B-C separately could be higher than selling A-C.

Example: He buys A-C for $500. A-B would cost him $250. This would leave C-B seat open. The airline can sell C-B for more than $250 (hypothetically speaking).

So there is possible profit that was lost. Also, they could end up not selling the seat and losing... but, there is a valid argument that he is interfering with business by purposely doing this.

rjw242

I'd further argue that, if hidden-city ticketing is unethical, involuntary denied boarding is exactly as unethical. IDB is often caused by an airline selling more tickets (each of which is a binding contract to transport passengers from one point to another) than there are seats available, and then reneging on the deal to one or more passengers. As with any properly-written contract, in both cases there are stipulations in place to compensate the negatively-affected party (hidden-city passenger forfeits remaining ticket value, airline must pay IDB passenger some multiple of the fare). However, essentially all airlines oversell flights knowing that, statistically, there's a certainty that they'll have to deny boarding to some fraction of ticketed passengers.

While I don't see either behavior as unethical, I also don't see how anyone can argue that one is ethical and the other is not.

Analise

Let's go with your analogy. When a gym gives cheaper rates for potential members but charges more for current clients, a current client can go to the marketing rep and say that if she is charged more per month than someone coming off the street, she'll drop the membership right now. It is amazing how that long-time current client can all of a sudden start paying that same less expensive monthly rate. The gym is hoping that as many of its current membership as possible stay oblivious to the fact that they are purposely exempt from cheaper prices.

Not sure how your analogy applies to this thread but I felt like chiming in regarding your analogy.