Everyone who tried to buy one of these $20 BA fares was aware that this was a mistake. Is it ethical to go after these types of obvious mistakes? Where do you draw the line?

Is paying $20 any less ethical than the airlines charging $10,000 to fly from London to most points in the US? I realise that's the going rate for First, but just what does it cost to deliver this service- maybe $1,500 tops? How about the $2,200 domestic US carriers extract for last-minute economy coast-to-coast?

We seem to go through this dilemma every time a deal like this comes up, and there is always a divide in people's views about the ethics of taking up such an offer.

The $25 Starwood Rate thread has plenty of examples: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum74/HTML/002866.html

So before this thread degenerates into page after page of "you're a thief" and "no, I'm not -- it's their fault for publishing the rate and relying on technology", try visiting the old thread.

I don't see anything ethically wrong with it, though I would strongly urge the participants to formulate at least one backup travel plan in the event BA has a different view (esp. if the pax is already in Europe)...

------------------
Thank you for choosing Continental Airlines, a proud member of the SkyTeam Alliance.

Great Point MC

go read all the prior threads from airlines to hotel rooms

or

If you think it is unethical; then don't buy it; If you don't have a problem with it and can get in on it: go for it

Agree this has been hashed out many times and is probably not worth doing again. In the end it's a very personal decision and we all must decide for ourselves where we draw the line.

Tango, I presume you didn't get in on the deal? When people run into a deal like this ethics come second, travel comes first. BA screwed up, they were honest enough to honour most of the reservations so I guess nobody should feel too bad.

ScottC: Since my travel schedule is currently booked all the way through next Spring, I could not take advantage of this offer. I have no problem with people buying this or taking advantage of loopholes when they open up(I also find the BA mileage program to be close to the bottom as far as benefits go). The only reason why I posted this is due to the number of recent threads where the "ethical police" members of flyertalk have come down on other members trying to exploit loopholes--and was wondering why they were so silent on this one?

Because this was different in nature from some of other "loopholes". Some of the other "ethics" discussions have been about the probity of people doing things which have been specifically forbidden by the rules of the programmes to which they agreed and signed up.

Now, you may have views about whether or not those people should or should not have broken those rules. But it's a different order entirely from people who have taken something openly and unequivocally offered, if only by mistake. No rules were broken by doing so.

You are throwing down an implicit challenge to compare chalk and cheese. No wonder nobody's taking you up on it!

To buy something that you know is mis-priced in error is unethical because you are taking advantage of a merchants mistake which was not intended. This is not the same as illegal - which clearly it is not. All the same, in the case of the price of airtickets it is difficult to assess whether it is a mistake or some sort of crazy price stunt (e.g. discount airlines offering 1$ tickets) so taking advantage of this specific offer may well be ethical.

Curious argument, this. You're arguing about the ethics of an apparently mispriced fare.

If you bought a $20 ticket from BA, then the next day BA told you it was a mistake, then you have an ethical situation to consider. Ethically, you can't profit from a genuine mistake. But AFAIK BA has not said the fare was a mistake.

Otherwise, it's pure speculation, and the earlier threads have hashed this to death.

Ethics are values which are practiced between people to encourage both to adhere to that set of values and benefit both.

It is not clear to me that businesses can have "ethics". The rules of business are set out in contracts, which are not the same as ethics between people. Businesses are neither ethical nor unethical, they operate by a different code.

What is the point of debating ethics between you and something that neither has ethics nor knows what those are?

(on a more simplistic level, they didn't ask for their ticket back, so I ain't feeling guilty! )

Good point.


[This message has been edited by Craig6z (edited 12-02-2002).]

Sorry, but my conscience doesn't feel a pang about this.

The airlines have, over the past five years, moved their point of sale from travel agents to on-line booking engines, and done so ruthlessly (e.g. almost entirely eliminating travel agent commissions, and in some cases charging agents to access fares that are available for free on the Web).

Inherent in the savings realized through such methods are the costs of doing business electronically; i.e. people will not generally take advantage of fare errors which are much higher than intended, but will be quick to pounce on those much lower than intended. The lost revenue in the latter case is not made up in the former case, and the result is a bottom-line cost to the business.

It's the same mentality that drives bar-code pricing at Wal-Mart. I would think that there wouldn't be a lot of pricing errors if associates maintained the system of 20 years ago, where prices were manually affixed with a sticker gun to every unit sold ... but in doing so, their margins, and hence ability to compete, would be dramatically hampered. Wal-Mart realizes this, and accepts the occasional pricing error in the name of greater efficiency.

I can assure you that the bean counters at every major airline practice this sort of risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. The fact that they continue to drive business to such channels tells me that they are willing to accept the inherent risks of such a sales channel.

If they don't want such things to happen again, they should invest more in their internal check system before posting fares. Otherwise, such errors will continue to happen, and human nature dictates that people will continue to make them a cost of doing business for that airline.

Mook

(Edited for greater detail)

[This message has been edited by Mook (edited 12-03-2002).]

Mook: Interesting post. I have read somewhere that the airlines thought they could save on their distribution costs by moving onto the internet. What they did not anticipate was by doing so, they gave up their pricing power. The loss to their pricing power is going to cost them more than their savings in distribution costs.