Since not United-specific, am moving to Travel Buzz

cblaisd
Moderator, United

Sauce for the goose
 

Could not a case be made, under the lax "intent to defraud" definition that apparently applies in this jurisdiction, that the airline is criminally liable to a passenger to whom they sell a ticket for a flight that is already full? Arguably, the airline does not intend for that particular passenger to fly, since objectively, the flight is full. Does the answer change depending on how badly the flight is overbooked, and what chance the passenger reasonably stands of getting on that flight? Or is all forgiven when the airline asks for passengers to volunteer to be bumped?

As it was mentioned before, I wonder how easy it would be for the GA to check the computer to see if the passenger getting the VDB has been issued other VDBs using refundable tickets. If this is the case, then the GA can refuse to issue another one.
Since I can check the NWA site to see my VDBs, it can't be too difficult for other airlines.

HJ

Before everyone goes too far off the deep end on the "theft by deception" legal issues, let's remember that we're basing the entire thing of the word of some professor. They are not necessarily the most reliable sources and sometimes just enjoy seeing their names in print.

But on this occasion, the issue he raises is definitely worth considering.

If you buy a ticket and you get bumped (vol or invol) and compensated because of the disruption to your travel plans, that's fine. But if you buy a ticket for the sole purpose of collecting bump compensation, when you actually had no intention ever to fly to begin with, you're definitely on dodgy ground.

Whether "dodgy ground" translates into criminality, and whether anyone could ever prove (let alone prove to the criminal standard) that you had transgressed the criminal law, are two entirely separate issues. They might mean that you would get away with it. But it seems to me that the issue raised by the professor, on its own, is something which should be considered - he shouldn't pooh-poohed quite so fast.

If they had not bought the ticket, maybe the airline could sell it to someone else and really make a profit. :td: :td: :td:

If you run the bussiness, I think you would not appreciate that kind of behavior either.

I *hate* to admit...
 

what seems so patently obvious to several dozen other posters, but,
"buying refundable tickets on numerous sold-out flights" has me completely puzzled.
HOW, pray tell, can one buy a ticket on a sold-out flight? If there are no seats, there are no seats, and I assume one cannot throw money (even at a UA TA!) and say, "Oh, that's okay, just sell me a ticket anyway." :D
Otherwise, if one buys a refundable ticket and then voluntarily (or in-) is denied boarding, where's the illegality in that? Anyway, how can one tell a flight is about to be sold out and/or be guaranteed to be denied boarding? From my experience I've only volunteered not to fly, never been "forced," regardless of tix type.
If my lack of understanding makes me out as incredibly naive, dense, or careless, so be it; someone please PM me. :rolleyes:

What makes buying a refundable ticket to get past security fraud? Fraud, according to my Barron's law dictionary is "intentional deception resulting in injury to another." What injury occurs?

Airlines are prepared to oversell (sale more seats than exist) based on the expected number of no-shows. Some airlines are better at managing this than others. They have to allow for compensation in event too many pax show up in their attempts at maximising revenue.

Full or oversold flights aren't hard to find - using common sense, experience and availability tools. What is harder, but some make an art form of, is finding ones that are most likely to require bumps specially for the purpose of getting comp.

I don't believe that the fraud refers to the "getting past security" part. The fraud that is being referred to, and the resultant injury, is to the airline as it prevents them from selling the same ticket to someone that does intend to use it.
I must add, however, that all the talk about the airline being able to sell it to someone else is, IMHO, irrelevant. The airline doesn't care where the $$$ comes from, after all, a dollar is a dollar and if they are selling a ticket that is fully refundable, then they must have an expectation that a percentage of those tickets will be refunded. Whether or not malicious intent could be proven remains to be seen. I suspect, however, that the publicity surrounding an airline that chooses to pursue a criminal complaint would not be good publicity and the airline would be hesitant to push the issue.

Give me a break, if the airlines weren't engaging in the the constant game playing of roulette-based ticket pricing, overbooking flights, and shuffling around unsuspecting travelers for the lowest possible compensation, this "scam" never would have arisen.

I guess it's completely irrelevant that I as a paying passenger do "not appreciate" the behavior of airlines in selling me a ticket that may not represent an actual seat for various reasons, obscenely inflating the price for a last minute ticket, concocting all kinds of cockamamie anti-consumer change restrictions, constantly cancelling and delaying flights with impunity, and in general being an uncooperative business partner? Yeah, that's irrelevant. But, one guy figures out a loophole in the rules that the airlines themselves set up and enforce, and that's cause for True Crime Accusations.... Come on....

Not trying to get into a debate about security screening, but the "ticketed passengers only through security" rule is not to prevent evil doers from getting airside. It is to expedite the screening process. How long would it take if every ticketed passenger brought their spouse, kids, parents, etc. to see them off?

If an evil person wants to get airside, they will just buy a ticket. I don't see too many people using the refund game to get airside, plus I would think airlines might catch onto an individual who constantly buys a ticket, checks in, then cancels.

Puh-leeze....the airlines deal with this all the time by overbooking. It's the basic precept of yield management. They know there'll be a certain %age of no-shows.

Injury is the scam the cops were pulling.

I have an important engagement that can't be changed (friend's wedding).

I take the bump. UA is only offering it because it's in their interest. They are grateful (in all my experience).

The deal is done. We both "walk away".

I am lucky enough to have a refundable ticket. I am no longer captive, as I would be with a non-refundable ticket. I get a refund.

End of story. Prove my motive.

To me, it's like the nested ticketing. Prove that the dots are connected. Prove my motive.

It is no crime to get airside without flying.
When I'm on a business trip it happens quite often that I have to return to my office and either take a later flight or cancel the ticket. Where should there be a crime?
I often check in for all the later flights on a particular day to be sure I make it on a plane... Is that a crime as well???
It would be a crime to get airside, buy duty free, return ourside without boarding the a/c and requesting a refund. But there the crime does not concern the getting airside and return but the tax issue when you buy duty free without leaving the country (or the trade area).
You only run into the risk that airline staff will recognise you and deny you the vouchers or bring you into paperwork for the refund....