pinniped

Southwest is neutral on the topic. They used to explicitly permit it. Now they do not mention it at all, but it's pretty clear that they aren't out there threatening travelers not to do it.

I read on their blog somewhere long ago their position on it: they believe their fare structure is reasonable to everyone, and therefore doesn't present many hidden-city opportunities to begin with. However, if you find one feel free to use it, and please let the GA know if you are deplaning early.

The same practical risks related to irrops still apply, but the legal ones do not.

Darlox

Not to hijack what would otherwise turn into a lengthy and amusing thread of armchair-lawyering, but I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn if you think that UA has ever had any intention of seeing this through to a jury verdict. This is a "go away kid, you bother me" lawsuit, plain and simple.

Much like most of the telecommunications industry came down like a hammer on Verizon for suing the FCC -- thereby risking a judgment or regulatory environment whose outcomes were worse than the original "damages". Hidden-city ticketing is an intrinsic side-effect of their fundamental revenue management model. If Skiplagged successfully crowd-funds their defense, and/or engages the assistance of the EFF or another legal advocacy group, I'd expect UA to drop this suit faster than a nuclear fuel rod... The rest of the airline industry would very likely be burning effigies of UA's legal team in the streets if they pushed this to an unfavorable legal precedent.

wh6cto

Assuming the last leg of a trip is dropped, what if the original itinerary was AAA-BBB-AAA?

That would be going one-way on a roundtrip fare. Would this be the same thing? Or would the fact that you never checked in on the return change the circumstances? (Post #109 seems to indicate otherwise.)

Years ago, when moving across the country I needed a one-way ticket, and found the round-trip was actually cheaper. That was just insane.

Billygreg

+1

pinniped

Ahhh...wild-azzed theory time: @:-)

Of the three remaining legacies, UA is the one where I'm *least* likely to find a hidden-city itin. Looking at the big domestic UA hubs, DEN, CHI, Bay Area, and NYC are generally competitive. I fly to all four, generally find multiple competitors, and don't search for hidden-city. IAH is perhaps their best fortress hub, although I don't buy tickets to Houston so I don't really know. AA has Dallas and Miami, plus presumably CLT and PHX in the post-US-Airways world. DL has MSP, CVG, and DTW as *very* strong fortress hubs, plus a pretty good lock on ATL for anywhere Airtran/WN doesn't fly.

So maybe UA doesn't mind pushing this one a bit to see what happens. It's AA and DL that seem to have the most to lose, even if it's just in the court of public opinion when people start reporting where they've found the most egregious predatory pricing.

My theory, of course, breaks down a bit by the very fact that they're involved at all. They could have just nudged Orbitz and another travel portal or two to do their dirty work for them. Hey, just a theory...

Counsellor

That's called "throw-away" ticketing. It's harder to detect, particularly if you don't request a refund on the unused return ticket. Rumor has it that such is seldom pursued unless repeatedly abused, since the throw-away ticket is usually a cheap restricted (non-changeable, non-refundable) one, and non-use of the return on the scheduled date could easily be explained by a change in circumstances that caused a change in plans.

Edited to add: The situation in Post #109 is called "nested ticketing". That's useful if you fly from home (AAA) to a work location (BBB) and return to AAA for weekends, then back to BBB the next Monday. The airlines would like you to pay businessman price for the Monday out, Friday back ticket but what you're doing is to use the first AAA - BBB flight as a positioning flight, then buy cheap weekend round-trip tickets back to AAA, and use the final BBB-AAA ticket when your work at BBB is done.

The poster's problem arose because he used the same carrier for the nested round trips as for the positioning round trip; it can be avoided by using different carriers for the positioning AAA-BBB-AAA trip and the nested weekend BBB-AAA-BBB trips.

pinniped

Some airlines had (have?) prohibitions on "throwaway" ticketing as well. Usually in the same part of the T&C's that talked about hidden-city and nested tickets. (Nesting tickets was a way to circumvent the Saturday-night stay rules of yesteryear. Buy a BBB-AAA-BBB R/T nested entirely inside an AAA-BBB-AAA itin on the same airline.)

mahasamatman

There are two types of nested ticketing. What you are referring to is back-to-back ticketing. End-on-end is also nesting and is permitted on almost all tickets.

There are still fares with minimun stay requirements. Many cheap fares from North America to Asia have 3-day to 6-day minimum stay requirements.

787fan

I don't think UA has to necessarily prove revenue loss here. Just that someone is actively encouraging consumers to book tickets that violate the Contract of Carriage (even if it's legal in the eyes of the court) is sufficient reason.

That's the point most people are confused about - just because something isn't explicitly illegal in the books doesn't mean it's allowed.

787fan

what's the diff between the 2? and how is EoE considered nesting ?

wh6cto

Thanks Counsellor and Pinniped for the answer. Didn't even know what it was called. "Throwaway."

BTW, I think it's ironic that UA has their "United Specials" with Sat/Sun night rules still. And has this provision: "TICKET IS NON-REFUNDABLE IN CASE OF CANCEL/NO-SHOW/REFUND." This term is only used once...so does this mean a "no-show" is within the fare rules, and therefore a "no-show" on the return segment is allowed?

flightpath844

Went from 1K to "I don't want any business with you - stay away from me!". Cancelled 2 of my Chase UA credit cards over the last 6 months, one more to go. And I will be DONE. Nothing UA in my wallet any longer.

CO_Nonrev_elite

The thing with all this is that most seasoned travelers have known about this as an option for years. Now United is announcing loudly to everyone else how to skirt the rules. It probably has a net loss revenue wise never mind more bad PR for them.

Yesterday they left a dog on the tarmac in freezing rain for almost an hour despite many customers complaining about it.

They certainly know to piss people off for no reasons

glennaa11

No, they were linking to Orbitz with a direct link including all the info to book there.

787fan

if UA really cared about their reputation they would've just done a C&D letter and hope the kid vanishes on his own. The argument of load balancing is a poor one, but encouraging someone to violate CoC is a strong one.

UA has a strong case here. If HCT doesn't hold up in court, travel agents would've challenged all those debit memos ages ago.