Right, but you're asserting that UA could charge a passenger without them actually making a change, simply by no-showing.

I believe the general interpretation is that you must get some advantage from it, vis à vis the fare rules, for it to be a violation.

OP was hoping to get partial credit for the unused ticket.Not really. BE can't be changed or re-fared. If some other change needed to be made -- instead of changing to a one-way award -- OP's relative would have been looking at a $2300+ one-way fare on UA, or about a $900 fare on other carriers in the GDS. (French Bee isn't listed and might well be the cheapest). The other option, of course, would have been buying yet another throwaway return ticket -- SFO-CDG RT is currently running about $600 with 7 day advance purchase.

In general, BE only makes sense when the chance of a change is very small, especially TATL, where one-way, non-ULCC fares tend to be so exorbitant.

Airlines audit for this type of behavior to incentivise travel agents not to do things like this: https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/onli...ay-ticket.html

I agree with the consensus above - this is textbook throwaway ticketing and contrary to the CoC terms; however, it is unlikely that UA will pursue OP for the fare difference if this is a first time infraction. I would not, however, recommend calling UA and telling them that you intend to throw away the return.

Like everyone else, to OP's question, there is no way United is going to give you anything for a non-refundable ticket.

I generally disagree with the rest of the thread. Sure, according to the UA CoC, this might be throwaway ticketing.

But when you buy a BE ticket, United very specifically tells you that if you do not fly the ticket as booked, you lose all value of the ticket.

That's it. The second they try to charge anyone for not flying the return they are opening themselves up to a whole world of hurt. United has already provided the remedy to the purchaser that if they don't want to fly the 2nd leg, they lose the value of that leg. You can't say one thing very clearly in the booking process then bury something else in the contract of adhesion (CoC).

If that doesn't work with their fare pricing, the remedy for that is for them to make their fare pricing reasonable.


Now, end of the day, United can refuse to have you as a customer in the future, but that is the limit of their ability to penalize the passenger whose travel plans change and has to forfeit the ticket the airline refuses to let them change.

And end of THAT day, I doubt United really wants the publicity that might result from taking any action against a passenger who just didn't fly something they already paid for.

The CoC is pretty clear that what matters here is intent. If, at purchase, you intend to throw away the return, you are in breach of contract and UA could theoretically try to sue you to recover the fare difference. If you legitimately change your plans after departure, they have no recourse other than canceling the rest of the ticket.

Now, intent is hard to prove, which is why practicality and not the letter of the contract is what matters here. For an individual throwing away a ticket once, there's basically no way they could ever demonstrate this intent, and the individual is unlikely to pay up anyway. It's not worth UA's time to search for isolated cases like this, and not worth pursuing even if they know about it. The two cases where they will pursue are (a) when it is an agency issued ticket - like Sykes's rather alarming experience with BA - because an agency values their relationships with the airlines highly enough they will usually just pay the debit memo, and (b) if there is a demonstrated pattern by a particular traveler, both because UA feels it is enough to establish intent to defraud the airline and because it's a significant enough issue to make it worth going after that pax. In this second case, they usually go after hidden-city ticketing or back-to-back min-stay evasion since those are by far the most cut-and-dried cases for demonstrating fraudulent intent by the pax.

But it doesn't matter. Just because a company puts a term in it's CoC doesn't make it enforceable.

Unless someone can show me some existing case law that an airline was awarded damages for a passenger NOT flying a ticket they paid for, I don't believe United has any actual recourse against a passenger doing throw-away ticketing beyond refusing to have that passenger as a customer in the future.

And I don't believe United would even attempt to enforce such a provision because it's just too big of a PR risk.

"United charges passenger who couldn't fly their paid-for flight charged $600 more after United refused to change passenger's flight."
"Passenger banned from United Airlines after not buying more expensive one-way ticket and forfeiting the return."

Sometimes things companies do appear stupid because they actually are.

Imagine if you walked into a hardware store and they were selling two-packs of florescent lights for $2 and single florescent lights for $4, and there was a sign at checkout that said, "Customers who buy a two-pack but don't use their 2nd light will be charged the difference between the two-pack and single bulb price."

Now imagine what would happen if a hardware store learned that one of the lights you purchased broke, and then tried to collect an additional $2...

Any rational person would find that to be entirely stupid.

Which is exactly what the public's reaction would be if an airline tried to take action against a passenger because the one-way was $3,000 and the round-trip was $1,000 and the passenger bought the round trip and just didn't get on the plane for the return.

Businesses are free to set whatever prices they want. Customers are free to choose what they want to buy. Airline pricing desires do not equate to passenger pricing agreement. If the airline is offering round-trips at less than the cost of one-ways, that doesn't obligate the passenger to buy a fare that makes no sense for them.

You may be able to change the return of your Basic Economy flight if UA issues a travel advisory for SFO on the day you're scheduled to fly. In which case changes to the ticket can occur free of charge (although there's often limitations on how far out you can push the ticket). My advice would be to wait until OLCI to cancel the ticket to see if UA posts a travel advisory. If they do, then good, go ahead and call them up and get it changed, citing the travel advisory. If not, your best bet would be to ask UA to see what your options are.

Safe Travels,

James

After careful consideration, I've decided that I'm not having this discussion again. It is pointless. I don't think anyone's point of view is going to change at this point. The OP's question has been answered, and I suggest we move on.

As @findark notes, this happens all the time to HCTers. Ex1 Ex2 blog

OP wishes to book another class of service (and moreover, a completely different type of ticket!) so this solution would not fit their needs. Heck, they'd have the same problem with a non-BE revenue ticket too.

One highly relevant factor is when the alternate ticket is purchased. If OP (or anyone) purchased the modified return (or used miles) contemporaneously with the BE purchase that's a lot easier to show than a purchase well after the initial BE purchase.

The BA case mentioned seems hard to justify (for the airline) as it sounds like the onward travel was purchased after the original departure.

While the issue is academic because UA is not going to do anything about a one-off "throwaway" it is dangerous to suggest that a contract is somehow unenforceable under US law (whether federal or any of the 50 states). Routine contract disputes are not likely reported anywhere and most are likely resolved with some form of settlement with an NDA. It is also not likely that anyone would come here on FT or elsewhere on social media and brag about having to pay a bunch of money to a carrier. Most likely targets for ticket fraud are not individuals, but rather TA's which make a practice of selling throwaway tickets as a commercial venture.

What we do know is that UA went so far as to revoke an individual's GS status for having repeatedly purchased fully refundable international F tickets and then cancelling them at the very last minute (gate).

Oh, absolutely, but I don't think anyone was asserting that HCT isn't a CoC violation. The original post in that subthread suggested that UA might try to charge the passenger for no-showing the flight, but that no-showing the flight wasn't a CoC violation. I don't see how both of these things could be true -- the only recourse UA could have for billing someone for missing a flight is if it were a CoC violation to do so.

To the OP, I would buy the one way and not worry for even one second about it. But there's no way UA is going to cut you a break on any future change fees or give you any residual value. Don't even ask.

As far as what the repercussions will be, I am sure that people no-show all of the time on the return of non-changable fare. I would bet the no-show rate is way higher, specifically because you can't change the ticket. And I'd bet that UA simply doesn't care... it's a feature of the fare. Sometimes you just can't fly. Does anyone really believe that UA wants someone with a 102 fever on the plane, and will threaten a lawsuit to make that happen? No way.

On the other hand, I'm sure that there are people that habitually buy cheap RT tickets and throw away the return---and I'd bet that UA finds those people and takes appropriate action. And they should. But unless this is the third or fourth time you've thrown away a return in the last year, don't give it a second thought.

I don't necessarily agree with this. I suspect UA uses the verbiage "the purchase... for the purpose of one-way travel" because that's exactly what they mean. If you buy for the purpose of RT travel but can't take the return, well, it happens every so often if you fly enough. They understand that. Any known instance of UA coming after someone in a case like this is for repeatedly throwing away some part of a ticket (like 15 times). A pattern makes it clear what your purpose in purchasing the ticket was.

No, you are missing the critical point. With a normal non-BE ticket, OP could call UA and change their original ticket into a one-way (at great cost) and buy a separate award ticket in J back to USA. They probably wouldn't do this, but they could, and UA could argue they should.

With BE, they have no choice but to board or not board. United is not giving them the option to bring their ticket in line with their new travel plans, but also prohibiting them from not flying the ticket.

That's true. I did not consider refaring to a one way.

Unless you are spending OPM, you might want to pay closer attention when booking your domestic flights. Sometimes the RT price equals the two OWs, but there are numerous exceptions, and the RT might be higher or lower. I recently flew DEN-MIA, and it was cheaper to buy two OW tickets on United than one RT. The risk is that two OWs means two change fees if your plans change.

Here's what happened. I took the advice here and did not contact United. I got a cancellation email after the missed BE return. She flew Business class for the first time and had a very comfortable flight and a trouble-free connection.

The originally booked return was diverted from MUC to FRA, probably stranding a large fraction of the connecting passengers overnight. She speaks neither English nor German, so she was fortunate to have flown on a different date.

Let us know when you get the bill from United!

:D