|
Originally Posted by CollegeFlyer
(Post 11766647)
You should also be able to do DEN-SFO-DEN within a SFO-DEN-SFO if the SFO-DEN-SFO is a high fare with no minimum stay requirements...
Many of the cheap DEN-SFO fares have no min stay. In fact, many domestic markets have no min stay anymore. |
Originally Posted by channa
(Post 11766783)
The price of the fare has nothing to do with it. The min stay requirements is the key. The tickets can be bought this way so long as they would not have caused you to break the fare rules of the original ticket.
Many of the cheap DEN-SFO fares have no min stay. In fact, many domestic markets have no min stay anymore. So yes, the key is the specific fare rules that may be violated (minimum stay, advance purchase, etc.), but these tend to be correlated with higher fares (and that's the whole reason why airlines crack down on abusive back-to-back ticketing...it makes the fare lower!). So it's completely wrong to say that "The price of the fare has nothing to do with it." The whole point of abusive back-to-back ticketing is to get the fare lower. |
I have done this to maintain 1K status this year - cheap fare ORD-LHR, and then B fare LHR-ORD for 1000$. It was really back to back as I even did an immediate LHR turnaround once. However, this was not to circumvent any rules or stay requirements. Back to back term is there to avoid Sat night most of the time with legacy carriers. These discussions about the legality verge on absurd. I guess you cannot legislate about CSRs controlling their temper:D and tone of voice.
|
Originally Posted by CollegeFlyer
(Post 11766814)
It doesn't have to be a high fare. I said "a high fare with no minimum stay" because minimum stays tend to be correlated with lower fares, and higher fares are less likely to have minimum stays, while full fares usually have no minimum stay.
So yes, the key is the specific fare rules that may be violated (minimum stay, advance purchase, etc.), but these tend to be correlated with higher fares (and that's the whole reason why airlines crack down on abusive back-to-back ticketing...it makes the fare lower!). I wouldn't go so far as to say there's a correlation. It's far too sporadic to correlate a price with a minimum stay. In the past it may have been this way, it's certainly not the case domestically. For example, the lowest fare UA has in the SFO-DEN market is $64+ one way. It's not even a RT fare, so there's no minimum stay. And even if it were a RT fare, there might not be a min stay on it. |
Originally Posted by CollegeFlyer
(Post 11764448)
That's different. From the text pasted by other members, "obvious" only applies to barring the travel agents from issuing the ticket and holding them liable for the fare difference.
The customer is barred from using tickets out of order with intent to circumvent fare rules, whether the intent is obvious or not. The difference is that the TA doesn't know the customer's intent, so the TA is only punished for ticketing "obviously" abusive tickets, but the customer is punished for all abusive tickets. The whole point of back-to-back tickets is that they are purchased separately; and only the combined use of them is against the rules, so united.com can't "figure it out" because it doesn't know what other tickets you have booked. If United.com checked your existing itineraries, people could just take off their MP# temporarily when booking, etc. So this is not something that UA can reasonably be expected to just "fix" .bomb to not sell the ticket. :confused: Apology, sure. But why is $600 required for the apology to be meaningful? At $600 a pop, I'd gladly be yelled at by agents all day! I was thinking of the broader definition of "back-to-back ticketing" used in this UA press release: "As a result of an audit of tickets earlier this year, the company detected a sizeable number of transactions that involve violations of its tariff rules. The prohibited practice is commonly referred to as 'back-to-back ticketing.' Flight coupons across tickets are used in an order other than that in which they were issued. Ultimately, it results in a wrongful effort to obtain a discount to which the customer is not entitled." It refers to tariff rule violations, but does not say that the violations must be intentional. You are correct, however, in showing that the definition given in the CoC requires that the ticketing be done for the purpose of circumventing tariff rules, in order to be prohibited conduct. ^ That said, I don't think someone who used back-to-back ticketing to circumvent fare rules would be able to get off the hook by claiming that he had some other purpose for booking the tickets in that way. I'm pretty sure that UA would not have to definitively prove intent, as long as they have reasonable grounds for suspecting it. Well my answer to that is for UNited.bomb to querry wolframalfa.com@:-) I agree, the OP deserves a $1,200 compensation coupon + 12 free drinks in RCC to overcome the mental anguish from the bright agent verbal assault.
Originally Posted by mahasamatman
(Post 11764509)
That definition doesn't make sense because (a) it implies that coupons in a given ticket are issued in a specified order (they're really all issued simultaneously), and (b) it says that if you buy a ticket in February, and a ticket in March, you cannot use the one purchased in March before the one issued in February. They really should get someone who understands the English language to write their press releases.
|
Originally Posted by channa
(Post 11766948)
I wouldn't go so far as to say there's a correlation. It's far too sporadic to correlate a price with a minimum stay.
If no full-fare tickets have minimum stay requirements, and some discounted-fare tickets do, those facts alone are enough to create a correlation between fare and minimum stay.
Originally Posted by Intrepid
(Post 11767061)
:D Yeah, right, "united.com can't "figure it out" because it doesn't know what other tickets you have booked." Nonetheless, Joe the Plumber is supposed to figure it out. :D
|
Originally Posted by Axey
(Post 11766702)
The agent was wrong. Your B fare has no minimum stay so there is no tariff violation.
I just "love" agents who don't know the rules. From the "cannot standby for the non-stop" to the "your Q-UP fare is a coach fare with a courtesy upgrade" the list goes on and on. For the OP though, if you don't want to get hassled you could always buy your own out-of-pocket return from LH and have zero issues and still get bonus miles on the TATL sector, plus if its a B-fare you could *A upgrade. |
Originally Posted by CollegeFlyer
(Post 11767203)
The correlation need not be perfect to exist.
If no full-fare tickets have minimum stay requirements, and some discounted-fare tickets do, those facts alone are enough to create a correlation between fare and minimum stay. additionally, it was said that minimum stay requirements rarely exist anymore (im not sure if thats true or not as it doesnt usually pertain to me so i dont really read the fare rules) but if it is true, then the back-to-back ticketing penalties are becoming more and more obsolete. if the minimum stay requirements dont exist anymore, then no one can ever use back-to-back ticketing to circumvent fares, and thus the clause in the CoC is now completely worthless. united airlines is a fortune 500 company. is it really that difficult for them to hire a competent team of attorneys to write their documents? maybe they should hire FTers to rewrite the CoC to actually make sense and not leave so many holes. i understand that united may benefit from having some parts of the CoC vague and even difficult to understand, but this is a situation where it would clearly hurt United for leaving it extremely vague. they could never prosecute anyone with a statement like this. |
Originally Posted by jetsfan92588
(Post 11767372)
maybe they should hire FTers to rewrite the CoC to actually make sense and not leave so many holes.
|
Ok can someone tell me if this is an example of back to back ticketing:
TICKET 1= I buy a ticket, let's say a K fare. lax-ord-lax day 1 to return on day 60 so I am in ORD until day 60 theoretically. TICKET 2= I then buy another K fare. ord-lax-ord day 15 to day 18 to visit family back in LAX. What United wants you to do is pay for a ticket change on ticket 1 for the return to lax before day 60 and then issue another round trip from lax-ord-lax? Thus is the definition of back to back, once you have issued ticket 1 you can't return to your origin on any other ticket until ticket 1 has been used? Thanks |
Accidental back to back ticket?
I think I may have gotten myself into a 'back to back ticket' by mistake.
I booked a BOS-SFO-BOS ticket Dec 1 - Dec 17 for an intended family vacation booked in August. However, my Mother fell ill and they were not able to take the trip. I decided to fly this itinerary anyway to meet my girlfriend in SFO, stayed overnight, and flew back to BOS with her the next day Dec 2. She booked a one-way. I booked a SFO-BOS-LAX open jaw and will take the final SFO-BOS on Dec 17th. Now I notice I cannot view the return SFO-BOS correctly on the website and my friend mentioned a possible back-to-back situation could be the cause. Does anybody know if I will be penalized for this or refused boarding? Again BOS-SFO Ticket 1 SFO-BOS Ticket 2 BOS-LAX Ticket 2 SFO-BOS Ticket 1 Ticket 1 and 2 were booked over 3 months apart and it never occured to me this might be an issue. Thoughts would be appreciated! Thanks all |
not really a back-to-back expert but since the city pairs aren't ALL the same (SFO-BOS-LAX v. BOS-SFO RT)...it is probably not an issue...
|
Technically back-to-back ticketing is against the contract of carriage as far as I recall. Whether UA is likely to do anything about it is very much a guess. (I'd assume probably not, assuming this isn't a regular thing and/or unintentional, although then again who knows...)
|
They're unlikely to accuse you of trying to find a cheaper way to fly SFO-SFO by flying to BOS. :D
|
Are these issues that apply only when the nested ticket is back to the origin of the first ticket? Or is any nested ticket a potential issue? I've nested tickets many times, although generally not back to the origin. In one truly odd incident, I flew a UA flight from Singapore to Hong Kong, and then continued on the same flight (on the same day) to Chicago, but the two segments were on two different tickets. Nobody seemed to have any problem with it.
When different parties agree to pay for different parts of the trip, it's hard to do everything on one ticket . . . |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:20 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.