bniu

now if UA has overbooked the flight as well as the next flight to MKE, take a VDB and tell them that you'll take the voucher and take the train instead at your own cost. I'm sure a GA would be really happy to hear that, now they don't have to bother trying to re-acommodate you. Once I was on an award ticket going AUS-DEN-OAK and the AUS-DEN segment was overbooked and the AUS-SFO nonstop was one gate over and had plenty of seats. I volunteered to take the AUS-SFO nonstop because I could get an empty row all to myself, I'd get their earlier, and since it was an award ticket, it wasn't like I was missing out on any miles/segments. The agent told me that it wouldn't get me to OAK and I told her: "It'll cost me $5 to get from OAK to my apartment in Berkeley and it'll cost me $5.50 to get from SFO to Berkeley. I don't really care about 50 cents..." i didn't bother asking for a voucher since I already had quite a few of them and couldn't quite figure out how to use them b4 they expired...

mikew99

I agree with this. Please let me know when I can charge UA $150 every time they cancel or change my flight. After all, that's what they charge me when I do the same!

There are no ethical issues with not flying segments paid for (notwithstanding that the airlines represent some of the worst examples of honest and ethical behavior).

mre5765

In my recent experience, this works well. COS/DEN/SAN/DEN/COS over a two day itin got converted to just DEN/SAN/DEN because 3 hours before DEN/SAN was scheduled, Easy Update informed me COS/DEN would be delayed to the point where I'd have 15 minutes to connect ... UX flights arrive at gates 50-ish and higher, and flights to California tend to depart from gates 20-ish. Drove to DEN (from COS ... note that ORD to MKE is about the same distance), and along the way, called to UA to refare my itin without the COS/DEN/COS segments (and got refunds).

This is a weekend trip; thus arguably an irrops that would cost a day makes the trip worthless. OP should pick the last flight out of MKE to ORD, and shortest fareable connection out of ORD. From Chicago-land I would start driving to MKE 3.5 hours before the MKE flight departs.

Given the weather in both cities, and ORD's tendency for irrops, he has shot at Easy Update giving him the good news that he can then share with UA reservations while he is exiting I-294 to head back to ORD. Not only will UA let him do this, but they'll change the itin to remove the ORD/MKE segment on the return, and even better he'll get a refund for the ORD/MKE segments.

emcampbe

Actually, you can't, when you buy you're ticket - you agree to the COC, which specifically has a section on schedule irregularities in rule 240. Try reading it sometime.

Sure, maybe there are no ethical issues for you, personally. Now think of others besides yourself for a second. What if I actually wanna go to MKE, but can't book a seat on the flight because you supposedly took the last one. That's real nice of you - book a seat that you have no intention of using so others of us that want it can't use it. That's why you UA forbids hidden city bookings, as they should.

weero

Because UA cannot show in any way how the OP would cause them expense and harm by not flying on a paid segment.

Courts - especially in Europe - have supported this view over and over. The OP does not deny UA a promised service. All the OP promises UA is to pay the fare and not to behave illegally on the plane.

BTW upon VDB, UA does of course not pay a penalty but a mutually agreed upon compensation.

fastair

Ahh but the tariffs published between XXX and MKE are also a mutually agreed upon agreement. To not use the product as agreed to is a unilateral change to the contract (unilateral=not mutually agreed upon.) To make this change and get consent from both parties would be an exchange for the proper tariffed city pairs. Upon paying for the ticket, is when the customer agrees, and upon selling the ticket is when the company agrees. Changes to the agreement later would require a new agreement (a new ticket.)

And the ethics come in when a party agrees to an agreement with full knowledge that they do not pan on honoring their agreement prior to the payment.

emcampbe

Last time I checked, precedence from European cases doesn't apply to US courts. And also, last time I checked, European and American courts have very different views in various areas. My suggestion is if you are so sure that US courts will judge against UA, why don't you bring a case against them for their hidden city ticketing rules, and see how you come out.

As for VDB, call it a penalty, compensation, or whatever you want. Point is - the passenger gets something. Let's not forget what the "V" stands for - voluntary. No one is forcing them to get off - so if they don't like the compensation, penalty $, or whatever its called, they don't have to give up their seat.

mikew99

Sorry you missed the point: Someone was suggesting fairness of penalties, so I was (sarcastically) pointing out how lopsided the CoC actually are.
Airlines overbook (i.e., sell seats they don't actually have, which itself is a question of ethics) precisely because they know people don't show up. The real reason UA doesn't like hidden-city bookings is simply because they cost UA revenue.

ccharles

I'm not sure about this. If many people did this regularly on multiple routes, mightn't it play havoc with managing the whole system? When you buy a ticket, you are representing to the seller that you are going to use it. Based on those representations, UA might well make [expensive] adjustments by swapping aircraft, repositioning, adjusting crew schedules, and so forth to accomodate a perceived change in demand. That is clearly an expense and, since the decisions would be based on misrepresentations, it would seem that harm was indeed being caused.

jamesdenver

Back in 2001-2002 I had a friend that flew DEN-SNA frequently. DEN-SNA fares were $325+ or higher. Fares to SNA from ABQ, MCI, STL hovered around $250.

He practiced hidden city often via DEN. He always used paper tickets, and simply "connected" at DEN gate with the DEN-SNA ticket, then took SNA-DEN flight back a few days later - discarding the 1st and 4th flight portion.

He was never flagged mid trip and he never had a problem outbound or returning. He did this once a month of so for about a year.

I personally have no ethical problem about the practice. Folks in fortress hubs, (like DEN was in the late 90s,) have to subsidize carriers who serve airports with more competition.

If one can find a workaround and accepts the risk then good for them. There's nothing illegal about it, and it's a simple risk versus reward calculation for the individual.

Fortunately now fares from DEN are much lower thanks to Frontier and Southwest's increased presence. Also the local ticket offices are closed, and paper ticket fees are much higher - making the entire practice unnessarary.

GoingAway

I'm not getting into the argument but I do want to understand what risk would exist as you're indicating there is nothing illegal.

jamesdenver

I mean the risk of being caught/flagged by the airline and denied boarding or having an itin/ticket canceled mid-trip.

To my understanding it is perfectly within the airline's right to tell me to "get lost" if I don't follow the COC rules, which involves risk of having to purchase a last minute ticket to return home.

It's akin to like card counting in blackjack. It's simply using your knowledge to gain an advantage. It's not illegal, the casinos can request you leave, but if an individual can exploit the loophole for their advantage then kudos to them.

I'm also curious if the OP could even do it today. Like card counting I believe the glory days of hidden city ticketing are past. Without paper tickets I would think it's difficult, and I'd guess ticket stubs are processed and reconciled much faster now.

In this case I agree with the "take the train" suggestion.

LilZeppelin

How about buying a ow BWI::ORD to MCI (93$), or RSW; and one ow ORD::IAD to ATL fr 79$ (Monday), or ORD::IAD to JAX on Sunday (115$). Be creative!

mikew99

That's quite a stretch! There is no requirement (legal or otherwise) that a passenger actually use a ticket that he purchased. (In fact, UA expects a certain percentage of people will not use tickets they bought, and they take advantage of this by overbooking flights.) Even so, once UA gets the money for the ticket, UA has been compensated fully, regardless of whether the ticket is used or not. There's no harm to UA if people let the paid ticket go to waste.

cepheid

There's plenty illegal about it, there's just nothing criminal about it. A violation of contract law is still illegal, even if it's "merely" a civil matter. You can't get thrown in jail over it, but you can certainly be sued over it.

Actually, it's nothing akin to that, because card-counting does not violate any law, whether criminal or civil. The casinos may elect to throw you out because they reserve the right to deny entry to anyone, but you've not breached any contract. They can't sue you over it or withhold your winnings from you. Hidden-city ticketing, on the other hand, is a blatant violation of the CoC and therefore illegal under contract law. UA is within their rights to charge penalties as stated in the CoC or to sue.