Sponsor Message:
Travel Polls & Prefs Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is "beyond Point Ticketing" Unethical?  
User currently offlineONT 737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 591 posts, RR: 2
Posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6968 times:

AA thinks so. AA says that it is the equivalent of "switching price tags", I thought of it like only eating half of the hamburger that you have paid for. What is you take on this?


http://www.aa.com/content/agency/Boo...ng/Ticketing/hidden_city_ltr.jhtml


Dear,

Let me take the opportunity to clarify American Airlines position on hidden city or point beyond ticketing. Purchasing a ticket to a point beyond the actual destination and getting off the aircraft at the connecting point is unethical. It is tantamount to switching price tags to obtain a lower price on goods sold at department stores. Passengers who attempt to use hidden city tickets may be denied boarding, have the remainder of their ticket confiscated and may be assessed the difference between the fare paid and the lowest applicable fare.

Because we compete with other airlines with different route structures, we sometimes find it necessary to give a traveler who is traveling beyond a connecting point a better price than travelers who are just traveling to the connecting point. For example, a passenger who is traveling to Austin, Texas from Los Angeles can go on one airline via Phoenix for a price that is lower than the cost of traveling on American between Los Angeles and Dallas. If we want to offer the same price to Austin as the other airline, but the only way we can get travelers there is via Dallas, we find ourselves charging the Austin passengers less than the Dallas passengers.

Although the issuance and usage of hidden city tickets is not illegal in the sense that one could be fined or sent to jail by the government, it is unethical and a breach of a passengers contract with AA. Both tariff rule 100AA and American's Condition of Carriage, which are incorporated into every ticket sold by American as part of our agreement to carry the passenger named on the ticket, bar hidden city ticketing. In addition, it violates the agencys' contract to act as an agent for American Airlines.

If American Airlines continues to lose revenue as a result of hidden city transactions, the fares we charge must inevitably rise.

Sincerely,


"The world is run by C students"-Harry Truman
68 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23309 posts, RR: 20
Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6929 times:

FWIW, it seems like an unfair use of AA's superior bargaining power to me. Two ought to be able to play the game... why should AA be the only one who gets to do it just because they are in a superior position?


I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineOnt 737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 591 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6915 times:

This was orignially in the civil aviation forum and was moved by the moderators to here. I guess they think this is a poll. This was meaning to be a discussion on AA's booking policy. If this is a poll then I can see 30 posts over in the other forum that need to get moved over here. How about "Are Airbus-Boeing Each Happy With 50-50?"


"The world is run by C students"-Harry Truman
User currently offlineATCtower From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 547 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6860 times:



Quoting Ont 737 (Reply 2):
This was orignially in the civil aviation forum and was moved by the moderators to here. I guess they think this is a poll. This was meaning to be a discussion on AA's booking policy. If this is a poll then I can see 30 posts over in the other forum that need to get moved over here. How about "Are Airbus-Boeing Each Happy With 50-50?"

A lot of threads get moved between forums that likely shouldnt, but oh well.

This would seem like a win-win situation to me. Most occasions I can see the objections from both sides, but in a case such as this. You are paying to take another flight which you are not taking. Is is unethical? Absolutly not. Is it smart? Absolutly. If you can find a beyond point ticket and do not need to check luggage, it is entirely to your advantage. My question comes as to why AA would make such a stink about the matter considering you not taking this flight cuts the weight down (thought not significantly). If four people were to exit the plane and not return for the continuing flight, the airline would theoretically be saving the exact amount of fuel to carry said 4 passengers on the following flight.

my  twocents 



By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6857 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 1):
FWIW, it seems like an unfair use of AA's superior bargaining power to me. Two ought to be able to play the game... why should AA be the only one who gets to do it just because they are in a superior position?

What superior bargaining power? The fact that AA (amongst other airlines) has to resort to such tactics is a perfect example of airlines lacking "bargaining power": they have to offer connections that are more expensive to them at a lower price...

At the end of the day, no-one gets forced to fly AA - you could always opt to fly US via PHX, or WN probably via DAL or somewhere else... or UA via DEN...

AA sees a need to compete with US via PHX, and - as they write - they can only offer the flight in this example via DFW. It's either compete with US via PHX, or lose passengers.

Bargaining power, in this sense, would be if AA could charge whatever they want for the flight - something that's clearly not the case.

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 3):
You are paying to take another flight which you are not taking. Is is unethical? Absolutly not. Is it smart? Absolutly.

You're actually paying less for not taking the flight that you've booked - I don't really think that "unethical" really is the right term here... I'd also agree that I don't really consider it something illegal.

But saying that it's smart? I'd say it's about as smart as shooting yourself in your own foot... because at the end of the day, it's precisely fare abuses such as this that cause fares to be as complex as they are, and it'll eventually cause an increase in fares.

Now if you consider that smart...



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineATCtower From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 547 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 6805 times:



Quoting Leskova (Reply 4):
But saying that it's smart? I'd say it's about as smart as shooting yourself in your own foot... because at the end of the day, it's precisely fare abuses such as this that cause fares to be as complex as they are, and it'll eventually cause an increase in fares.

Now if you consider that smart...

I sure as hell consider it smart on behalf of the consumer. I do not consider this an abuse by the consumer, but we will use your term for that. Abuses such as this are not the cause of airline ticket price structuring. The price structuring is a result of endless research into O&D markets, supply v. demand, operating costs, operating revenue, and so much more... If you really think airline fares are complex because a few consumers utilize use beyond point ticketing, you may need to read a little more into Airline Managment/Marketing.

my twocents 



By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 6800 times:

It's not unethical. It is using the unnecessarily convulted fares system that the airlines have implemented for their own benefit, against them. If AA want to compete with US on AUS-LAX, they should put a flight on from AUS to LAX and charge the competing fare. If they insist that the only way they can offer service is via DFW and the AUS-DFW-LAX ticket is cheaper than AUS-DFW, how does that make sense ? How is the cost of the ticket reflecting the cost to deliver the service. Effectively the AUS-DFW pax are subsidizing the AUS-LAX passengers. Anyone who can take advantage of this entirely unrealistic system and get away with is simply playing the airlines at their own game.

Simple solution = sector fares. That way everyone gets to pay for what they use.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23309 posts, RR: 20
Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 6774 times:



Quoting Leskova (Reply 4):
What superior bargaining power? The fact that AA (amongst other airlines) has to resort to such tactics is a perfect example of airlines lacking "bargaining power": they have to offer connections that are more expensive to them at a lower price...

Large firms almost always have better bargaining power than individual consumers... if I want to fly AA, I accept their contract of carriage. End of story.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineSignol From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2007, 3025 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6722 times:

Unfair as it is, we are bound by the terms and conditions of carriage by the airline - it is their service after all  Sad
There's a similar situation regarding cross-channel ferries between the UK and France. I noticed the ts&cs of Eurotunnel, who transport cars on their trains through the tunnel. Often there are special "Day Returns" or short breaks (enabling booze cruises!) for as little as £10 for a car, but a standard single is around £80. So, can you buy a day return and not come back? No...

=======================
http://www.eurotunnel.co.uk/ukcP3Mai...kcLegalInfo/ukcTermsAndConditions/


1.1 Your booking is only valid for the booked departure date and time and the vehicle type stated.

Failure to complete both the outward and return journeys in respect of a return booking will invalidate your booking and in the event that you complete only one journey in respect of a return booking, you will be liable to pay the difference between the price that you paid for your return booking and the single fare applicable at the time that your journey was made. Eurotunnel reserves the right to obtain from you payment in full for all sums so arising.
=======================

Basically, if you fail to turn up for the return, your credit card will be charged for the difference to a full fare single. By buying the ticket you agree to this.

signol



Flights booked: none :(
User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5455 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 6704 times:



Quoting ONT 737 (Thread starter):
It is tantamount to switching price tags to obtain a lower price on goods sold at department stores.

Unethical perhaps .... but it is hardly comparable to switching price tags. I fail to see where the airline is at a disadvantage by a passenger missing the final leg. In fact it might be to their advanatage in terms of available seats.

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 3):
Is is unethical? Absolutly not. Is

Well, like it or not, it's a breach of your contract with the airline ... so it is unethical. Whether it should be a breach of contract is another matter.

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 5):
The price structuring is a result of endless research into O&D markets, supply v. demand, operating costs, operating revenue, and so much more...

Wow, you're giving the airlines far too much credit for their mis-managed, antiquated, over complex pricing procedures and formulas. It's no coincidence that generally, those more successful airlines are the ones that have sector pricing, and few fare types.


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineATCtower From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 547 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6691 times:



Quoting Bond007 (Reply 9):
Wow, you're giving the airlines far too much credit for their mis-managed, antiquated, over complex pricing procedures and formulas. It's no coincidence that generally, those more successful airlines are the ones that have sector pricing, and few fare types.

There is a big difference between giving too much credit and being educated on a subject. The coincidence that airlines with sector pricing are generally more successful is just that, a coincidence. Any business will be more successful when thurough research is exhibited.

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 9):
Well, like it or not, it's a breach of your contract with the airline ... so it is unethical. Whether it should be a breach of contract is another matter.

Technically it is a breach of contract, but there is no sustainable penalty they could impose. There are numerous breaches to the contract which the airline is able to impose a penalty including denial of carriage. There is no clause that states you owe the airline any sort of fare difference for exiting the contract prematurely, resulting in the subject being a moot point legally. Now if the airline were to feel so strongly they changed their CC to include a clause stating you are liable for the fare difference, and actually enforced said clause, the airline would be well within their right, though I would strongly disagree with it.
My  twocents 



By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5455 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (6 years 11 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6667 times:



Quoting ATCtower (Reply 10):
The coincidence that airlines with sector pricing are generally more successful is just that, a coincidence.

Absolutely not ... but I guess we'll agree to disagree!

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 10):
Any business will be more successful when thurough research is exhibited.

I didn't say anything about not doing thorough research. Airlines that have few fare types and sector pricing, don't necessarily do any less research than those that don't .. in fact I would argue they have done far better research into what works ... rather than relying on 30 year old over-complex outdated pricing systems that simply don't work.

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 10):
Technically it is a breach of contract

Then most would agree that a breach of contract is unethical ....


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineAnalog From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 1900 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (6 years 11 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6665 times:



Quoting Leskova (Reply 4):
But saying that it's smart? I'd say it's about as smart as shooting yourself in your own foot... because at the end of the day, it's precisely fare abuses such as this that cause fares to be as complex as they are, and it'll eventually cause an increase in fares.

How? In the presence of rampant hidden-city ticketing, the airline would probably have to rationalize their fares. The fare might go up on the city pair that you purchased, but it's doubtful that the fare for the city pair flown would increase. In fact it would probably decrease.

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 10):
Technically it is a breach of contract, but there is no sustainable penalty they could impose.

Really? Does the contract of carriage meet the requirements to be a real contract? What if person X buys the ticket from airline Z, and gives the ticket to person Y? What are Y's contractual obligations? What if Y is a minor and X is not the minor's guardian? IANAL.

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 11):
Then most would agree that a breach of contract is unethical ....

A breach of contract is not always unethical. If the actions required by a contract itself were unethical (not saying a CC is) would breaching that contract be unethical?


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23309 posts, RR: 20
Reply 13, posted (6 years 11 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6664 times:



Quoting Analog (Reply 12):
Really? Does the contract of carriage meet the requirements to be a real contract?

Sure... there's an offer, an acceptance, and consideration... Contracts 101.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5455 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (6 years 11 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6659 times:



Quoting Analog (Reply 12):
A breach of contract is not always unethical. If the actions required by a contract itself were unethical (not saying a CC is) would breaching that contract be unethical?

OK then, in this context!

If the actions required by the contract were unethical, then you shouldn't have agreed to it perhaps.
Of course, I'm sure 'unethical' contracts exist ...

That's why you should always read the small print.

Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineAnalog From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 1900 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (6 years 11 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6651 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 13):
Sure... there's an offer, an acceptance, and consideration... Contracts 101.

The AA CoC is between the passenger, not the purchaser, and AA:

Quote:
Your ticket and the following Conditions of Carriage constitute the contract between you, the passenger, and American Airlines, Inc. American Eagle ("American")

If you are given a ticket by someone else as a gift is the CoC a valid contract between the passenger and AA? If a minor purchases a ticket (or is given a ticket as a gift), is the CoC still valid?


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23309 posts, RR: 20
Reply 16, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6620 times:



Quoting Analog (Reply 15):
If you are given a ticket by someone else as a gift is the CoC a valid contract between the passenger and AA? If a minor purchases a ticket (or is given a ticket as a gift), is the CoC still valid?

Contracts can (and do) have third-party beneficiaries, and I would argue that where the passenger and the purchaser are not the same person, the contract of carriage is a contract with the purchaser (notwithstanding what it says), and the passenger is a third-party beneficiary, which makes the contract enforceable. Obviously, if the purchaser and the passenger are the same person, this point is academic only. (Note that my knowledge of commercial law is fairly limited, so I'm just piecing this together with basic contract law principles).

A contract with a minor for an air ticket would be voidable, but as the purchaser doesn't really have any obligations besides payment, which typically occurs at the time of purchase, that's something of a moot point.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6606 times:



Quote:
This was orignially in the civil aviation forum and was moved by the moderators to here. I guess they think this is a poll. This was meaning to be a discussion on AA's booking policy. If this is a poll then I can see 30 posts over in the other forum that need to get moved over here. How about "Are Airbus-Boeing Each Happy With 50-50?"

A lot of threads get moved between forums that likely shouldnt, but oh well.

 checkmark 

I'd also like to see a different note show up that says something other than, "In the future, do not attempt to post to a topic that has been deleted". If the moderators want to delete or move a thread, that's their perogative, but implying that it was my fault because I have these magic powers to summon deleted threads and waste someone's time by attempting to reply to something I should have KNOWN was already deleted is really childish.  banghead 

Rant over.

Having said that, the word "unethical" implies that a person is doing something to be immoral, malicious or harmful. In the true sense of the definition, beyond-point-ticketing is not unethical.

It is a CLEAR violation of the contract of carraige rules that are in the fine print that every airline hides, and the airlines have the right to prosecute as they see fit. Sorry that SAN-CVG is more expensive than SAN-CVG-DAY, but that's the airlines choice to price, and you're stuck with it.

Is it wrong to want to save money under a very silly and stupid system? No. Is it legal? No. But that's the way it is.



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineAnalog From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 1900 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6603 times:

I find their use of a brand name snack bar in the CoC amusing:

Quote:
In the case of extraordinary events that result in very lengthy onboard delays, American Airlines and American Eagle will make every reasonable effort to ensure that essential needs of food (snack bar such as Nutri-Grain®)



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 16):
A contract with a minor for an air ticket would be voidable, but as the purchaser doesn't really have any obligations besides payment, which typically occurs at the time of purchase, that's something of a moot point.

AA reserves the right to collect additional payment if you break the CoC:

Quote:
Where a ticket is invalidated as the result of the passenger's non-compliance with any term or condition of sale, American has the right in its sole discretion to:
...
d. Assess the passenger for the reasonable remaining value of the ticket, which shall be no less than the difference between the fare actually paid and the lowest fare applicable to the passenger's actual itinerary



Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 17):
Is it wrong to want to save money under a very silly and stupid system? No. Is it legal? No. But that's the way it is.

Is it illegal?


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23309 posts, RR: 20
Reply 19, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6600 times:



Quoting Analog (Reply 18):

Is it illegal?

It's pretty clearly a breach of the CoC... define "illegal" how you will.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26029 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6594 times:



Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 17):
Sorry that SAN-CVG is more expensive than SAN-CVG-DAY, but that's the airlines choice to price, and you're stuck with it.

A nonstop SAN-CVG is a better product than a one-stop connection SAN-CVG-DAY so why shoudn't it be priced higher if passengers are willing to pay the higher price? From SAN to DAY, the carrier is no doubt competing with a few other carriers serving the market via their own hub so they have to be competitive with those fares or they won't be carrying anybody to DAY.

Are you saying that just because another carrier may have a lower SAN-DAY fare via XYZ, the carrier operating SAN-CVG-DAY shouldn't be able to match that fare, and should also be forced to depress the SAN-CVG nonstop fare? That's not how deregulated pricing works. You charge what the market will bear for every city pair.

It's the same all over the world. BA fares to points in Europe beyond LHR (and sometimes even to points as far as Africa or the Middle East) are often cheaper than their fares to LHR. That's because LHR is such a strong O&D market that passengers are willing to pay those fares. To FRA/FCO/ATH/CPH etc. they're competing with a dozen or more carriers and have to consider the going fares in those markets. Airlines of course use sophisticated revenue and inventory management systems to ensure they give priority to the markets with the highest fares, but selliing lower fares to points beyond your hub helps fill empty seats. Without that revenue the fares to the hub would probably be even higher.


User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5455 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6592 times:



Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 17):
Having said that, the word "unethical" implies that a person is doing something to be immoral, malicious or harmful. In the true sense of the definition, beyond-point-ticketing is not unethical.

Not in my book:

"Not conforming... or being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice"

Pretty much covers it IMO.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 20):
Are you saying that just because another carrier may have a lower SAN-DAY fare via XYZ, the carrier operating SAN-CVG-DAY shouldn't be able to match that fare,

He isn't saying that ... since you quoted what he did say:

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 17):
but that's the airlines choice to price, and you're stuck with it.

Yep! ... or get off at the first stop of course  Wink

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 20):
Airlines of course use sophisticated revenue and inventory management systems to ensure they give priority to the markets

Somebody else who gives the airlines far too much credit for their pricing.

One of the reasons so many airlines ended up in trouble IMO, is because they failed to price their tickets appropriately, and tried to compete with LCCs on segments that they could never make a penny on... but they just had to offer the same or lower price regardless. No other businesses operate the way airlines do ... fortunately.


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26029 posts, RR: 22
Reply 22, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6592 times:



Quoting Bond007 (Reply 21):
No other businesses operate the way airlines do ... fortunately.

Big difference is that an empty airline seat on a flight departing now is pure lost revenue. You can't put it back in inventory and sell it tomorrow or next month.


User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5455 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6567 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 22):
Big difference is that an empty airline seat on a flight departing now is pure lost revenue. You can't put it back in inventory and sell it tomorrow or next month.

Many businesses operate with similar products and/or services. In fact most of them work completely the opposite in terms of pricing ... when you need to sell something because you can't "put it back in inventory and sell it tomorrow or next month", they are sold at a discount. I'm not suggesting airlines do the same - but IMO their pricing has been a huge part of their problems.

Yes, the airline business is somewhat unique ... but some airline managers seem to think you can forget Business 101.


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineLuv2cattlecall From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1650 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6562 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I like WN's policy:

With respect to all of our fares, Southwest Airlines does not prohibit or penalize what is commonly known as “hidden city” ticketing, nor does it prohibit or penalize what is commonly known as “back to back” ticketing.

What I don't like is AA sounding hostile toward their customers because the people that will do a hidden city itinerary will still do it, and those who wouldn't do it won't... that blurb by AA isn't going to change many peoples' minds about it but the tone of it does put me off as an occasional customer.



When you have to breaststroke to your connecting flight...it's a crash!
25 XJRamper : Most people don't realize that this can be done. Those that do, just like you said, will continue to do it. But, I don't blame them for the tone of t
26 Analog : Really? Is using less than what you paid for unethical? It may not be in accordance with the airline's rules, but those are not my "rules or standard
27 Bond007 : Whatever! You convince yourself that it's not unethical ... really doesn't matter what you call it. The thread isn't about changing your mind. Of cou
28 Analog : If you buy a one-way ticket XXX-YYY-ZZZ (that happens to be cheaper than XXX-YYY) intending to go to ZZZ, but then later decide that you really want
29 Viscount724 : A large number of flights don't have last-minute standby passengers waiting for a seat to open up. If, say, 10 passengers booked on a connecting flig
30 HAMAD : they will use that to their advantage, especially if the connecting flight is over booked and they need volunteers.
31 Cubsrule : It's an efficient breach, right? Everyone is better off.
32 Post contains images ATCtower : I call it making money for the airline. Sure you are paying the lower fare but look at everything the airline is not spending on you taking that flig
33 Yellowstone : No, but that's not what's going on here, according to the contract of carriage. If I book a trip from BOS to SJC via MSP, I have not purchased the ri
34 Cubsrule : This is a good point. If NW chooses to reroute you through DTW, they've still met their obligation under the CoC (and, if you're playing the hidden c
35 Analog : Okay, but what if you decide to get off in MSP while on the BOS-MSP flight? No planning, just on a whim. Is that still unethical?
36 Yellowstone : Not as much, I suppose, but it's still not great. Now, you have essentially bought one product, decided that you don't like it, "returned" it, and ch
37 Post contains images Analog : By that logic, if you decide to travel to your point of origin (i.e. no travel), why shouldn't you have to pay the airline the change fee? After all,
38 Post contains images ATCtower : Point very well taken but the way to look at this, is if the airline is selling all these $.01 seats, and charged you $500.00, some could argue this
39 Cubsrule : Here's something for you guys to chew on: I want to fly from LGA to STL and my girlfriend lives in Chicago. I want to see her (the dumb things we do f
40 Bond007 : You can try and convince yourself that it's not unethical with many examples, but it's really quite simple, and I think you understand it .... just d
41 Cubsrule : So it's ethical for them to pocket the money I paid for a service I didn't receive (the connection at ORD)?
42 Bond007 : Well, like I say, I may well be wrong, but as far as I see, the service you paid for was from A to C ... not A to B. It was your choice to pick the m
43 Analog : Ignoring any a priori intent to defraud or game the system, is it unethical to decide not to use the connecting service after you've used the first ha
44 Cubsrule : So why even give me the choice?
45 Bond007 : OK, I'll argue it ... it's no different. You've breached the contract whether you decide before boarding or on the flight. Well, you 'should' ... of
46 Pope : If the contract is between the passenger and the airline, then the easy way to get around this rule is to have your spouse, friend, sibling, etc. . .
47 Cubsrule : If that's the case, shouldn't they charge me less to connect at ORD? And in any event, it's not true in this case; AA carries 898 passengers on STL-N
48 Bond007 : They'll charge you whatever they think the most competitive price is, taking into account all the crap they normally do ... availability, date of pur
49 Cubsrule : Why should their concept of value control rather than mine?
50 Post contains images Leskova : Some people just like long connection times... If you want to have ORD listed as "part of the service you paid for", book a stopover at ORD, not a tr
51 IflyKPDX : I guess I have a similar situation which probably falls under this topic. If I buy a RT ticket for less than a 1 way, and only use half of it, is that
52 Cubsrule : ...unless you get lucky and find a court that doesn't like contracts of adhesion.
53 Post contains images ATCtower : That would not quite fall under the same logic because if you do not check in for the return part of the fare, the airline is able to give away (or s
54 Cubsrule : This is a contract law idea, not an ethics idea, though (so it doesn't get us any closer to the answer to my original question).
55 Bond007 : I answered earlier ... no it doesn't have any 'ethical obligation' to do either. As I also asked .. suppose your flight via a connection was CHEAPER,
56 Cubsrule : Well no, because it's not my fault that they were unable to provide the service I paid for. The better analogy would be the following: the connecting
57 PavlovsDog : Lost revenue? How so? The passenger getting off at the connecting point has paid for that seat. They still get his money at the agreed upon price. Wh
58 Pope : But they don't have the passenger's credit card so what are they going to do send a bill and wait for the voluntary payment? How many people do you t
59 Viscount724 : However when an airline overbooks and winds up in an oversale situation and can't accommodate all passengers booked on the flight, they generally hav
60 Triple7man : From a customer's viewpoint of trying to fly as cheaply as possible a hidden city agenda seems perfectly valid. I would probably do it. But that was b
61 PHLBOS : True story. Back when my father lived in the Point Place section of Toledo (roughly equidistant from TOL & DTW); NW's PHL-DTW-TOL r/t fares were almo
62 Cubsrule : I am aware that NW will force people to fly DTW-LAN and DTW-FNT legs if it's part of a XXX-DTW-FNT-DTW-XXX r/t, even where problems with IROPS would
63 Treeny : All I have actually found this thread fascinating due to the fact that I didnt realise until recently the difference in prices when taking one carrier
64 PHLBOS : You're joking right? My decision to not wait around was due to a WX-related late arrival and the close proximity of the 2 airports (plus, there was n
65 Bond007 : I'm guessing it doesn't happen to the extent it does in the USA, because much more of intra-European flights are point-to-point, or just to a major a
66 Cubsrule : Sort of. I've known them to be really rude about it at times.
67 BHXFAOTIPYYC : Not correct. You just probably had someone who didn't know how to do it. If you fly NYC LIS FAO, you have the choice of customs clearing your bag in
68 Viscount724 : BA is competing with many other carriers to MAD, some with shorter and faster routings and less chaotic hub airports. Are you saying BA shouldn't be
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
They Never Really "roll Out" Planes Anym posted Tue Mar 15 2005 17:38:57 by Boeing Nut
"Fly First" Business Class Only: London posted Tue Feb 8 2005 13:48:52 by ANA
Best Way To Book A "Mileage Run?" posted Fri Dec 10 2004 17:11:12 by ATLhomeCMH
Who Needs The "new Planes"? posted Mon Nov 8 2004 03:33:32 by Usairways16bwi
"What If"...FLL Regated Themselves? posted Thu Oct 14 2004 14:59:29 by Flairport
Who Is The "SuperJumbo?" 748 Or A380? posted Sun Dec 31 2006 07:28:21 by FighterPilot
Is An Aircraft "He" Or "She"? posted Thu Jun 1 2006 07:38:33 by ESGG
What Is Your Worst "Worst" Thread? posted Sun Dec 18 2005 00:57:59 by Bohica
Wright Amendment, Is This Valid: "Hurts Econo posted Sun Aug 14 2005 20:00:18 by FlewGSW
Is It "Safe" To Buy A UA Ticket For Febr posted Wed Aug 4 2004 08:16:33 by PanAm330