OA260 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (4 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 10183 times:
Air Canada has advised Frequent Flyer Members and Tour Operators that they are starting a major clamp down on people booking back to back tickets on their website and other CRS systems. FF members are being threatened with having their miles deducted also !
Quote ''Air Canada reviews a monthly report which identifies all back to back violations, including those perpetrated on the Air Canada Web site. Where back to back violations are identified, frequent flyer miles can be removed. It is also within Air Canada's right to request an additional collection from the passenger and/or cancel the unused segments. We receive notification from our check in and call centre agents across the system, informing us of these types of violations on a continuous basis.''
Yes, it is entirely fair. Irrespective by what many on here (FF's) will claim it is a deliberate and systematic attempt to circumvent Fare Rules to defraud the airline. Whether one agrees/disagrees with those R&R is completely irrelevant. The fact of the figures showing repeated violations is clearly indicative of the intent.......those passengers know exactly what they are doing.
It's unclear whether this applies to domestic (ie wholly within Canada or between Canada and the US) or international tickets. Would it be legal in the case of international trips ?
Smart travellers would not declare their FFP membership or would not use the same carrier all the time.
They're a way of reducing air fare costs for a company where a traveler makes frequent visits to the same destination. In some countries, the practice of back to back ticketing is known as 'cross ticketing'.
Although back to back tickets are an accepted industry practice, they are not popular with airlines worried about losing revenue, and they may try to stop the practice in the future.
Let's look at M. Fabrice Bouchet who lives in Lyon, France and will spend two weeks in Turkey giving advice on a dam project. He has stated that he wants to return to Lyon during the middle week of his contract.
Below we can see the plan:
Two weeks working near Ankara with the central weekend in Lyon.
The obvious way to plan for this trip would be to buy two return tickets;
Ticket A: Lyon-Ankara-Lyon outbound 14 May - return 18 May.
Ticket B: Lyon-Ankara-Lyon outbound 21 May - return 25 May.
But if his company purchases two back to back tickets they would look like this:
Ticket A: Lyon-Ankara-Lyon outbound 14 May - return 25 May.
Ticket B: Ankara-Lyon-Ankara outbound 18 May - return 21 May.
The advantage of this is that Ticket A appears to be for a stay of 12 days. And many discounted economy fares are available if the traveler stays for more than 7 days or over a weekend.
Jibblets From United States, joined Jan 2007, 36 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (4 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 9818 times:
Quoting AT (Reply 3): Can someone explain what "back to back" means?
If I need to make two or more trips to the same destination, in order to take advantage of fare discount rules -- such as departure day, minimum stay, Saturday stay, etc. -- I might book one trip from point A to point B. Then, I'd book a second, overlapping trip from point B to point A to get me back home. Later I'll take the return of that trip to get me back to point B. Finally the return of the first trip gets me home again.
Golfradio From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 240 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (4 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 9765 times:
Quoting AT (Reply 3): Can someone explain what "back to back" means?
Consider a YYZ - EWR return trip that you want to make, leaving on a Wednesday and returning on the following Friday. Let us say that the ticket costs $500. But AC says that if you stay the weekend and instead travel on Monday the ticket is $240. The same fare applies in the opposite direction too; EWR - YYZ return with a weekend in YYZ is $240.
So instead of paying $500 for the Wednesday to Friday itinerary, you book two return tickets, YYZ - EWR for Wednesday to Monday at $220 and EWR - YYZ for Friday to Monday at $220. So your cost is $240 x 2 = $480. You fly the outbound on YYZ - EWR tikcet on Wednesday and trash the return leg and again fly the outbound EWR - YYZ on Friday and trash the return. You are ahead by $20 and collect FF miles. As you are flying the outbound legs, the airlines cannot prevent you from trashing the return legs, which they will do if you do not fly the outbound leg.
Joeljack From United States, joined Feb 2005, 532 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (4 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 9744 times:
My grandpa buys a OMA-PHX-OMA roundtrip outbound in November and Return in May every year. He then buys additional roundtrips in Jan/ Feb as the need arises. The only thing he knows is that he stays in PHX for 6 months and those dates are set. Is this illegal? If it is that's crazy.
LondonCity From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2008, 222 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (4 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 9667 times:
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 9): Generally speaking, back-to-back ticketing wouldn't normally be a factor regarding international trips.
I only asked this question because I believe that airlines in US/Canada can better enforce rules against back-to-back ticketing because most is domestic than can carriers based, say, in UK/Europe where most air travel is international.
As far as I know there has been no test case here in UK/Europe to determine whether or not back-to-back ticketing is "illegal."
Pnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 1211 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (4 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 9627 times:
When I was in New York every two weeks and in Montreal frequently, back to back tickets saved a huge amount of money for the company. The last time a "crackdown" happened it simply meant booking on a competing airline.
So outbound from YYZ to DCA I flew AC on the first half of the ticket. I returned to YYZ on US Airways on the first half of a second ticket. My next trip a week later I returned to DCA on the return leg of the second ticket on US Airways. The return to YYZ was on the last half of the original AC flight. To each of the airlines I was staying over a Saturday.
I had a chat with one of the AC Concierges at LGA during this time when she commented she didn't see me as often. I told her the policy was driving me to a competitor. Her response to me was that the nonsense will pass and to say hello even if I was flying someone else. She also said that enforcement was being spotty and only being applied to the busiest routes where bums in the seats wasn't an issue.
The only wrinkle happened after 9/11 when US Customs started to ask questions until they figured out what back to back tickets were. You would answer you had been in the US two days when your had a ticket that should mean you weren't back yet. You could tell when you had someone new on because you had to explain the whole thing to the agent.
In my mind this "crackdown" is pretty stupid. All it does is drive the more enterprising people to competing airlines. My Montreal based colleaque used to do the same thing between YUL and YYZ but in this case used Jetsgo and AC. Now it is WestJet or Porter and AC.
When the crackdown at AC ended we all went back to openly booking back to back tickets without a problem.
AirNZ From United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), joined Feb 2005, 3087 posts, RR: 13 Reply 12, posted (4 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 9621 times:
Quoting LondonCity (Reply 10): I only asked this question because I believe that airlines in US/Canada can better enforce rules against back-to-back ticketing because most is domestic than can carriers based, say, in UK/Europe where most air travel is international.
Yep, I see what you mean and understandable indeed. However, intra-EU is one flying market and the rules can be enforced every bit as easily as in the US/Canada. As an example, BA will very much enforce back-to-back ticketing rules. I was answering you more with pure international (as in L/H) in mind as it wouldn't normally be a factor as no real need for such particular Fare Rules.
CV990Coronado From South Africa, joined Nov 2007, 116 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (4 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 9547 times:
This used to happen ex Lon to Europe but now BA just work on one way fares to most cities at different rates depending of load/yield. This far more simple for both the airline and the customer and stops all the nonsense. If you book early or off peak you get some really good prices and the airline doesn't have lots of no shows.
LongHauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 1835 posts, RR: 21 Reply 14, posted (4 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 9492 times:
Quoting CV990Coronado (Reply 13): This used to happen ex Lon to Europe but now BA just work on one way fares to most cities at different rates depending of load/yield.
That's it exactly, I wasn't aware Air Canada had a lot of published "round-trips" any more. Certainly none in North America.
Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 11): In my mind this "crackdown" is pretty stupid. All it does is drive the more enterprising people to competing airlines. My Montreal based colleaque used to do the same thing between YUL and YYZ but in this case used Jetsgo and AC. Now it is WestJet or Porter and AC
Air Canada, (and I assume Westjet and Porter) do not have round trip fares between YYZ and YUL.
On further investigation, one will find that this only applies to International travel where the savings are greater on one hand, but also with Customs rules, passport tracking and ID matching it is easier to discover the passenger cross-booking.
On average, more people are killed yearly by falling coconuts (150), than by sharks (10).
Golfradio From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 240 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (4 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 9442 times:
Quoting LongHauler (Reply 14): That's it exactly, I wasn't aware Air Canada had a lot of published "round-trips" any more. Certainly none in North America.
True. I haven't seen any return fares for within North America on AC in a while. Also allows them to advertise fares which looking amazingly low but the fine print will say one way fare, taxes excluded. But that is another discussion.
YYZYYT From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 645 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (4 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 9420 times:
Quoting LondonCity (Reply 2): It's unclear whether this applies to domestic (ie wholly within Canada or between Canada and the US) or international tickets. Would it be legal in the case of international trips ?
Quoting LongHauler (Reply 14): That's it exactly, I wasn't aware Air Canada had a lot of published "round-trips" any more. Certainly none in North America.
More than "not a lot", as far as I can tell all of AC's domestic and US fares are straight one-way tickets now. You get no discount and have no "rules" based on flight dates.
But on international flights there are round trip fares that are singificantly less than the combined one-way fares, so it would have to be on international flights.
I am guessing that they were driven to this by the competion (eg, Westjet, Canjet) and have been this way ever since its (first?) bankruptcy filing.
Rutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 711 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (4 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 9342 times:
Quote: As far as I know there has been no test case here in UK/Europe to determine whether or not back-to-back ticketing is "illegal."
Where two promotional tickets are knowingly and deliberately purchased and combined to allow return travel over a route where a higher fare would be applicable (back to back purchases) this is a breach of contract and may be fraudulent.
The carriage terms are defined and the operator is within its rights to seek damages/compensation at least upto the published fare level for the journey actually taken.
Since ff/miles points are benefit in kind and issued subject to rules and regulations, the breach of contract certainly means that the operator CAN void these for any specific journey(s) where an act of fraud may have taken place.
By the way this is a problem across multi model travel systems including the UK railways where ticket inspectors can and DO issue penalty notices on a daily basis.
Offloaded From Gibraltar, joined Apr 2009, 196 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (4 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 9223 times:
If as YYZYYT said all AC fares in N.Am are sector fares (thank WS for forcing AC's hand on that) then this must be on intl routes, and in which case also not hard to see why AC pax would do it.
EG Currently lowest published rate YYZ LON YYZ excl taxes with AC is CAD 701, requiring a Saturday night stay. Take out the Saturday night and you get CAD 2588 plus tax. Lowest AC fare LON YYZ LON is GBP 465 (+/- CAD 883) plus tax. 701 + 883 is a lot less than 2588.
A lot of legacy carriers in Europe (with the notable exception of BA) still have crazy high fares for trips not including a minimum or 2 days or staying over a weekend or advance purchase.
I needed a one way LH MAN MUC a while ago. £13 + tax with 21 day advance purchase. Fly within 24 hrs - it's £480 + tax and the flight was wide open!
To no one will we sell, or deny, or delay, right or justice - Magna Carta, 1215
LongHauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 1835 posts, RR: 21 Reply 19, posted (4 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 9214 times:
Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 16): I am guessing that they were driven to this by the competion (eg, Westjet, Canjet) and have been this way ever since its (first?) bankruptcy filing.
This type of pricing and yield management was actually invented by Southwest Airlines, and was emulated by most American LCC's. Air Canada started this type of pricing in select markets before the (first?) bankruptcy filing. It has expanded to North American markets and is starting now in some International markets.
Air Canada was the first North American legacy carrier to adopt this pricing policy, and as you know, it is gradually spreading to most carriers. It is one of the reasons that generally, Air Canada has had better financial results than most North American legacy carriers. As much as I dislike Robert Milton, his foresight in this matter was spot on.
On average, more people are killed yearly by falling coconuts (150), than by sharks (10).
Yes. However, the only reason it is an issue at all is the utter nonsense that is the convoluted pricing schemes and ticketing terms and conditions (known as round-trip excursion fares) devised by airline pricing staffs who seem to have way too much time on their hands.
From what I read above, it appears that Air Canada has taken the more common sense customer-friendly approach to domestic ticketing with one-way fares only...which can be combined on a single round-trip ticket comprised of two one-way fares. Not so, however, with many/most of the U.S. legacies.
Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 11): n my mind this "crackdown" is pretty stupid. All it does is drive the more enterprising people to competing airlines.
Or hopefully drives them to airlines -- like the one from which I retired -- who offer one-way fares exclusively (typically combined to form a round-trip ticket) across the board...domestically and internationally...and also has customer-friendly terms and reasonable fee$ for making changes... while rendering "back-to-back" tickets a non-issue and of no perceived or actual monetary advantage to customers. It is not only the customer-friendly way...I also found it to be about 10x more employee-friendly as an agent whose primary role was in issues related to ticketing changes and re-issues.
Seabosdca From United States, joined Sep 2007, 1396 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (4 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 9033 times:
Not everyone who books back-to-back is trying to defraud the system. I've booked back-to-back on several occasions without any intent to defraud. In all cases, I was staying somewhere away from home for an extended period of time, and after booking the round-trip ticket for my extended stay away from home, discovered that I would need to return home briefly during that period.
For example:
I live in Washington. I'll be spending three months in Houston, from May 1 to July 31. So, on March 1, I book DCA-IAH-DCA, outbound May 1 return July 31.
On April 15, I discover that I'll need to be at home in Washington for the weekend of June 1-2. So I book IAH-DCA-IAH, outbound May 31 return June 2.
How was I supposed to avoid "back-to-back" booking in this scenario?
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
Toltommy From United States, joined Dec 2003, 2603 posts, RR: 5 Reply 22, posted (4 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 8852 times:
Quoting LongHauler (Reply 19): This type of pricing and yield management was actually invented by Southwest Airlines, and was emulated by most American LCC's
Right state, wrong airline. It was American, who was able to use yield management to their advantage via the monster that was SABRE. AA invested heavily in technology to create pricing and loyalty programs.
AT From United States, joined Jul 2000, 660 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (4 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 8786 times:
Thanks for all the explanations. I don't understand why there is anything nefarious or illegal about this. The passenger is still paying for the same number of flight segments. I am generally sympathetic to airlines given the difficult financial climate but might this be a case of them whining about back to back passengers eating into their revenue?
Quoting Rutankrd (Reply 17): Where two promotional tickets are knowingly and deliberately purchased and combined to allow return travel over a route where a higher fare would be applicable (back to back purchases) this is a breach of contract and may be fraudulent.
What precisely is the breach of contract here? In most cases, I don't think this would qualify as fraudulent; simply a passenger trying to get the best deal (on the opposite side of the equation, airlines charge every possible fee nowadays to get the most revenue possible-- the fees may be odious to us but are in no way illegal).
Quoting Golfradio (Reply 7): Consider a YYZ - EWR return trip that you want to make, leaving on a Wednesday and returning on the following Friday. Let us say that the ticket costs $500. But AC says that if you stay the weekend and instead travel on Monday the ticket is $240. The same fare applies in the opposite direction too; EWR - YYZ return with a weekend in YYZ is $240.
So instead of paying $500 for the Wednesday to Friday itinerary, you book two return tickets, YYZ - EWR for Wednesday to Monday at $220 and EWR - YYZ for Friday to Monday at $220. So your cost is $240 x 2 = $480. You fly the outbound on YYZ - EWR tikcet on Wednesday and trash the return leg and again fly the outbound EWR - YYZ on Friday and trash the return. You are ahead by $20 and collect FF miles. As you are flying the outbound legs, the airlines cannot prevent you from trashing the return legs, which they will do if you do not fly the outbound leg.
but this is a double edge sword. Airlines choose to have complicated and asymmetric fare pricing structures to try and maximize $$$, then they can't complain when passengers buy return tickets and don't use the second half because it is (read: their own rules made it) less costly to do so.
AirNZ From United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), joined Feb 2005, 3087 posts, RR: 13 Reply 24, posted (4 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 8769 times:
Quoting Rutankrd (Reply 17): Where two promotional tickets are knowingly and deliberately purchased and combined to allow return travel over a route where a higher fare would be applicable (back to back purchases) this is a breach of contract and may be fraudulent.
The carriage terms are defined and the operator is within its rights to seek damages/compensation at least upto the published fare level for the journey actually taken.
that's it exactly.
Quoting Seabosdca (Reply 21): Not everyone who books back-to-back is trying to defraud the system. I've booked back-to-back on several occasions without any intent to defraud.
Yes indeed, and nothing radically wrong is seen with that. However, as in this case ,when a crackdown occurs by an airline it is targeted specifically at those who , knowingly and repeatedly, book flights that way. Those people are fully aware of the ticket rules, are deliberately circumventing them and thus defrauding the airline of the correct fare for the journey taken. Over a period of time those amounts are substantial indeed
Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 11): drive the more enterprising people to competing airlines.
That's a rather diplomatic way of describing them! What you really mean is they go to other airlines until they're caught doing it with them.
Quoting Offloaded (Reply 18): then this must be on intl routes, and in which case also not hard to see why AC pax would do it.
I don't see where you're getting that from at all. As I said, in general there is no reason to do back-to-back ticketing on international routes.
Quoting Offloaded (Reply 18): I needed a one way LH MAN MUC a while ago. £13 + tax with 21 day advance purchase. Fly within 24 hrs - it's £480 + tax and the flight was wide open!
You're talking Yield Management with that example.......a different thing entirely from the reasons for back-to-back ticketing. It's quite normal, plus how do you know "the flight was quite open"?
AirNZ From United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), joined Feb 2005, 3087 posts, RR: 13 Reply 25, posted (4 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 8757 times:
Quoting Rutankrd (Reply 17): Where two promotional tickets are knowingly and deliberately purchased and combined to allow return travel over a route where a higher fare would be applicable (back to back purchases) this is a breach of contract and may be fraudulent.
The carriage terms are defined and the operator is within its rights to seek damages/compensation at least upto the published fare level for the journey actually taken.
that's it exactly.
Quoting Seabosdca (Reply 21): Not everyone who books back-to-back is trying to defraud the system. I've booked back-to-back on several occasions without any intent to defraud.
Yes indeed, and nothing radically wrong is seen with that. However, as in this case ,when a crackdown occurs by an airline it is targeted specifically at those who , knowingly and repeatedly, book flights that way. Those people are fully aware of the ticket rules, are deliberately circumventing them and thus defrauding the airline of the correct fare for the journey taken. Over a period of time those amounts are substantial indeed
Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 11): drive the more enterprising people to competing airlines.
That's a rather diplomatic way of describing them! What you really mean is they go to other airlines until they're caught doing it with them.
Quoting Offloaded (Reply 18): then this must be on intl routes, and in which case also not hard to see why AC pax would do it.
I don't see where you're getting that from at all. As I said, in general there is no reason to do back-to-back ticketing on international routes.
Quoting Offloaded (Reply 18): I needed a one way LH MAN MUC a while ago. £13 + tax with 21 day advance purchase. Fly within 24 hrs - it's £480 + tax and the flight was wide open!
You're talking Yield Management with that example.......a different thing entirely from the reasons for back-to-back ticketing. It's quite normal, plus how do you know "the flight was wide open"?
26 Viscount724: No problem as long as AC includes the policy in their conditions of contract, which I'm sure they do like almost all other major airlines. I disagree
27 Ikramerica: According to the airline, by changing your original ticket, paying fees and excess airfare, then buying a new ticket for the next trip, probably at a
28 YYZYYT: That put it very well. If the booking engine applies the "rules" to make it more expensive = "fair". But if a customer can use that same engine to ma
29 AirframeAS: But he isn't changing his ticket. His original PNR is March 1 to July 31. Now he would need to go home in April which would be under a totally differ
30 ChrisA330: Perhaps you need to check in the right spot for these rules. this is not a fare rule, it's a condition of carriage which is filed with the airline's
31 AirframeAS: BUT....in the defense of some people who do this, not for the fare, but for other reasons stated..... there are people who live in warm weather in th
32 SEPilot: I had to take a trip about 20 years ago for my company to Michigan (I believe it was Saginaw) just for an overnight. It was much cheaper at that time
33 ChrisA330: Agreed - but remember the back to back part that's forbidden is one that purposely circumvents minimum stay requirements. It doesn't forbid back and
34 AirframeAS: But people are not doing that.... What proof does AC have that people are actually doing that??
35 ChrisA330: I'm sure it's quite easy to figure that out - especially on International itineraries where additional information and ID are required. I'm not sure
36 Tango-Bravo: Once again, no such nonsense when an airline chooses to go the customer-friendly way by offering only one-way fares which are, more often than not, c
37 Ikramerica: Yes, he is changing his original TRIP. He is going home early. Look at it this way. What if you buy a ticket to return home on May 1, but due to circ
38 YYZYYT: Clear? not in the slightest. If you are booking a ticket and want to know what the contract terms are, what do you do? You can click on "General Cond
39 Viscount724: What is known as "revenue integrity software" is quite sophisticated now and can spot situations like the following example where a passenger books 2
40 ScottB: I think the reference was to the practice of selling all tickets as one-way fares, although that's not entirely correct. Southwest offered round-trip
41 Pellegrine: Let's see if someone will take AC to court over their FF miles being docked. I'd love to hear of this case.
42 AirNZ: It is your perogative to disagree if you wish but it certainly does not mean it's the exact opposite situation at all. First of all, in context of th
44 Ikramerica: Whatever you say. It's impossible to purchase a ticket simultaneously. One always must be purchased first. Whether the second ticket is purchased in
45 AirNZ: Firstly, I wasn't trying to correct you......I clearly said you were correct in that SeaBosDca was changing his ticket in response to AirframeAS's do
46 Styles9002: I can't think of any other industry where the vendors (airlines) treat their best customers (passengers) with such disdain. Threatening your customers
47 Viscount724: To avoid problems, just buy the back-to-back tickets on two different airlines.
48 MillwallSean: This is the same issue that arises all the time on here. Canada and the US I am not sure about, what I say only applies to EU and that includes all ai
49 AT: well said. Airlines should be bending back over backwards to retain customers, not, as you say, treat them with such disdain. Good point-- that would
50 SkyguyB727: The airline agrees to the terms of the contract by offering to sell tickets under the terms of the contract. The passenger agrees to the terms of the
51 HZ747300: Does it work if the airlines are in the same alliance? Like US Airways and Air Canada, for example--since most airlines rarely vary wildly on fares a
52 MillwallSean: Almost , the contract of carriage must also follow all relevant legislations. Otherwise the contract is void no matter what the two parties have agre
53 DFWramper: Depending on the length of the stay (month or more maybe) and the frequency of going home in between, it may make more sense to buy a one way ticket t
54 Panova98: This topic comes up often, back-to-back ticketing, hidden-city ticketing, etc. And the practices have been going on for many, many years. And, I'm sur
55 TheGMan: Wow, there are a lot of rules to buying tickets. It is almost like non-reving. I just non-rev on one way itineraries.
56 PanHAM: no problem to do back to back bookings in Europe. Even if, some mentioned already that in this case competing airlines can be uses. For instance on F
57 Bravo1six: The common law of contract is not quite that simple in a situation where one party is a sophisticated commercial party who has drafted a contract whi
58 Kennyk: Seems to me some airlines set up complex fare structures to screw the customer and call it legal purely to benfit the airline. But don't want the cust
59 Fsnuffer: Let them crack down all they want. All their crazy fare rules designed to extract as much cash as possible from the business traveler will create an o
60 Enilria: Cross-subsidization is also illegal and anti-competitive. For newbies, that would be charging some customers excessive prices in order to provide bel
61 Richcandy: Hi If you were to book two tickets on two different airlines so that you could back to back would this be against the rules? Example Ticket 1 CDG-LHR
62 PanHAM: of course not. In my opinion it would not even be against the rukes if you do that on one carrier., you cannot avoid "cross-subsidization" in this bu
63 LongHauler: Also included in this clampdown is Air France, British Airways, Lufthansa, KLM and several Asian carriers. As I said above, and looking on AC's websi
64 Enilria: I understand the details and I agree with your basic point that it is difficult to prove in this business. I think, however, it would be an interesti
65 Incitatus: Highlight MAY in "may be fraudulent". The airline is offering a product: tickets, in this case bundled in roundtrips. There are two ways to combine t
66 Vfw614: AC should try that in Germany. Airlines have been taken to court over rules disallowing back-to-back ticketing and left the court-house with some seri
67 YYZYYT: to gouge passengers? Yeah, that's what every company says that puts fine print on the back of a ticket (or even worse, 8 layers into a web site) and
68 YYZYYT: PS - forgot to put this in my last post, a number of posters have referred to back to back ticketing etc as "fraud". That kind of language is way over
69 Enilria: I think as long as you try to seek a refund of the partially used tickets there should be no legal recourse by an airline against people who use "hid
70 AT: Yes! For all the complaining, it is the airlines themselves who are providing the incentive for all this.. If you charge more for a one way ticket th
71 Vfw614: From a legal point of view, it is also nonsense. You only use a good or a service in a different way the other party to the contract wants you to use
72 YYZYYT: Missed your post before posting mine... you are correct on all points. The leading case in Ontario is a decision by the Court of Appeal called Clande
73 PanHAM: Í don't see a cross subsidization under the examples I gave. You have to compare a full flexible, full efundable Y or C ticket for the route you quo
74 Incitatus: Exactly. It is like binding somebody to use an entire product if they purchase it. Buy an entree at a restaurant $10. Buy an entree and eat only half
75 YYZYYT: The point of this thread is that AC is trying to say that this is "throwaway ticketing" and therefore a breach of the (secret) terms of the contract.
76 Pnwtraveler: Like I said way above, the only way to get better back to back fares is to fly on a competing airline with a different FF number. If you fly UA or LH
77 PanHAM: you confuse throw- away ticketing and back to back ticketing. Back to back means you use all 4 portions of your booked flight for which you have 2 ti
78 Ssublyme: Is this as big a deal when it comes to FF miles if you book with alliance members? Eg: extended trip is on United, midway through you book on US Air a
79 YYZYYT: I understand the difference, I was referring to throwaway ticketing because it has come up here several times (eg., the tariff quoted in reply 30). A
80 AirframeAS: He is not changing his ticket. He is buying a whole brand new ticket on top of the existing reservation which he plans on still using later. He is no
81 RedChili: I'm amazed that some people believe that Air Canada has the right to introduce laws. Either Canada is a country where juridical matters work in a very
82 Vfw614: Hear hear. Some common sense (and the application of some basic principles of law) at last. That's exactly the argument based on which German courts
83 PanHAM: Bingo I said that before but it is really hard to believe that an airline in a highly competetive industry starts picking a fight with frequent custo
84 KennyK: Sometimes the airlines get a bit too clever, keep it simple.
85 PlaneInsomniac: Does anybody know if any airline has ever taken concrete steps against the evil cousin of back-to-back ticketing: booking a round-trip ticket and usin
86 AirNZ: That's EXACTLY what I said in post 42. I was completely agreeing with you, and stating that you were perfectly correct. There was absolutely no back-
87 OA260: AF and LH are very guilty of this inflated fare structure. Especially on oneways. Look up a DUB-FRA oneway even booking now for November and see how m
88 Vfw614: How about this one (just an example) on cross-ticketing: http://web1.justiz.hessen.de/migrati...125752400352C02/$file/16u07608.pdf Has the court igno
89 AirframeAS: My apologies....I stand corrected. But how can they prove a customer's intent? That is the thing I am trying to understand. We still have business tr
90 Pyrex: Typical. Airlines still don't seem able to understand the concept of "selling" something to someone, they always think that somehow even after you pai
91 AT: Regardless of whether people think this is right or wrong, three practical issues come to mind: 1) it is difficult to prove intent, and if the airline
92 AirNZ: It's essentially the same as anything similar. As I said, I've been involved in several cases as a Plaintiff Expert Witness, and it's a simple matter
93 AirNZ: I'll rebuff your three practical issues: 1. It is not difficult to prove intent at all (read post 92). The airline does NOT have to "prove that the p
94 IAirAllie: I had to spend 2 months out of state for training. Knew which dates I needed to be out there but I didn't know if and when I'd have an opportunity to
95 AirNZ: I honestly am giving up on this thread........once again you're talking about something entirely different, and which has no bearing whatsoever on th
96 Pyrex: Why? The TSA is usually smart enough to understand that First Name / Last Name and First Name / Middle Name Last Name are one and the same person, I
97 IAirAllie: Geesh melodramatic much. I'd typed this long before you wrote all your dissertations on the topic. It hadn't posted for some reason 2 days ago (proll
98 AirframeAS: I don't think anyone here has claimed themselves to be 'experts', AirNZ. I agree. It's like saying "Ok, Johnny.... you can fly all you want, but you
99 PanHAM: well, we have constantly airlines dragged to the courts because they cancelled flights and the passengers win compensation. Never heard one court cas
100 LondonCity: Exactly. Smart purchasers of back-to-back tickets will use different airlines (and can also book direct and indirect flight routings). These passenge
101 Panova98: Before every airline in the world perishes financially, I just wish they could give maybe two minutes, OK, one minute thinking and acting with a smidg
102 FrmrCAPCADET: Is using back to back ticketing legal? Of course, common law, legislatures, etc, and the courts have no view on this. How could they, there are no law
103 Viscount724: You are just picking on just one example. There are many special fares in Europe with a variety of minimum stay requirements. One LH example below qu
104 PanHAM: I am picking one example of many other flight itineraries I have bought from Germany, the most recent one I booked online day before yesterday. Rules
105 Bravo1six: I don't know why all of you are focusing so much on "fraud". Fraud is primarily a criminal offence in Canada. Fraud as a common law tort generally onl
106 Offloaded: No you aren't talking yield management these are published fares. I know the flight was was wide open because Galileo had a row of 9's in every booki
107 Viscount724: AC was the first major (non-low cost) carrier in North America to switch to one-way pricing on all their domestic and Canada-U.S. transborder routes
108 Offloaded: I appreciate that Viscount, but they didn't do it out of the goodness of their heart, WS forced them to it in CDNUS routes. It was a sign of the times
109 Viscount724: For a carrier like AC that carries a lot of high-yield business traffic, going to true one-way pricing on longhaul routes would result in revenue dil
110 MillwallSean: Thats wrong. On the case of back to back it has been sent to the EU court and the first reading was a clear one. The airlines can not enforce such cl
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), joined Feb 2005, 3087 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2008, 222 posts, 
From United States, joined Jul 2000, 660 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1080 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 240 posts, 
From South Africa, joined Nov 2007, 116 posts, 
From Gibraltar, joined Apr 2009, 196 posts, 
that's it exactly.
Printer friendly format 
