13 ms·

United Airlines Threatens to Engage Collections for Passengers Who Skip Segments

121 points by matan_a 8y ago

parliament32 8y ago
It's not clear why exactly the airlines are so upset about this. If the passenger isn't present they can just shoehorn a standby onto the flight, or at least save on fuel costs.
- pjc50 8y ago
  The airlines are losing money by having passengers circumvent the price discrimination.
  - panarky 8y ago
    The airline didn't lose any money. The airline was paid as agreed for the itinerary. The seat on the last leg of the flight will be empty, which actually saves the airline money since it will take less fuel to transport less weight. And the airline can resell that empty seat to a standby passenger and double-dip if they wish.
  - mynameisvlad 8y ago
    As already pointed out, the airlines lose no actual money, but you are right in that they lose the theoretical difference between the discriminated price and the one they paid. That's not a legal debt, though.
    - FireBeyond 8y ago
      Precisely. "Potential revenue" is not a dishonored debt.
- Skunkleton 8y ago
  Because a ticket from x->y->z sometimes costs less than a ticket from x->y. Presumably this has something to do with how much the markets in x, y, and z are able to bear. As in, people in X and Y will pay more for tickets than people in Z, so tickets terminating in Z are cheaper.
  - nneonneo 8y ago
    It's usually simpler than that - price competition is a major factor in most of these cheaper tickets. Airlines don't think in terms of segments, they think in terms of routes (because that's ultimately what a consumer bases shopping decisions on). If a competitor has a cheap and popular X-Z flight, then you will want to make X-Z cheaper even if you don't have a direct flight. But, if your competitors don't fly X-Y, or they charge more (because they have to go X-W-Y), then you have zero incentive to make X-Y cheaper. Airlines generally also avoid empty seats, because it almost always means lost revenue. They'd rather overbook and risk having to compensate bumped passengers than have no-shows. Combine these factors, and you can see why they're really unhappy about people skipping the Y-Z flights. Of course, in most situations, consumers are not penalized for using or consuming only part of a purchased good or service, even if they deliberately discard part in order to save money. United is in the wrong here, and I doubt a court would agree with them.
- kazinator 8y ago
  Because the person was supposed to pay more for the privilege of skipping that flight leg and just staying at that intermediate destination. That customer is robbing the airline of their god-given entitlement to extra revenue.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  They're scared that it might become popular and cost them too much. The airline's business model is to try to charge people from point to point, this scheme takes advantage of that fact to find savings. The airlines could, instead, change how they charge (e.g. per land mile/per minute in the air) but then it becomes harder to justify why direct flights that are cheaper for the airline to run cost consumers more, not less. And why inefficient indirect flights cost consumers less in spite of being more expensive for the airlines. Airlines need to keep their current business model to prop up their hubs, but they need hubs due to their current business model. If you invented airlines today (particularly with the new Airbus and Boeing aircraft coming on-tap with greater range) you'd see far fewer hubs, and more direct point to point flights. This is airlines trying to slow the inevitable, which is that they need to evolve.
StavrosK 8y ago
One very interesting thing here is how they're using the credit score system to blackmail people. If this continues, any company can hold you hostage by threatening to ruin your score, without any recourse from you.
- insomniacity 8y ago
  Now just wait until you have a social credit score system, like China is rolling out!
- nneonneo 8y ago
  Nah, this isn't a legal debt that they can forward to a collection agency, as pointed out in the article. They can't legally ding your credit for this (you've paid all your actual outstanding obligations to them), and if they do, I imagine the counterclaims could be significant (reputational damage, monetary losses due to higher interest rates or ineligible loans, etc.). Now, if this were the "social credit" system of a certain country, well, then maybe they really could blackmail you (because you violated a "social order" by playing ticketing games...).
  - 394549 8y ago
    > Nah, this isn't a legal debt that they can forward to a collection agency, as pointed out in the article. My understanding is that many collection agencies aren't very scrupulous about they debts they try to collect. Many of them are false, already paid, or lacking necessary documentation.
    - nneonneo 8y ago
      What United is threatening to do is forward a clearly uncollectable debt to a collection agency. This is pretty much fraud at its finest - they know it's not supposed to be collectable. It doesn't matter if the collection agency comes after you - United is on the hook for having forwarded that debt in the first place. Yes, in an ideal world, collection agencies would properly verify the debts they collect on, but they definitely can't be arsed to do that voluntarily without gov't regulation saying so (and this administration is unlikely to provide said regulation).
kazinator 8y ago
Passengers who save hundreds of dollars should get a credit boost for their demonstration of financial savvy. I'd sooner give a loan to that person than some reckless spender.
- recursive 8y ago
  Credit isn't a measure of financial savvy. It's a measure of likelihood to repay debts. It may be financially savvy to strategically default, putting the two in conflict.
  - FireBeyond 8y ago
    Precisely. In many ways it is better to steadily use a card (while being mindful of utilization ratios) and pay it than it is to carry a zero balance. The credit system might have been initially about debt repayment, but there are several measures in store regarding "how valuable / revenue-generating is a customer". And at times, these two principles may be in harmony, and at others, not so much.
Someone1234 8y ago
I doubt UA would follow through considering it is illegal to submit known false debts. Plus they're outright wrong that it constitutes "fraud," if for no other reason than the person skipping additional legs didn't profit from it, instead they simply limited UA's ability to further profit off of their travel. If this was "fraud" then any other airline discount or saving would be too. Shop around for the cheapest price? That's "fraud" since UA didn't make as much. Didn't check bags for $50+ and instead overload your carry on? That's "fraud" since UA lost the checked bag fee. Fly to a smaller airport instead of a larger one, then take the bus? That's "fraud" too, UA deserves that money. UA's creative use of the law here is nothing more than an intimidation tactic. They've run out of ideas so instead are just trying to muddy the waters enough to stop this becoming overly popular. I guess that's easier than re-examining how you ticket/what your business model is.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  How about selling a ticket and then telling me I can't get on the flight because it's overbooked. Is that fraud too?
  - nategri 8y ago
    Get em, max
  - otterley 8y ago
    Attorney here! (Not providing legal advice, though.) No, because overbooking is disclosed in the Contract of Carriage. See https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.html https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.ht..., section 5G.
- mchannon 8y ago
  > I doubt UA would follow through considering it is illegal to submit known false debts. Ahh yes, the "known false debts act of 1789". </s> The fact is corporations have throngs of willing stooges who are happy to perjure themselves in trial and assert that the debts weren't false at all. Who's a judge and jury going to believe? The scammer who cheated the poor impoverished airline out of its money, or the well-dressed stooge with front-row access to United's records? Lying to the courts to get what you want is in practice a fully sanctioned strategy for corporations who desire to intimidate their customers by "making an example" of their least favorite customers by throwing criminal charges against them. Mr. Lundgren can bear witness to this, as can I.
moonka 8y ago
I'm surprised we haven't seen more companies abuse the credit reporting system like this. Recourse is painful for the customer, and I imagine a non-trivial number of them will just pay off the debt. I'm guessing with the gutting of agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau we'll see a rise in these type of practices.
- kazinator 8y ago
  There is no debt, though. You can't charge people extra for not showing up at a flight. A non-flying passenger demonstrably makes a resource available: they can sell the seat to someone else. Even if they don't, it's less weight: less fuel burned. The idea that the passenger should have paid more to get off at that intermediate airport is purely a fabricated entitlement. If they underlying hypothesis behind this entitlement is that "all people should pay the same for the same flight", it is pure hypocrisy, because the airline industry is responsible for, and profits from the whole situation that people in adjacent seats may have paid wildly different prices. If they want people not to game the system, they have to remove the game from the system. But that game largely benefits them, so they don't. You can't have it both ways: create a game-like system, and not have people some people play it some of the time.
  - ekimekim 8y ago
    > There is no debt, though. No-one's disputing that. The parent post is supposing that because taking this to court and proving that United violated the law is expensive (in both money and more importantly effort), a large enough percentage of people will not do it. It's yet another example of the mere involvement of the legal system being used as a deterrent against individuals, regardless of who's in the right.
- CoolGuySteve 8y ago
  Falsely damaging someone's reputation in writing is libel. I think if more companies abused the credit rating system, they and the credit bureaus would see a lot more libel claims. It would even make sense to mechanize these libel claims via a bunch of templates, sort of like how airhelp.com works.
maxxxxx 8y ago
I did this earlier this year flying to Europe. My plans had changed a little so I realized that it would be easier to get off in Amsterdam instead of taking the next flight. It never occurred to me that this could be a problem but the agent gave us a really hard time when I asked to get our bags checked only to Amsterdam. I honestly thought they would be happy to be able to give our seats to someone else.
ben1040 8y ago
Sometimes I go to a fast food restaurant and discover that while I don't want fries, it's cheaper to buy the whole combo meal than it is to just buy a burger and drink a la carte. If I buy the combo and throw away the fries, nobody's going to argue that I've cheated Wendy's and owe them for the difference in price. But I'd agree they're still free to refuse me service in the future on grounds of wasting food.
- anon49124 8y ago
  The difference is that not taking a flight is like returning the fries to let someone else immediately buy them.
- mynameisvlad 8y ago
  Technically, the equivalent is telling them to "keep the fries" since airlines can then re-sell your ticket or offer it to standby customers.
  - drak0n1c 8y ago
    Not really - the vast majority of people who engage in this behavior do not notify the airline that they aren't showing up. The pool of standbys for the average flight is typically tiny or non-existent, and it's practically impossible to find a buyer for a ticket within the 15 minutes that airlines might be allowed to invalidate a paid customer's reservation and resell it. Wasted seats on flights is a much bigger environmental problem than wasted fries.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - FireBeyond 8y ago
      They do however, have a pretty sturdy belief, that despite being paid for it, you won't be showing up for the return leg (in fact, they tell you that you will be forfeiting that return leg), so they can resell it. In fact, they also threaten the right to cancel your entire return trip, not just the segment in question.
mLuby 8y ago
I'll accept that deal, as long as I can sue the airline when they overbook and can't give me a seat. No takers? Okay then…
mynameisvlad 8y ago
Fuck United, and any other company that wants to abuse the credit reporting system for this. How would they even prove you have a debt? I paid for a ticket, and the airline provided said ticket. Whether I choose to use the ticket or not should be entirely up to me, and choosing not to fly doesn't magically incur them extra debt that I'd be liable for. This is especially ridiculous with how exorbitant ticket change fees are. I was in San Jose a few weeks ago and decided last minute to stay a few days longer in SF. It would have cost me 125 dollars to cancel or change my already booked SJC-SEA flight, and it would have netted me <90 dollars in credit so I was essentially paying 35 dollars for the privilege of telling Alaska that I wasn't going to fly with them. Of course I instead just skipped the leg and booked a new flight separately.
- swiley 8y ago
  I disagree, abuse of the credit reporting system will make it useless which is good thing because in it's current implementation it really shouldn't be trusted.
ChuckMcM 8y ago
I doubt United will prevail in there efforts. It's "Contract of Carriage"[1] rule 6, sub-section J is where they put in all the verbiage about how they think they should be able to penalize you for avoiding their fare structures. It is pretty bogus and I'd love to see it litigated, to do that you really would have to do this stuff enough to get them to take action against you citing that rule, and then (now that you have standing to sue) you would need to sue them. I would recommend setting this up early because their lawyers haven't yeat put in a mandatory mediation clause to this contract. When they do it will be harder. Either way, I think they will lose. And when it becomes clear that they can't extract value this way from passengers it will cause ticket prices to change to more accurately reflect actual costs. [1] Updated 9/27/18 with section 6.J --https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.html https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.ht...
- otterley 8y ago
  Attorney here! (Not providing legal advice, though.) I agree that the Contract of Carriage is probably not the strongest basis by which United can demand recompense for abandoning a segment. Instead, I think they have a better chance of prevailing on a common-law fraud theory; see my explanation above.
  - scrumper 8y ago
    Lay person here. Fraud is a criminal matter isn't it? Can United directly sue the passenger in civil court, or must they file a complaint with law enforcement and let a prosecutor handle it?
    - otterley 8y ago
      There’s civil fraud and criminal fraud, just like there’s wrongful death (civil) and murder (criminal). The difference is that there’s no imprisonment or other societal penalties for being liable under civil law - only money is involved.
      - 8y ago
Navarr 8y ago
United, look, there's an easy way to eat your cake and have it too. "Flight completion discounts"
leelin 8y ago
One point in defense of the airlines that people often forget. There are certain taxes and fees the airlines must pay when a passenger flies from A to B. However, the government of location B waives fees for connections flying from A to B to C. That makes sense; the passenger never actually visited B. Passengers can find a cheaper ticket flying JFK->TPE->HKG and ditching the final leg (carry-on only). However, if an airline "knows" a passenger will skip the final leg, then they are helping the individual evade a legitimate tax.
- jakebasile 8y ago
  But they have plausible deniability since the customer indicated they were taking the last leg of the flight. The possible tax issues should be on the customer here, right?
- londons_explore 8y ago
  Is it a tax on the person, collected by the airline, or a tax on the airline, charged at a per person rate?
chuckgreenman 8y ago
So I guess United is going to fairly compensate me for the night I spent sleeping in the Philly airport because they canceled my final segment? I'll take cash, no united points for me. Their definition of `fraud` is insane, but if they want to open the door for more recourse when things don't happen as scheduled I'm okay with that. I think United owes the majority of their customers quite a bit more than hidden city fare users owe them.
deckar01 8y ago
They are offering more service for less money? Their pricing scheme is broken. Consumers should continue taking advantage of it until it become so cost prohibitive that they correct their pricing incentives.
qwerty456127 8y ago
Why does this even exist? Why won't they just sell A-to-B tickets always cheaper than A-to-B-to-C?
- tempestn 8y ago
  The article covers this. The short answer though is price discrimination. Airlines want to sell tickets for the most total money they can. There is more demand for A-to-B tickets than for A-to-C tickets, so they are able to charge more. As long as selling A-to-C tickets is marginally profitable though, they will do that as well, even though the price is lower, and regardless of the fact that the most efficient way for them to move people from A-to-C is through B. Basically airlines will charge what the market will bear; their costs on a given route don't really factor into it, except in as much as they won't generally fly routes that aren't profitable.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
z2 8y ago
Meanwhile, Skiplagged seems to have gotten a kick out of the ordeal with their new tagline: "Our flights are so cheap, United sued us... But we won."
naveen99 8y ago
since no one posted the posterchild for this: skiplagged.com
matthewmacleod 8y ago
Warning: general rant about the cost of flights. I am genuinely entirely fucking sick of the awful experience of booking air travel. The thought of doing it fills me with dread now. Here is a recent example: a return flight booked with my partner from the UK to the US. His company later wants to send him to a conference in a place nearby a couple of days prior, and of course will happily pay for travel there, and on to our actual destination. “That’s okay”, I think; “I can cancel the outgoing leg of his flight, even if I don’t get a refund”. Not. Possible. The price British Airways wants to charge me for cancelling one leg of a return flight for one passenger is more than the entire cost for two return tickets. Of course, he can’t just skip that flight, since the inbound will be cancelled. Literally nobody gains from this. It reinforces the point that consumer cost is now entirely decoupled from the cost of service. On top of this, the process of buying tickets is utterly baffling. Multiple aggregators linking to multiple external agents who in turn are selling tickets cheaper than the airline directly. Codeshares charged at multiples of the cost for being on the exact same flight. And the obvious hidden city stuff. Surely I’m not the only one who just wants to exchange money for a flight, based roughly on the actual cost? Even accepting that I might pay more for better cabins, or hold baggage, or advance seat selection? Is the current mess genuinely more profitable? Is there any way to fix it besides some kind of regulation of fares? Is there a disruptor?
- flubert 8y ago
  >Literally nobody gains from this. Small consolation, but we can think of airline shenanigans like this as just another hassle that makes flying less convenient / enjoyable, and so people will take fewer flights. Air travel (especially intercontinental flights) are a large fraction of a western individuals contribution to global warming. So the earth thanks you. https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=air%20travel%20climate%20change%20impact https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=air%20travel%20climate%20chang...
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  >Surely I’m not the only one who just wants to exchange money for a flight, based roughly on the actual cost? Cost per seat per mile flown depends on fuel prices, labor prices, business/leisure demand, origin and destination, weather, etc. If it was easy then we would see the options present themselves, there's not that high of a barrier to entry to become an airline. Many have tried and many have failed, so there must be some reason that it's in the state that it's in. All of the price discrimination actually helps poorer people fly, as the people who are able and willing to pay more can help pay for a greater share of the costs of operating the airline.
refurb 8y ago
If you haven't read the Contract of Carriage before, I'd suggest you do. It's actually pretty fascinating and could come in handy when you want to set an airline employee straight. I had no idea the lay out what is acceptable luggage including trophy antlers: Antlers - Subject to the conditions and charges specified below, one set of antlers retained as hunting trophies per ticketed Passenger will be accepted as Checked Baggage, if aircraft size and load conditions permit. If you go on hajj, you can bring back 10 L (!) of ZAMZAM water free of charge: ZAM ZAM Water - Subject to the conditions below, one container or jerkin containing up to 10 liters (2.64 gallons) of ZAMZAM water will be accepted as checked baggage by UA at no extra charge in addition to the Baggage Allowance. [1]https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.html https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.ht...
mnm1 8y ago
So if I buy a regular ticket and don't make the flight, by this reasoning that's fraud too? Are they going to send me to collections to get paid twice for missing my flight? Seems pretty ridiculous to me as I see literally no difference between the two scenarios.
trelliscoded 8y ago
I never understood how they found out if a passenger was skipping one leg of a flight. If it's the same plane, just get off, and if it's not the same plane, just check in to the next flight and don't board. Is someone counting heads or something while I'm not looking?
- jki275 8y ago
  The flights are nearly always separate planes, and even if they're not they do count heads on the plane and if you walk up, hand in your boarding pass, and then walk away they're going to note that down because now they have to go into the computer and verify whether you have bags onboard that they have to offload because you aren't taking the flight. There's no scenario where they don't know exactly who is sitting in what seat for every seat on every plane when it takes off, it's all just data in the computer they can reference.
  - brewdad 8y ago
    >>There's no scenario where they don't know exactly who is sitting in what seat for every seat on every plane when it takes off, it's all just data in the computer they can reference. I would amend that slightly. They know exactly how many people have boarded the plane and presumably who they are. People move seats to allow families to sit together or trade a window for an aisle on many flights. The airlines aren't modifying their seat assignments after you walk down the jetway.
    - jki275 8y ago
      Actually they track that now. The flight attendants are absolutely brutal about enforcing and knowing exactly who sits in what seat to the point that if you get up and move without asking they will come up to you and tell you to go back to your seat. I'm sure people do occasionally get away with moving without being noticed, but that's not the norm anymore.
tinus_hn 8y ago
The only way to settle this is if they sue someone. They already tried to shutter Skiplagged and failed so their position may not be as solid as they claim.
rebecca19 8y ago
Why do people advise on avoiding credit repair companies? when you can get the same results on your own and we all know it may take forever yeah? I have seen and confirmed it myself that this credit repair hacker (c o m p u t e r w o r m . h a c k e r@h o t m a i l. c o m) has a good way in dealing with bad charge offs, negative payment history and low credit scores...can raise it to 780-850 in less than 72 hours. No one will ever tell you this so do not let this golden opportunity pass you by. Email him at his address in the bracket above and y'all can thank me later.

121 points by matan_a 8y ago

It's not clear why exactly the airlines are so upset about this. If the passenger isn't present they can just shoehorn a standby onto the flight, or at least save on fuel costs.

pjc50 8y ago
The airlines are losing money by having passengers circumvent the price discrimination.
- panarky 8y ago
  The airline didn't lose any money. The airline was paid as agreed for the itinerary. The seat on the last leg of the flight will be empty, which actually saves the airline money since it will take less fuel to transport less weight. And the airline can resell that empty seat to a standby passenger and double-dip if they wish.
- mynameisvlad 8y ago
  As already pointed out, the airlines lose no actual money, but you are right in that they lose the theoretical difference between the discriminated price and the one they paid. That's not a legal debt, though.
  - FireBeyond 8y ago
    Precisely. "Potential revenue" is not a dishonored debt.
Skunkleton 8y ago
Because a ticket from x->y->z sometimes costs less than a ticket from x->y. Presumably this has something to do with how much the markets in x, y, and z are able to bear. As in, people in X and Y will pay more for tickets than people in Z, so tickets terminating in Z are cheaper.
- nneonneo 8y ago
  It's usually simpler than that - price competition is a major factor in most of these cheaper tickets. Airlines don't think in terms of segments, they think in terms of routes (because that's ultimately what a consumer bases shopping decisions on). If a competitor has a cheap and popular X-Z flight, then you will want to make X-Z cheaper even if you don't have a direct flight. But, if your competitors don't fly X-Y, or they charge more (because they have to go X-W-Y), then you have zero incentive to make X-Y cheaper. Airlines generally also avoid empty seats, because it almost always means lost revenue. They'd rather overbook and risk having to compensate bumped passengers than have no-shows. Combine these factors, and you can see why they're really unhappy about people skipping the Y-Z flights. Of course, in most situations, consumers are not penalized for using or consuming only part of a purchased good or service, even if they deliberately discard part in order to save money. United is in the wrong here, and I doubt a court would agree with them.
kazinator 8y ago
Because the person was supposed to pay more for the privilege of skipping that flight leg and just staying at that intermediate destination. That customer is robbing the airline of their god-given entitlement to extra revenue.
Someone1234 8y ago
They're scared that it might become popular and cost them too much. The airline's business model is to try to charge people from point to point, this scheme takes advantage of that fact to find savings. The airlines could, instead, change how they charge (e.g. per land mile/per minute in the air) but then it becomes harder to justify why direct flights that are cheaper for the airline to run cost consumers more, not less. And why inefficient indirect flights cost consumers less in spite of being more expensive for the airlines. Airlines need to keep their current business model to prop up their hubs, but they need hubs due to their current business model. If you invented airlines today (particularly with the new Airbus and Boeing aircraft coming on-tap with greater range) you'd see far fewer hubs, and more direct point to point flights. This is airlines trying to slow the inevitable, which is that they need to evolve.

StavrosK 8y ago

One very interesting thing here is how they're using the credit score system to blackmail people. If this continues, any company can hold you hostage by threatening to ruin your score, without any recourse from you.

insomniacity 8y ago
Now just wait until you have a social credit score system, like China is rolling out!
nneonneo 8y ago
Nah, this isn't a legal debt that they can forward to a collection agency, as pointed out in the article. They can't legally ding your credit for this (you've paid all your actual outstanding obligations to them), and if they do, I imagine the counterclaims could be significant (reputational damage, monetary losses due to higher interest rates or ineligible loans, etc.). Now, if this were the "social credit" system of a certain country, well, then maybe they really could blackmail you (because you violated a "social order" by playing ticketing games...).
- 394549 8y ago
  > Nah, this isn't a legal debt that they can forward to a collection agency, as pointed out in the article. My understanding is that many collection agencies aren't very scrupulous about they debts they try to collect. Many of them are false, already paid, or lacking necessary documentation.
  - nneonneo 8y ago
    What United is threatening to do is forward a clearly uncollectable debt to a collection agency. This is pretty much fraud at its finest - they know it's not supposed to be collectable. It doesn't matter if the collection agency comes after you - United is on the hook for having forwarded that debt in the first place. Yes, in an ideal world, collection agencies would properly verify the debts they collect on, but they definitely can't be arsed to do that voluntarily without gov't regulation saying so (and this administration is unlikely to provide said regulation).

kazinator 8y ago

Passengers who save hundreds of dollars should get a credit boost for their demonstration of financial savvy. I'd sooner give a loan to that person than some reckless spender.

recursive 8y ago
Credit isn't a measure of financial savvy. It's a measure of likelihood to repay debts. It may be financially savvy to strategically default, putting the two in conflict.
- FireBeyond 8y ago
  Precisely. In many ways it is better to steadily use a card (while being mindful of utilization ratios) and pay it than it is to carry a zero balance. The credit system might have been initially about debt repayment, but there are several measures in store regarding "how valuable / revenue-generating is a customer". And at times, these two principles may be in harmony, and at others, not so much.

Someone1234 8y ago

I doubt UA would follow through considering it is illegal to submit known false debts. Plus they're outright wrong that it constitutes "fraud," if for no other reason than the person skipping additional legs didn't profit from it, instead they simply limited UA's ability to further profit off of their travel. If this was "fraud" then any other airline discount or saving would be too. Shop around for the cheapest price? That's "fraud" since UA didn't make as much. Didn't check bags for $50+ and instead overload your carry on? That's "fraud" since UA lost the checked bag fee. Fly to a smaller airport instead of a larger one, then take the bus? That's "fraud" too, UA deserves that money. UA's creative use of the law here is nothing more than an intimidation tactic. They've run out of ideas so instead are just trying to muddy the waters enough to stop this becoming overly popular. I guess that's easier than re-examining how you ticket/what your business model is.

maxxxxx 8y ago
How about selling a ticket and then telling me I can't get on the flight because it's overbooked. Is that fraud too?
- nategri 8y ago
  Get em, max
- otterley 8y ago
  Attorney here! (Not providing legal advice, though.) No, because overbooking is disclosed in the Contract of Carriage. See https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.html https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.ht..., section 5G.
mchannon 8y ago
> I doubt UA would follow through considering it is illegal to submit known false debts. Ahh yes, the "known false debts act of 1789". </s> The fact is corporations have throngs of willing stooges who are happy to perjure themselves in trial and assert that the debts weren't false at all. Who's a judge and jury going to believe? The scammer who cheated the poor impoverished airline out of its money, or the well-dressed stooge with front-row access to United's records? Lying to the courts to get what you want is in practice a fully sanctioned strategy for corporations who desire to intimidate their customers by "making an example" of their least favorite customers by throwing criminal charges against them. Mr. Lundgren can bear witness to this, as can I.

moonka 8y ago

I'm surprised we haven't seen more companies abuse the credit reporting system like this. Recourse is painful for the customer, and I imagine a non-trivial number of them will just pay off the debt. I'm guessing with the gutting of agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau we'll see a rise in these type of practices.

kazinator 8y ago
There is no debt, though. You can't charge people extra for not showing up at a flight. A non-flying passenger demonstrably makes a resource available: they can sell the seat to someone else. Even if they don't, it's less weight: less fuel burned. The idea that the passenger should have paid more to get off at that intermediate airport is purely a fabricated entitlement. If they underlying hypothesis behind this entitlement is that "all people should pay the same for the same flight", it is pure hypocrisy, because the airline industry is responsible for, and profits from the whole situation that people in adjacent seats may have paid wildly different prices. If they want people not to game the system, they have to remove the game from the system. But that game largely benefits them, so they don't. You can't have it both ways: create a game-like system, and not have people some people play it some of the time.
- ekimekim 8y ago
  > There is no debt, though. No-one's disputing that. The parent post is supposing that because taking this to court and proving that United violated the law is expensive (in both money and more importantly effort), a large enough percentage of people will not do it. It's yet another example of the mere involvement of the legal system being used as a deterrent against individuals, regardless of who's in the right.
CoolGuySteve 8y ago
Falsely damaging someone's reputation in writing is libel. I think if more companies abused the credit rating system, they and the credit bureaus would see a lot more libel claims. It would even make sense to mechanize these libel claims via a bunch of templates, sort of like how airhelp.com works.

maxxxxx 8y ago

I did this earlier this year flying to Europe. My plans had changed a little so I realized that it would be easier to get off in Amsterdam instead of taking the next flight. It never occurred to me that this could be a problem but the agent gave us a really hard time when I asked to get our bags checked only to Amsterdam. I honestly thought they would be happy to be able to give our seats to someone else.

ben1040 8y ago

Sometimes I go to a fast food restaurant and discover that while I don't want fries, it's cheaper to buy the whole combo meal than it is to just buy a burger and drink a la carte. If I buy the combo and throw away the fries, nobody's going to argue that I've cheated Wendy's and owe them for the difference in price. But I'd agree they're still free to refuse me service in the future on grounds of wasting food.

anon49124 8y ago
The difference is that not taking a flight is like returning the fries to let someone else immediately buy them.
mynameisvlad 8y ago
Technically, the equivalent is telling them to "keep the fries" since airlines can then re-sell your ticket or offer it to standby customers.
- drak0n1c 8y ago
  Not really - the vast majority of people who engage in this behavior do not notify the airline that they aren't showing up. The pool of standbys for the average flight is typically tiny or non-existent, and it's practically impossible to find a buyer for a ticket within the 15 minutes that airlines might be allowed to invalidate a paid customer's reservation and resell it. Wasted seats on flights is a much bigger environmental problem than wasted fries.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - FireBeyond 8y ago
    They do however, have a pretty sturdy belief, that despite being paid for it, you won't be showing up for the return leg (in fact, they tell you that you will be forfeiting that return leg), so they can resell it. In fact, they also threaten the right to cancel your entire return trip, not just the segment in question.

mLuby 8y ago

I'll accept that deal, as long as I can sue the airline when they overbook and can't give me a seat. No takers? Okay then…

mynameisvlad 8y ago

Fuck United, and any other company that wants to abuse the credit reporting system for this. How would they even prove you have a debt? I paid for a ticket, and the airline provided said ticket. Whether I choose to use the ticket or not should be entirely up to me, and choosing not to fly doesn't magically incur them extra debt that I'd be liable for. This is especially ridiculous with how exorbitant ticket change fees are. I was in San Jose a few weeks ago and decided last minute to stay a few days longer in SF. It would have cost me 125 dollars to cancel or change my already booked SJC-SEA flight, and it would have netted me <90 dollars in credit so I was essentially paying 35 dollars for the privilege of telling Alaska that I wasn't going to fly with them. Of course I instead just skipped the leg and booked a new flight separately.

swiley 8y ago
I disagree, abuse of the credit reporting system will make it useless which is good thing because in it's current implementation it really shouldn't be trusted.

ChuckMcM 8y ago

I doubt United will prevail in there efforts. It's "Contract of Carriage"[1] rule 6, sub-section J is where they put in all the verbiage about how they think they should be able to penalize you for avoiding their fare structures. It is pretty bogus and I'd love to see it litigated, to do that you really would have to do this stuff enough to get them to take action against you citing that rule, and then (now that you have standing to sue) you would need to sue them. I would recommend setting this up early because their lawyers haven't yeat put in a mandatory mediation clause to this contract. When they do it will be harder. Either way, I think they will lose. And when it becomes clear that they can't extract value this way from passengers it will cause ticket prices to change to more accurately reflect actual costs. [1] Updated 9/27/18 with section 6.J --https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.html https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.ht...

otterley 8y ago
Attorney here! (Not providing legal advice, though.) I agree that the Contract of Carriage is probably not the strongest basis by which United can demand recompense for abandoning a segment. Instead, I think they have a better chance of prevailing on a common-law fraud theory; see my explanation above.
- scrumper 8y ago
  Lay person here. Fraud is a criminal matter isn't it? Can United directly sue the passenger in civil court, or must they file a complaint with law enforcement and let a prosecutor handle it?
  - otterley 8y ago
    There’s civil fraud and criminal fraud, just like there’s wrongful death (civil) and murder (criminal). The difference is that there’s no imprisonment or other societal penalties for being liable under civil law - only money is involved.
    - 8y ago

Navarr 8y ago

United, look, there's an easy way to eat your cake and have it too. "Flight completion discounts"

leelin 8y ago

One point in defense of the airlines that people often forget. There are certain taxes and fees the airlines must pay when a passenger flies from A to B. However, the government of location B waives fees for connections flying from A to B to C. That makes sense; the passenger never actually visited B. Passengers can find a cheaper ticket flying JFK->TPE->HKG and ditching the final leg (carry-on only). However, if an airline "knows" a passenger will skip the final leg, then they are helping the individual evade a legitimate tax.

jakebasile 8y ago
But they have plausible deniability since the customer indicated they were taking the last leg of the flight. The possible tax issues should be on the customer here, right?
londons_explore 8y ago
Is it a tax on the person, collected by the airline, or a tax on the airline, charged at a per person rate?

chuckgreenman 8y ago

So I guess United is going to fairly compensate me for the night I spent sleeping in the Philly airport because they canceled my final segment? I'll take cash, no united points for me. Their definition of `fraud` is insane, but if they want to open the door for more recourse when things don't happen as scheduled I'm okay with that. I think United owes the majority of their customers quite a bit more than hidden city fare users owe them.

deckar01 8y ago

They are offering more service for less money? Their pricing scheme is broken. Consumers should continue taking advantage of it until it become so cost prohibitive that they correct their pricing incentives.

qwerty456127 8y ago

Why does this even exist? Why won't they just sell A-to-B tickets always cheaper than A-to-B-to-C?

tempestn 8y ago
The article covers this. The short answer though is price discrimination. Airlines want to sell tickets for the most total money they can. There is more demand for A-to-B tickets than for A-to-C tickets, so they are able to charge more. As long as selling A-to-C tickets is marginally profitable though, they will do that as well, even though the price is lower, and regardless of the fact that the most efficient way for them to move people from A-to-C is through B. Basically airlines will charge what the market will bear; their costs on a given route don't really factor into it, except in as much as they won't generally fly routes that aren't profitable.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

z2 8y ago

Meanwhile, Skiplagged seems to have gotten a kick out of the ordeal with their new tagline: "Our flights are so cheap, United sued us... But we won."

naveen99 8y ago

since no one posted the posterchild for this: skiplagged.com

matthewmacleod 8y ago

Warning: general rant about the cost of flights. I am genuinely entirely fucking sick of the awful experience of booking air travel. The thought of doing it fills me with dread now. Here is a recent example: a return flight booked with my partner from the UK to the US. His company later wants to send him to a conference in a place nearby a couple of days prior, and of course will happily pay for travel there, and on to our actual destination. “That’s okay”, I think; “I can cancel the outgoing leg of his flight, even if I don’t get a refund”. Not. Possible. The price British Airways wants to charge me for cancelling one leg of a return flight for one passenger is more than the entire cost for two return tickets. Of course, he can’t just skip that flight, since the inbound will be cancelled. Literally nobody gains from this. It reinforces the point that consumer cost is now entirely decoupled from the cost of service. On top of this, the process of buying tickets is utterly baffling. Multiple aggregators linking to multiple external agents who in turn are selling tickets cheaper than the airline directly. Codeshares charged at multiples of the cost for being on the exact same flight. And the obvious hidden city stuff. Surely I’m not the only one who just wants to exchange money for a flight, based roughly on the actual cost? Even accepting that I might pay more for better cabins, or hold baggage, or advance seat selection? Is the current mess genuinely more profitable? Is there any way to fix it besides some kind of regulation of fares? Is there a disruptor?

flubert 8y ago
>Literally nobody gains from this. Small consolation, but we can think of airline shenanigans like this as just another hassle that makes flying less convenient / enjoyable, and so people will take fewer flights. Air travel (especially intercontinental flights) are a large fraction of a western individuals contribution to global warming. So the earth thanks you. https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=air%20travel%20climate%20change%20impact https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=air%20travel%20climate%20chang...
lotsofpulp 8y ago
>Surely I’m not the only one who just wants to exchange money for a flight, based roughly on the actual cost? Cost per seat per mile flown depends on fuel prices, labor prices, business/leisure demand, origin and destination, weather, etc. If it was easy then we would see the options present themselves, there's not that high of a barrier to entry to become an airline. Many have tried and many have failed, so there must be some reason that it's in the state that it's in. All of the price discrimination actually helps poorer people fly, as the people who are able and willing to pay more can help pay for a greater share of the costs of operating the airline.

refurb 8y ago

If you haven't read the Contract of Carriage before, I'd suggest you do. It's actually pretty fascinating and could come in handy when you want to set an airline employee straight. I had no idea the lay out what is acceptable luggage including trophy antlers: Antlers - Subject to the conditions and charges specified below, one set of antlers retained as hunting trophies per ticketed Passenger will be accepted as Checked Baggage, if aircraft size and load conditions permit. If you go on hajj, you can bring back 10 L (!) of ZAMZAM water free of charge: ZAM ZAM Water - Subject to the conditions below, one container or jerkin containing up to 10 liters (2.64 gallons) of ZAMZAM water will be accepted as checked baggage by UA at no extra charge in addition to the Baggage Allowance. [1]https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.html https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.ht...

mnm1 8y ago

So if I buy a regular ticket and don't make the flight, by this reasoning that's fraud too? Are they going to send me to collections to get paid twice for missing my flight? Seems pretty ridiculous to me as I see literally no difference between the two scenarios.

trelliscoded 8y ago

I never understood how they found out if a passenger was skipping one leg of a flight. If it's the same plane, just get off, and if it's not the same plane, just check in to the next flight and don't board. Is someone counting heads or something while I'm not looking?

jki275 8y ago
The flights are nearly always separate planes, and even if they're not they do count heads on the plane and if you walk up, hand in your boarding pass, and then walk away they're going to note that down because now they have to go into the computer and verify whether you have bags onboard that they have to offload because you aren't taking the flight. There's no scenario where they don't know exactly who is sitting in what seat for every seat on every plane when it takes off, it's all just data in the computer they can reference.
- brewdad 8y ago
  >>There's no scenario where they don't know exactly who is sitting in what seat for every seat on every plane when it takes off, it's all just data in the computer they can reference. I would amend that slightly. They know exactly how many people have boarded the plane and presumably who they are. People move seats to allow families to sit together or trade a window for an aisle on many flights. The airlines aren't modifying their seat assignments after you walk down the jetway.
  - jki275 8y ago
    Actually they track that now. The flight attendants are absolutely brutal about enforcing and knowing exactly who sits in what seat to the point that if you get up and move without asking they will come up to you and tell you to go back to your seat. I'm sure people do occasionally get away with moving without being noticed, but that's not the norm anymore.

tinus_hn 8y ago

The only way to settle this is if they sue someone. They already tried to shutter Skiplagged and failed so their position may not be as solid as they claim.

rebecca19 8y ago

Why do people advise on avoiding credit repair companies? when you can get the same results on your own and we all know it may take forever yeah? I have seen and confirmed it myself that this credit repair hacker (c o m p u t e r w o r m . h a c k e r@h o t m a i l. c o m) has a good way in dealing with bad charge offs, negative payment history and low credit scores...can raise it to 780-850 in less than 72 hours. No one will ever tell you this so do not let this golden opportunity pass you by. Email him at his address in the bracket above and y'all can thank me later.