4 ms·

It's not fraud. I get what you're saying with the operational concern trying to locate an unaccompanied minor who was supposed to be at the gate and is now 'mis

It's not fraud. I get what you're saying with the operational concern trying to locate an unaccompanied minor who was supposed to be at the gate and is now 'missing'. But he paid the price the airline posted for the ticket. Who got defrauded?

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
The passenger asserts at booking that "I will be at the boarding gate before the plane leaves because I intend to occupy seat X on your aircraft" but that's a lie, because they have no such intention to board the aircraft. That's the fraud, and that's why it's low-grade, because people miss flights accidentally for numerous reasons, this is just a deliberate missing of a flight, and taking away resources from someone else who should have them. Although overbooking, bumping, and standby are all policies in place to deal with the inevitable missed flights, whatever their reason.
- circuit10 3y ago
  Booking a flight and then not getting on it isn’t fraud. By this logic buying a sandwich and then not eating it should be fraud because you implied that you intended to eat it then didn’t
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
    If I buy the last sandwich, then I've deprived someone else of that sandwich by purchasing it. In case you haven't noticed, seats on an aircraft are a limited resource. You make a "reservation" to declare that you intend to occupy that seat, and the corollary is that nobody else will be able to occupy it. If enough fraudsters reserve seats without using them, the airline has another problem. Say they loaded the galley with 100 peanut packets because 100 passengers promised to board, but now there's only 20 on the flight, what are we gonna do with all these peanuts? As I mentioned, airlines have plenty of policies to deal with reserved but unused seats, but you've still intentionally taken away a finite resource because you wanted to save a couple bucks.
    - blibble 3y ago
      > As I mentioned, airlines have plenty of policies to deal with reserved but unused seats the ticket on the second leg had been paid for > but you've still intentionally taken away a finite resource because you wanted to save a couple bucks. it's really going to blow your mind when you realise airlines do the reverse all the time they call it "overbooking" knowingly selling the same seat twice? sounds like "low level fraud" by your definition
    - circuit10 3y ago
      > If I buy the last sandwich, then I've deprived someone else of that sandwich by purchasing it. It’s not considered fraud though
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
        It's not fraud but how many people are going to laud the virtue of purchasing a sandwich to throw it away?
        circuit10 3y ago
        It’s not good but I feel like it should be blamed on the airline’s pricing structure
  - gruez 3y ago
    The key difference is that the sandwich didn't come with a terms of carriage, and a ticket does.
- e93849 3y ago
  It might be wasteful, but wasting resources to save money isn’t fraud.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- d0gbread 3y ago
  You should see how much fraud I commit with my gym membership.
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
    So many people have unused gym memberships that the gym can afford to purchase 3 new treadmills every year. Seems like a fair tradeoff. But you've strawmanned this. Do you go to the gym, put your towel down on the leg press machine, and then go to the juice bar for a drink? Because that's what we're discussing here: taking away a finite resource so that others can't use it. People with unused gym memberships who don't show up haven't promised anything. They didn't make an appointment with a personal trainer, they don't have machines reserved, there's no implicit contract to exchange limited resources for a membership fee. Your membership fee gives you access to these resources, not a guarantee of their usage. If you go to the gym and every treadmill is in use, then you don't get a treadmill for now. You just wait for a treadmill.
    - rpearl 3y ago
      evidently the airline priced that resource at a negative value. (Florida to Charlotte $X, Florida to Charlotte to NY $X-$Y.) so apparently that resource was worse than useless.
      - gruez 3y ago
        It's only negative if you think airline's pricing model is something simple like "distance traveled * cost per mile", which isn't the model that airlines with advanced revenue management systems use.
        rpearl 3y ago
        From a black box perspective it's easy to conclude that it's negative.
- mthoms 3y ago
  The airline asserts at booking that they will "grant me exclusive access to seat X on a specific flight from A to B" but that's a lie, because they have no intention to honour the contract if they are overbooked (or if they don't sell enough tickets and the flight is cancelled). When the consumer does something to save money you call it "fraud". When the airline does it, it's okay because "policies"? Putting aside the asinine "contract" for a second, how is one morally correct, while the other isn't?
  - gruez 3y ago
    > The airline asserts at booking that they will "grant me exclusive access to seat X on a specific flight from A to B" but that's a lie, because they have no intention to honour the contract if they are overbooked (or if they don't sell enough tickets and the flight is cancelled). This is a moot point because they never promised exclusive access in the first place. >Putting aside the asinine "contract" for a second, how is one morally correct, while the other isn't? This just moves the goalposts to an area where anything goes. You could argue that skiplagging is morally correct, because your morals are "corporations are scum, consumers are always in the right", or take a hardcore deontological view that any sort of lying/misrepresentation is morally wrong.
    - mthoms 3y ago
      >This is a moot point because they never promised exclusive access in the first place. That's the implied deal when they sell you the ticket. It's the public perception. Only in the fine print does it says otherwise. Hence, that's why people are so outraged when it happens to them. I'd also argue that the corporation's contract with the consumer is not fair because there is a gross imbalance of power. Airlines (as a group) can put almost anything they want and the consumer has no recourse (except meek consumer protection laws). Anyways, I just found it interesting that you jumped at the opportunity to vociferously call what the consumer did "fraud" but what the airlines do (ie double booking) as normal business. While it's correct in a legal sense, I don't think that's a very interesting discussion. The contract is the contract, sure. But the big picture deserves examination also. >This just moves the goalposts to an area where anything goes. No, we were discussing a very specific situation. Don't do that.

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago

The passenger asserts at booking that "I will be at the boarding gate before the plane leaves because I intend to occupy seat X on your aircraft" but that's a lie, because they have no such intention to board the aircraft. That's the fraud, and that's why it's low-grade, because people miss flights accidentally for numerous reasons, this is just a deliberate missing of a flight, and taking away resources from someone else who should have them. Although overbooking, bumping, and standby are all policies in place to deal with the inevitable missed flights, whatever their reason.

circuit10 3y ago
Booking a flight and then not getting on it isn’t fraud. By this logic buying a sandwich and then not eating it should be fraud because you implied that you intended to eat it then didn’t
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  If I buy the last sandwich, then I've deprived someone else of that sandwich by purchasing it. In case you haven't noticed, seats on an aircraft are a limited resource. You make a "reservation" to declare that you intend to occupy that seat, and the corollary is that nobody else will be able to occupy it. If enough fraudsters reserve seats without using them, the airline has another problem. Say they loaded the galley with 100 peanut packets because 100 passengers promised to board, but now there's only 20 on the flight, what are we gonna do with all these peanuts? As I mentioned, airlines have plenty of policies to deal with reserved but unused seats, but you've still intentionally taken away a finite resource because you wanted to save a couple bucks.
  - blibble 3y ago
    > As I mentioned, airlines have plenty of policies to deal with reserved but unused seats the ticket on the second leg had been paid for > but you've still intentionally taken away a finite resource because you wanted to save a couple bucks. it's really going to blow your mind when you realise airlines do the reverse all the time they call it "overbooking" knowingly selling the same seat twice? sounds like "low level fraud" by your definition
  - circuit10 3y ago
    > If I buy the last sandwich, then I've deprived someone else of that sandwich by purchasing it. It’s not considered fraud though
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
      It's not fraud but how many people are going to laud the virtue of purchasing a sandwich to throw it away?
      - circuit10 3y ago
        It’s not good but I feel like it should be blamed on the airline’s pricing structure
- gruez 3y ago
  The key difference is that the sandwich didn't come with a terms of carriage, and a ticket does.
e93849 3y ago
It might be wasteful, but wasting resources to save money isn’t fraud.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
d0gbread 3y ago
You should see how much fraud I commit with my gym membership.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  So many people have unused gym memberships that the gym can afford to purchase 3 new treadmills every year. Seems like a fair tradeoff. But you've strawmanned this. Do you go to the gym, put your towel down on the leg press machine, and then go to the juice bar for a drink? Because that's what we're discussing here: taking away a finite resource so that others can't use it. People with unused gym memberships who don't show up haven't promised anything. They didn't make an appointment with a personal trainer, they don't have machines reserved, there's no implicit contract to exchange limited resources for a membership fee. Your membership fee gives you access to these resources, not a guarantee of their usage. If you go to the gym and every treadmill is in use, then you don't get a treadmill for now. You just wait for a treadmill.
  - rpearl 3y ago
    evidently the airline priced that resource at a negative value. (Florida to Charlotte $X, Florida to Charlotte to NY $X-$Y.) so apparently that resource was worse than useless.
    - gruez 3y ago
      It's only negative if you think airline's pricing model is something simple like "distance traveled * cost per mile", which isn't the model that airlines with advanced revenue management systems use.
      - rpearl 3y ago
        From a black box perspective it's easy to conclude that it's negative.
mthoms 3y ago
The airline asserts at booking that they will "grant me exclusive access to seat X on a specific flight from A to B" but that's a lie, because they have no intention to honour the contract if they are overbooked (or if they don't sell enough tickets and the flight is cancelled). When the consumer does something to save money you call it "fraud". When the airline does it, it's okay because "policies"? Putting aside the asinine "contract" for a second, how is one morally correct, while the other isn't?
- gruez 3y ago
  > The airline asserts at booking that they will "grant me exclusive access to seat X on a specific flight from A to B" but that's a lie, because they have no intention to honour the contract if they are overbooked (or if they don't sell enough tickets and the flight is cancelled). This is a moot point because they never promised exclusive access in the first place. >Putting aside the asinine "contract" for a second, how is one morally correct, while the other isn't? This just moves the goalposts to an area where anything goes. You could argue that skiplagging is morally correct, because your morals are "corporations are scum, consumers are always in the right", or take a hardcore deontological view that any sort of lying/misrepresentation is morally wrong.
  - mthoms 3y ago
    >This is a moot point because they never promised exclusive access in the first place. That's the implied deal when they sell you the ticket. It's the public perception. Only in the fine print does it says otherwise. Hence, that's why people are so outraged when it happens to them. I'd also argue that the corporation's contract with the consumer is not fair because there is a gross imbalance of power. Airlines (as a group) can put almost anything they want and the consumer has no recourse (except meek consumer protection laws). Anyways, I just found it interesting that you jumped at the opportunity to vociferously call what the consumer did "fraud" but what the airlines do (ie double booking) as normal business. While it's correct in a legal sense, I don't think that's a very interesting discussion. The contract is the contract, sure. But the big picture deserves examination also. >This just moves the goalposts to an area where anything goes. No, we were discussing a very specific situation. Don't do that.