4 ms·

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 inte

• 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.