12 ms·

This sounds absurd. This is the best analogy i've come up with: A Sandwich shop sells half sandwiches at 5$ and full sandwiches at 6$ You, and a friend would

This sounds absurd. This is the best analogy i've come up with: A Sandwich shop sells half sandwiches at 5$ and full sandwiches at 6$ You, and a friend would both like half a sandwich. Instead of ordering two separate halves. You order only 1 full sandwich and cut it in half yourself. Now the sandwich shop is suing you because you paid $6 for one sandwich, and only ate half of it. That's instead of paying 10$ for two half-sandwiches like the shop would like. ---------- I think if they don't want people to buy a product, then they shouldn't sell it. Either lower the price of A -> B tickets, or make sure that tickets from A -> B -> C cost no less than A -> B OR they could ignore this altogether and continue to sell A-B tickets at a premium realizing that people will only buy them for convenience.

justinsb 12y ago
The problem with the analogy (as I see it) is that A->B->C may be 'worse than' than A->B (because place C may be undesirable), whereas that isn't true for halves of a sandwich (because it is ok to not eat the second half of a sandwich). Oh, and the airlines sell you the full sandwich for $3, but the half sandwich for $5. It doesn't make a lot of sense, but it's the airlines right to set their prices and try to defend them; they may succeed or they may not. I doubt this particular lawsuit will be the test case that breaks them.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  Oh it's certainly their right to set the prices, but I wouldn't automatically say it's their right to dictate which tickets you use post-purchase.
  - jamesaguilar 12y ago
    I wonder. Do you sign any agreement that prohibits hidden city routing when you buy the ticket? If so, on an ethical level, it's not the same as the sandwich buying scenario, where you are not signing any additional agreement. I wonder what I would do if I were the airline. Obviously the simplest thing would be to suspend the return ticket, but I suppose that the return ticket would typically be booked on a different airline. Another option would be to collaborate with other airlines to suspend return tickets, but I suppose that would be collusion and wouldn't fly with regulators. You could also try a prisoner's dilemma-y thing where future sales to a customer that has hidden city-routed in the past are marked up to fix the difference. If all airlines did this then only infrequent flyers would be able to hidden-city route. But if any airline refuses to participate, it might be tough for the business of the airlines that engaged in this practice. Tough situation for the airlines. Not that I have too much sympathy, but I do take it into perspective that travelling is historically extremely cheap. It's a great time to be a flyer.
    - sjwright 12y ago
      Do you sign any agreement that prohibits only eating one half of a sandwich? Would any such agreement be reasonable if buried in a dense online ordering click-wrap?
      - jamesaguilar 12y ago
        Reasonable . . . hrm. Hard to say. The surface area of duties and rights associated with an airline ticket in particular and airline travel in general are so vast that some level of clickwrap is unavoidable, not to mention the various laws that cover the industry. Comparatively, the duties and rights regarding a physical good like a sandwich are fairly simple -- it behaves like most simple physical goods. You buy it, then you can do what you want with it. Airline tickets are unlike this in a variety of ways. Hidden city routing being prohibited would not, I feel, be qualitatively different than many of these other restrictions.
        sjwright 12y ago
        I buy a sandwich; I can eat all of it or some of it. I buy airplane seats; I can sit in both seats or just one. If they don't like which seats I chose to sit in or not, they shouldn't have sold the ticket to me in the first place.
        jowiar 12y ago
        They're not really "selling you tickets" on specific flights. They're selling you the service of hauling you from from your starting point to your destination - possibly on the route planned, or possibly on other routes. This includes such things as sending you on another airline, or on a train, or putting you up in a hotel room. I think the airlines would be willing to ignore a handful of people skipping out on a leg here or there. Pricing is obviously a major issue, but I think even moreso than that, if this were to become a common/well accepted way of buying tickets, there are serious issues in case of cancellations/delays/missed connections that, while fine in the hands of those who know they're subjecting themselves to the risk of being stranded, would lead to a bunch of "I bought a ticket to Chicago and United is going to leave me in Nantucket unless I buy a second ticket" news stories in case of a snowstorm.
jowiar 12y ago
The problem is that travel is a bit more complicated than sandwiches -- flight prices end up being set more by competition rather than cost of production. Let's say, per your model, you offering flights from SFO to PDX for $200, LAX to SFO for $100, and sell the LAX->PDX route for $250 (with a stopover in SFO). I decide to start an airline which doesn't fly to SFO, but offers direct flights from LAX->PDX for $190. You don't want to lose the business of people flying from LAX->PDX, but also don't want to alter your routes. Any thoughts?
- colordrops 12y ago
  You are right that air travel is more complicated than sandwiches, but does it matter? What law or contract has skiplagged broken? Bad business models are not fundamental rights.
  - jowiar 12y ago
    When you buy a ticket, you're entering into a contract with the airline. See pg. 11 here for the relevant bits: http://www.united.com/web/format/pdf/Contract_of_Carriage.pdf http://www.united.com/web/format/pdf/Contract_of_Carriage.pd...
    - colordrops 12y ago
      Once again, what law or contract has skiplagged broken? They do not purchase tickets, and they do not enter contracts with airlines.
      - jowiar 12y ago
        IANAL, but I would imagine that they're in a similar situation to ThePirateBay -- "We aren't doing anything wrong - we're just giving information to other people how they can". I'm curious how the case is going to shake out.
        colordrops 12y ago
kaonashi 12y ago
This should also be a healthy reminder that prices do not signal subjective value.
ChuckMcM 12y ago
In case you missed it, restaurants already do this (well not the suing part) but many will charge extra if you order an entree (main dish) and ask for an extra plate to share it.
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  Only as a condition of eating in restaurant. If you get the food to go, then you're all set.
sjwright 12y ago
Let me improve that analogy. Subway update their pricing such that a footlong sells for $5 and a six inch sub costs $7. Looking at those prices, you purchase a footlong sandwich. Should Subway be allowed to demand $2 from you if they see you discarding half of the sandwich?
- chrismcb 12y ago
  It is even worse, a better sandwich analogy is you buy a huge sandwich. You will eat half now and half later (you return flight) but you don't like the crust. The shop sells a crust free sandwich, but they charge more. So you buy the crust one, remove the crust and eat half. The shop owner sees you throw the crust away, he charges you with fraud AND takes the other uneaten half back.
  - sjwright 12y ago
    I've read your better analogy three times and still don't understand it. Is the crust the extraneous leg of the flight?
    - xtrumanx 12y ago
      Off-topic: I feel like these analogy threads are HN users way of getting around the no-fun policy of commenting on HN. Someone writes a comment using an analogy and almost always there are people de-constructing the analogy and then creating their own "improved" version that take more facts into account making it harder to understand the situation which is the exact opposite effect an analogy should have.
- Zikes 12y ago
  Another improvement: you purchase the footlong and discard half. Subway sues your doctor for telling you not to eat as much.
Hilton1 12y ago
Brilliant analogy! You right it is absurd and the problem solely lies on the airlines behalf.
bweitzman 12y ago
The airlines aren't suing passengers though, they are suing Skiplagged. Whether or not you agree with the way that airlines charge for tickets, the ticket is a contract between the passenger and the airline and breaking that contract has consequences. For the passenger, the contracts say that you are expected to use all legs of the tickets and if you do not then the rest of legs of the flights are voided. For the airlines, if they are unable to provide the flight they owe the passenger compensation. There are no legal repercussions for the passenger not using all legs of the flights, but Skiplagged is clearly committing conspiracy to defraud and I would wager a fair sum of money that they will lose this case. The issue with the Sandwich analogy is that there is no contract.
- ElComradio 12y ago
  How can: > the contracts say that you are expected to use all legs of the tickets and > There are no legal repercussions for the passenger not using all legs of the flights both be true? In other words, I as the customer have no obligation to use all legs of the flight. I did not promise the airline I would fly all the way to my destination (as far as I know); I do not promise that I even get on the flight at all. How can there be a conspiracy to defraud?
  - pdabbadabba 12y ago
    The latter is not true. Airlines' contracts of carriage prohibit "Point Beyond Ticketing." Here is what (e.g.) United's contract of carriage says: > Fares apply for travel only between the points for which they are published. Tickets may not be purchased and used at fare(s) from an initial departure point on the Ticket which is before the Passenger’s actual point of origin of travel, or to a more distant point(s) than the Passenger’s actual destination being traveled even when the purchase and use of such Tickets would produce a lower fare. This practice is known as “Hidden Cities Ticketing” or “Point Beyond Ticketing” and is prohibited by UA. And violation of this provision can, in fact, have repercussions: > UA’s Remedies for Violation(s) of Rules - Where a Ticket is purchased and used in violation of the law, these rules or any fare rule (including Hidden Cities Ticketing, Point Beyond Ticketing, Throwaway Ticketing, or Back-to-Back Ticketing), UA has the right in its sole discretion to take all actions permitted by law, including but not limited to, the following: > 1) Invalidate the Ticket(s); > 2) Cancel any remaining portion of the Passenger’s itinerary; > 3) Confiscate any unused Flight Coupons; > 4) Refuse to board the Passenger and to carry the Passenger’s baggage, unless the difference between the fare paid and the fare for transportation used is collected prior to boarding; > 5) Assess the Passenger for the actual value of the Ticket which shall be the difference between the lowest fare applicable to the Passenger’s actual itinerary and the fare actually paid; > 6) Delete miles in the Passenger’s frequent flyer account (UA’s MileagePlus Program), revoke the Passenger’s Elite status, if any, in the MileagePlus Program, terminate the Passenger’s participation in the MileagePlus Program, or take any other action permitted by the MileagePlus Program Rules in UA’s “MileagePlus Rules;” and > 7) Take legal action with respect to the Passenger.

justinsb 12y ago

The problem with the analogy (as I see it) is that A->B->C may be 'worse than' than A->B (because place C may be undesirable), whereas that isn't true for halves of a sandwich (because it is ok to not eat the second half of a sandwich). Oh, and the airlines sell you the full sandwich for $3, but the half sandwich for $5. It doesn't make a lot of sense, but it's the airlines right to set their prices and try to defend them; they may succeed or they may not. I doubt this particular lawsuit will be the test case that breaks them.

Dylan16807 12y ago
Oh it's certainly their right to set the prices, but I wouldn't automatically say it's their right to dictate which tickets you use post-purchase.
- jamesaguilar 12y ago
  I wonder. Do you sign any agreement that prohibits hidden city routing when you buy the ticket? If so, on an ethical level, it's not the same as the sandwich buying scenario, where you are not signing any additional agreement. I wonder what I would do if I were the airline. Obviously the simplest thing would be to suspend the return ticket, but I suppose that the return ticket would typically be booked on a different airline. Another option would be to collaborate with other airlines to suspend return tickets, but I suppose that would be collusion and wouldn't fly with regulators. You could also try a prisoner's dilemma-y thing where future sales to a customer that has hidden city-routed in the past are marked up to fix the difference. If all airlines did this then only infrequent flyers would be able to hidden-city route. But if any airline refuses to participate, it might be tough for the business of the airlines that engaged in this practice. Tough situation for the airlines. Not that I have too much sympathy, but I do take it into perspective that travelling is historically extremely cheap. It's a great time to be a flyer.
  - sjwright 12y ago
    Do you sign any agreement that prohibits only eating one half of a sandwich? Would any such agreement be reasonable if buried in a dense online ordering click-wrap?
    - jamesaguilar 12y ago
      Reasonable . . . hrm. Hard to say. The surface area of duties and rights associated with an airline ticket in particular and airline travel in general are so vast that some level of clickwrap is unavoidable, not to mention the various laws that cover the industry. Comparatively, the duties and rights regarding a physical good like a sandwich are fairly simple -- it behaves like most simple physical goods. You buy it, then you can do what you want with it. Airline tickets are unlike this in a variety of ways. Hidden city routing being prohibited would not, I feel, be qualitatively different than many of these other restrictions.
      - sjwright 12y ago
        I buy a sandwich; I can eat all of it or some of it. I buy airplane seats; I can sit in both seats or just one. If they don't like which seats I chose to sit in or not, they shouldn't have sold the ticket to me in the first place.
        jowiar 12y ago
        They're not really "selling you tickets" on specific flights. They're selling you the service of hauling you from from your starting point to your destination - possibly on the route planned, or possibly on other routes. This includes such things as sending you on another airline, or on a train, or putting you up in a hotel room. I think the airlines would be willing to ignore a handful of people skipping out on a leg here or there. Pricing is obviously a major issue, but I think even moreso than that, if this were to become a common/well accepted way of buying tickets, there are serious issues in case of cancellations/delays/missed connections that, while fine in the hands of those who know they're subjecting themselves to the risk of being stranded, would lead to a bunch of "I bought a ticket to Chicago and United is going to leave me in Nantucket unless I buy a second ticket" news stories in case of a snowstorm.

jowiar 12y ago

The problem is that travel is a bit more complicated than sandwiches -- flight prices end up being set more by competition rather than cost of production. Let's say, per your model, you offering flights from SFO to PDX for $200, LAX to SFO for $100, and sell the LAX->PDX route for $250 (with a stopover in SFO). I decide to start an airline which doesn't fly to SFO, but offers direct flights from LAX->PDX for $190. You don't want to lose the business of people flying from LAX->PDX, but also don't want to alter your routes. Any thoughts?

colordrops 12y ago
You are right that air travel is more complicated than sandwiches, but does it matter? What law or contract has skiplagged broken? Bad business models are not fundamental rights.
- jowiar 12y ago
  When you buy a ticket, you're entering into a contract with the airline. See pg. 11 here for the relevant bits: http://www.united.com/web/format/pdf/Contract_of_Carriage.pdf http://www.united.com/web/format/pdf/Contract_of_Carriage.pd...
  - colordrops 12y ago
    Once again, what law or contract has skiplagged broken? They do not purchase tickets, and they do not enter contracts with airlines.
    - jowiar 12y ago
      IANAL, but I would imagine that they're in a similar situation to ThePirateBay -- "We aren't doing anything wrong - we're just giving information to other people how they can". I'm curious how the case is going to shake out.
      - colordrops 12y ago

kaonashi 12y ago

This should also be a healthy reminder that prices do not signal subjective value.

ChuckMcM 12y ago

In case you missed it, restaurants already do this (well not the suing part) but many will charge extra if you order an entree (main dish) and ask for an extra plate to share it.

MichaelGG 12y ago
Only as a condition of eating in restaurant. If you get the food to go, then you're all set.

sjwright 12y ago

Let me improve that analogy. Subway update their pricing such that a footlong sells for $5 and a six inch sub costs $7. Looking at those prices, you purchase a footlong sandwich. Should Subway be allowed to demand $2 from you if they see you discarding half of the sandwich?

chrismcb 12y ago
It is even worse, a better sandwich analogy is you buy a huge sandwich. You will eat half now and half later (you return flight) but you don't like the crust. The shop sells a crust free sandwich, but they charge more. So you buy the crust one, remove the crust and eat half. The shop owner sees you throw the crust away, he charges you with fraud AND takes the other uneaten half back.
- sjwright 12y ago
  I've read your better analogy three times and still don't understand it. Is the crust the extraneous leg of the flight?
  - xtrumanx 12y ago
    Off-topic: I feel like these analogy threads are HN users way of getting around the no-fun policy of commenting on HN. Someone writes a comment using an analogy and almost always there are people de-constructing the analogy and then creating their own "improved" version that take more facts into account making it harder to understand the situation which is the exact opposite effect an analogy should have.
Zikes 12y ago
Another improvement: you purchase the footlong and discard half. Subway sues your doctor for telling you not to eat as much.

Hilton1 12y ago

Brilliant analogy! You right it is absurd and the problem solely lies on the airlines behalf.

bweitzman 12y ago

The airlines aren't suing passengers though, they are suing Skiplagged. Whether or not you agree with the way that airlines charge for tickets, the ticket is a contract between the passenger and the airline and breaking that contract has consequences. For the passenger, the contracts say that you are expected to use all legs of the tickets and if you do not then the rest of legs of the flights are voided. For the airlines, if they are unable to provide the flight they owe the passenger compensation. There are no legal repercussions for the passenger not using all legs of the flights, but Skiplagged is clearly committing conspiracy to defraud and I would wager a fair sum of money that they will lose this case. The issue with the Sandwich analogy is that there is no contract.

ElComradio 12y ago
How can: > the contracts say that you are expected to use all legs of the tickets and > There are no legal repercussions for the passenger not using all legs of the flights both be true? In other words, I as the customer have no obligation to use all legs of the flight. I did not promise the airline I would fly all the way to my destination (as far as I know); I do not promise that I even get on the flight at all. How can there be a conspiracy to defraud?
- pdabbadabba 12y ago
  The latter is not true. Airlines' contracts of carriage prohibit "Point Beyond Ticketing." Here is what (e.g.) United's contract of carriage says: > Fares apply for travel only between the points for which they are published. Tickets may not be purchased and used at fare(s) from an initial departure point on the Ticket which is before the Passenger’s actual point of origin of travel, or to a more distant point(s) than the Passenger’s actual destination being traveled even when the purchase and use of such Tickets would produce a lower fare. This practice is known as “Hidden Cities Ticketing” or “Point Beyond Ticketing” and is prohibited by UA. And violation of this provision can, in fact, have repercussions: > UA’s Remedies for Violation(s) of Rules - Where a Ticket is purchased and used in violation of the law, these rules or any fare rule (including Hidden Cities Ticketing, Point Beyond Ticketing, Throwaway Ticketing, or Back-to-Back Ticketing), UA has the right in its sole discretion to take all actions permitted by law, including but not limited to, the following: > 1) Invalidate the Ticket(s); > 2) Cancel any remaining portion of the Passenger’s itinerary; > 3) Confiscate any unused Flight Coupons; > 4) Refuse to board the Passenger and to carry the Passenger’s baggage, unless the difference between the fare paid and the fare for transportation used is collected prior to boarding; > 5) Assess the Passenger for the actual value of the Ticket which shall be the difference between the lowest fare applicable to the Passenger’s actual itinerary and the fare actually paid; > 6) Delete miles in the Passenger’s frequent flyer account (UA’s MileagePlus Program), revoke the Passenger’s Elite status, if any, in the MileagePlus Program, terminate the Passenger’s participation in the MileagePlus Program, or take any other action permitted by the MileagePlus Program Rules in UA’s “MileagePlus Rules;” and > 7) Take legal action with respect to the Passenger.