6 ms·
to put this in laymans terms: imagine you want to go from city A to city B normally you would search for tickets from A-B however, during your search, you wo
by hayksaakian 12y ago
to put this in laymans terms:
imagine you want to go from city A to city B
normally you would search for tickets from A-B
however, during your search, you would NOT see tickets that go from A-B-C.
why is that relevant? sometimes tickets from A-B-C are cheaper than A-B. so you would buy a ticket (A-B-C) and simply leave the airport of city B (not boarding the B-C flight).
the website in question made it easier to find these types of tickets. These tickets are commonly known as "hidden-city" tickets.
the airlines would prefer you to spend more money on an A-B flight rather than buying the cheaper A-B-C ticket.
they are now suing this website to enforce their preference on consumer choice.
if there were something illegal going on, it would be limited to your individual contractual obligations as the owner of an airline ticket. (there could be a term that requires you to actually be present on the airplane for an A-B-C flight)
This website is simply _enabling_ people who intend to violate this (potential) term of their airline ticket agreement.
- eurleif 12y ago>it would be limited to your individual contractual obligations as the owner of an airline ticke Interfering with a contractual relationship is a tort. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
- A1kmm 12y ago> This website is simply _enabling_ people who intend to > violate this (potential) term of their airline ticket > agreement. Which might, in some jurisdictions, open the website operators to claims of tortious interference (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference) if they can prove that the site operator knew about the contractual term and incited people to breach it. Hopefully a term requiring someone to take a flight is unenforceable (if such a term even exists) - so that might give them a defence even if such a term exists.
- quesera 12y ago> if they can prove that the site operator knew about the contractual term and incited people to breach it. Notably, the contract didn't yet exist at the time of involvement of the site operator. At the point of ticket purchase / contractual agreement, the site operator is not involved, and in fact the operator has no knowledge of whether a contract was entered at all.
- quesera 12y agoI think most people have, at some point, chosen between available flights based on layover city. I know I have. So there's a distinct utility offered, separate from any missed connections. It's very hard for me to imagine a contract that includes "once you get on the plane, you must not miss your connecting flight". Heck, I wish I could get the airlines to say "once you're on the plane, we will make sure your connecting flight doesn't leave without you", but of course that's impractical. This is just silly.
- jowiar 12y ago> It's very hard for me to imagine a contract that includes "once you get on the plane, you must not miss your connecting flight". Except that it basically says "Thou shalt not buy a ticket with the express intent of missing the connection". http://www.united.com/web/format/pdf/Contract_of_Carriage.pdf http://www.united.com/web/format/pdf/Contract_of_Carriage.pd... (pg. 11)
- quesera 12y agoVery interesting. Mark that as one point for my lack of imagination. It might be tough to establish that the consumer entered into that contract knowledgeably, but there are a lot of more important terms in that same document -- so the airlines might have some powerful supporters with a vested interest in the validity of those contracts. Still, tortious interference presumes an existing contract, from my expert legal reading of Wikipedia. If a customer enters the contract with a preexisting intention to breach, I am not sure you can accuse the site operator of interference before the fact.
- micampe 12y agoTo be fair, I'm sure the airlines and your fellow travelers would also prefer for you to not waste a seat. I know I would be pissed if I needed to take a flight but it was fully booked, and then found out that a dozen people already planned to not show up. I see this trick as not very respectful to other people.
- domdip 12y agoIs there anything stopping a standby passenger from being given a seat on the second leg?
- micampe 12y agoRegulations, probably, but I also don't think you are allowed to randomly walk around the airport looking for empty seats if you don't have a ticket, and if I have a ticket I'm just going to my gate, since if I am at the airport it means my flight is about to leave anyway.
- spacefight 12y agoNope. Each leg can be oversold, hence their complain is only about the lost money. And control.
- frandroid 12y agoNo, but standby seating is not really something people pursue anymore in this era of cutthroat pricing and overbooking. And then you can only give that seat away at the very last minute, which pretty much guarantees that you will be delaying that plane, with much higher financial consequences for the airline. I think overbooking is a better solution for the airlines.
- dchest 12y agoWhy? They paid their price for the ticket.
- micampe 12y agoPlease re-read my last sentence.
- balls187 12y agoInteresting. I was under (perhaps mistakenly) the impression that buying a ticket to A-B-C and stopping at B, would result in being charged for the A-B route instead. Regardless, I always check my baggage so A-B-C type tickets would not work for me.