I previously wrote the counter-position to this post which states that United has no right to come after customers for buying hidden-city tickets. In this post, it’s clear that United has every right to pursue customers who abuse the system.
If you are considering booking travel or signing up for a new credit card please click here. Both support LiveAndLetsFly.com.
If you haven’t followed us on Facebook or Instagram, add us today.
Airlines Compete on City Pairs, Not Routes
If an airline has nonstop flights on a given route, they know that many consumers will pay a premium for the shorter travel journey, simplicity and time savings. However, airlines can’t run nonstop flights from everywhere to everywhere else. They will often compete against other carriers who offer a direct routing by pricing their trip with a connection for cheaper, even though it is more expensive for the airline.
Airlines are competing on markets, not on flights.
In some twisted logic, it does make sense for the carrier to charge the way they do. For example, United is never going to be competitive on a flight to Charlotte from Los Angeles. American has tons of non-stop flights all day every day, while United offers none. Those who prefer a direct flight will pay a little more, those who want a better price will take a connection.
American prices the direct return at $420 roundtrip. For those who are curious, I chose a date well into the future, January 16-23 Wednesday daytime flights.
The same route on United is less expensive if you’re willing to take a connection in Houston. You can save even more on Frontier if you travel light.
Hidden-City Ticketing is a Misuse of Their Product
It’s plainly not how it was intended to be sold or used. Any other violation of a purchase of a product could have the same kind of restrictions though usually less draconian. Rather than charging customers for misuse of a product, most companies simply void the warranty making them no longer responsible for the product conditions. This is one of the many remedies United has at their disposal.
It Takes Advantages of Discounts
Using another analogy, United’s practice makes sense in the context of kid’s meals/senior citizen discounts. Some restaurants offer discounted meals which may offer a lower price in relation to an item. For example, if a senior citizen does not actually qualify for a discount but is given one anyway, that manipulates the business for the customer’s gain to the detriment of the restaurant. The restaurant takes a hit on their revenue for that customer when the customer is knowingly misrepresenting themselves to incur a lower price.
If an adult walks into Applebee’s and orders a kid’s meal, they may be served but the restaurant is in their right to (and should) say “no.” Kid’s meals may offer a lower unit price in relation to the cost of the item vs. a full menu equivalent. For example, if a kid’s meal offers a 4 oz Cheeseburger with a half order of fries for $3.99 with a dessert at the end and an included drink, a savvy customer might save money over the standard price of $10.99 for an 8 oz burger with twice the fries, no drink and no dessert. That customer could probably buy two kids meals and save themselves some money by manipulating the situation and ordering takeout. That too causes damage to the restaurant by the customer.
United Has Every Right to Demand Financial Remedy, But Should They?
I included in my prior post the official language from United, they have certainly written in plenty of protection into their Contract of Carriage.
On the one hand, United Airlines has to do whatever they can to stop the invalid discounting of their product, especially following ill-intent and purposeful misuse by the customer. They have that duty to their shareholders and to other customers who fly the airline honestly without manipulating the situation.
But this is a terrible idea.
Perhaps United felt as though sending a letter to one person would make the carrier whole on this one customer, but on the off-chance that it becomes a larger issue (and it has) now the carrier that dragged Dr. Dao off an airplane is reminding the public of their pricing model which penalizes the honest with higher fares, and then tries to go after the dishonest in an effort that is almost assuredly unenforceable in a court of law.
There are myriad ways to send a message to the masses regarding this type of misuse of their product but had the reader not have submitted the letter he received, or had the blogger decided not to publish, this matter would have remained private. Therefore, United was not trying to send a message to all Hidden-City ticketers, it was trying to send a message to one and garner revenue from him. Revenue that they were entitled to certainly, but it was probably not a great marketing move. The average consumer believes airlines are evil (they are not), but for a year coming off of the Dr. Dao incident among others… I just can’t see how this could possibly have the intended outcome.
What do you think? Should United (and other carriers) take stronger action against customers that abuse their policies? Was this a good time to pursue such action or does it do more harm than good? Will it keep hidden-city customers from misusing their product?
Sure United has the ‘right’ to go after hidden-city abusers but is it worth their time and resources? It may cost more to enforce this policy than to just let it go. If anything, I can see airlines add a no-show fee (I believe some airlines already do this?)
I think that is a fair approach.
You are probably way of young to know that before airline deregulation, that airlines had to post a huge manual called a “tariff”. They had to give advance notice when their was a fare change or a route change. Hidden cities were allowed and encouraged. That’s what made a great travel agent. A fare from Pittsburgh to LAX had 3 fares: first class, economy, and round trip. Later we added family plan, but that disappeared real quickly.
To give all of the reasons that United should not enforce their rules is rubbish. Allexcuses to break their contract that every person agrees to when purchasing an airline ticket. It’s a computer that finds the illegal practice, so no man power wasted one the program has been set. I have a dozen clients that have loss thousands of frequent flier points as punishment. Just because you can beat a system does not mean it’s legal. Ask 25 older travel agents how about this rule and 24 will say that it is not worth the risk.
No, a fee for not showing up is stupid. I work for the airlines and I do it myself. I see nothing at all wrong with it as you are just not using one segment you paid for. There are already monetary and non-monetary penalties in place. 1) no checked bags otherwise you will have to drive to get them at your final destination. This includes carry-ons checked at the the gate when the airplane is full. This procedure effects last boarding groups which happen to have the cheapest fares like basic economy. You pretty much can’t bring a rolling carryon 2) This method does not work on round trip tickets. One way tickets are usually more expensive. 3) This usually works only if you are getting off at a hub city. The way back would only work if your home city was another hub for an airline. 4) Rerouted. This won’t work for maintenance and weather reroutes. We may move you through a different hub city with the same destination. We have no obligation to send you via your original connection, just final destination or satellite airport.
Perhaps United should not manipulate the prices to gain more revenue and to make it more expensive for people to travel. It goes both ways. In many businesses, they always seem to try to get over on the customer. I think these people who beat the manipulating airline at their own game are smart thinkers.
Baloney. A customer has every right to use a product THEY bought however they want to. If some actually was planning to use both legs and then just decided to get off at the stop because they wanted to visit a friend there.
Is the airline going to penalize them for that? It is a shame that there is a hole in the system that allows customers to take advantage of that deal..and in any case if a pax doesn’t show up to a flight 10 min before,the airline can and WILL sell the seat to someone else anyway..i think United is bellyaching over this issue to their detriment. It is extremely bad PR on their part.
Exactly.
Not just the enforcement, but what about the potential loss of profit due to the negative PR? I don’t know how to quantify that, but bad PR is never a good idea, especially when still recovering from several huge PR blunders in the past couple of years.
An airline losing profit? I can’t remember ever reading about an airline ( major at best) operating in the red, They live by the sword, they’ll die by the sword.
It should work both ways. If you book a non stop flight, and it is cancelled and you are put on a multi stop cheaper flight, you should be compensated.
United has no right to tell a customer how to use a purchased (fully paid for) product.
When you buy food–a loaf of bread, or a multi course meal, or hardware – a set of paints, pipes, or wires, or entertainment – tickets for a show or movie, you can do the following:
You can use a part of the product, or leave at any point as you feel physically, mentally or emotionally.
Flight tickets are not different. We should not agree with any attempt of the airlines which are charging us full price in a demand and supply market and throwing the blame on a consumer that outsmart their failing marketing
Nope, United is in the wrong here. On the intent front, a screwdriver wasn’t made to open paint cans, but does great nonetheless. If a customer only uses part of what they paid for, so what? Or do you believe that a mattress run is fraud if you don’t actually sleep in the hotel every night? Same principle.
I wrote the counter approach to this as well, and I agree with you but I think United has the right to do something about it – I just don’t think they should. http://bit.ly/2Jf0LBL
IF we had REAL competition we wouldn’t be talking about this or any other issues. In this environment, airlines will charge and do whatever they can get away with, in which case customers have every right to do whatever they can. Reasonable and right have no bearing on the subject.
The analogy in the other article likened it to buying a pizza, taking one bite, and throwing it away.
But an airplane is not a pizza. If you have bought a ticket from A to B to C, the airline is expecting you to be in the seat from B to C. If you get off at B, that seat is now empty. There is no real way to fill that seat with another passenger who could pay for it. In an extreme case, ther plane is now empty and flying to a destination with no passengers.
It screws up the plans of not only the airline but also other passengers who could have used your seat but can’t because you said you were using it.
I agree that courteous customers should cancel the rest of their reservation at a minimum. The damage to the airline of not being able to sell that seat however is null. Why, you might ask? Because that segment would be the cheap one, the expensive segment would be prior to the connection. Second, airlines oversell flights as a matter of course, if they oversee by one or by five, a hidden-city passenger is one less person to accommodate and saves the carrier money. If the flight isn’t oversold then it will save on any fuel reduction due to weight and associated service items.
Good comparison to pizza with no answer:
The analogy in the other article likened it to buying a pizza, taking one bite, and throwing it away.
But an airplane is not a pizza. If you have bought a ticket from A to B to C, the airline is expecting you to be in the seat from B to C.
Pizzeria is also expecting you to eat the whole pizza.
If you get off at B, that seat is now empty. There is no real way to fill that seat with another passenger who could pay for it.
You paid for the flight or pizza. So if you throw away part of the pizza it’s wrong as pizzeria should be able to sell it to another customer as well?
In an extreme case, ther plane is now empty and flying to a destination with no passengers.
If people throw away large amounts of pizza uneaten, pizzeria baked all that with no use.
It screws up the plans of not only the airline but also other passengers who could have used your seat but can’t because you said you were using it.
Someone else is not getting pizza, which you bought and threw away.
This whole way of doing business is illogical!
This is where you’re wrong though, and it’s how airlines get away with so much customer abuse.
The airline did NOT sell you a seat. They sold you a service of getting you from A to B to C. If you choose to take half the service, that’s your right.
This is how airlines overbook seats, which they probably tried to do regardless of if you show up, haha.
IMO – the proper thing to do is simply call your airline and tell them you aren’t showing up to a flight segment. That way the airline can figure out how to use that seat best.
If United wants to come out a winner in this situation, there best option is to give customers an easy online method to no-show. It’ll give them a competition advantage against other airlines
The logic that UA I question with regard to their reaction to the abuse of hidden cities tickets. Hidden cities have been available for over 20 years and this is the first time I can remember of any airline threatening their costumers with loosing their status. What about the car rental companies that give you a discount for renting for a week, but don’t penalize the customer if they return the car after 5 days. The same hold true for hotel rooms. This situation is created by the airlines and not the customer.
So, the airline, which had already received the fee for the transport on both legs, and does not have the expense of carrying the passenger or luggage on the additional segment is worse off?
Certainly, they are worse off than if they could always full every seat, but they already have the money for that empty seat and still might be able to fill it.
Plus if they overbook (which is almost always the case) then they’re still getting a payment for that seat but the passenger cleared from standby
Overbooking situations are limited if not rare, but you’re right, it’s better for the airline to put someone on that flight that wants to be there.
I don’t think overbooking is “limited, if not rare.” I fly Delta frequently for business (~30000 miles flown so far this year) and rarely are my flights not completely full with standbys waiting. And my colleagues who fly other major carriers say the same thing (though I can’t vouch for that personally). They count on people not showing up for any variety of reasons. This is how they ensure full flights.
Wrong; the airline often does fill the seat with a standby passenger. They therefore get the money the original no-show passenger paid, AND the money from the standby fare. Not always, but often.
And when there’s no standby, a passenger not on board means the plane uses a little less fuel. It actually costs the company less to make that flight, so they’re making a little more off you because of that.
And finally, if you purchase a seat and choose to leave it empty, there’s no reason you shouldn’t be allowed to do that. Few would complain if you bought an extra ticket just to give yourself elbow room.
The airline should let us sell the seat back to them if we are not able to fly. Not Just refund.
Sell the seat back.
So if it’s closer to the flight time it may be more than what we paid for it. The airline would buy it back if ur knows it can make more. Just like a true marketplace.
Already we have a non functioning marketplace that is unfairly tilted in airlines favor.
You do it once or twice, fine. but the fraudsters they are going after are stealing. plain and simple.
What do you think about the factories that dump their waste to a river nearby because of the competition… If you discuss the competition like an economist you probably understand what I am getting at
Is United in a position to lose anyone right now? Those seats are going out with unsold seats regardless, I would think that almost anything that adds to the bottom line would be helpful. If Applebee’s was stagnating behind the competition and people were flooding their Curbside pickup lanes to buy kids meals that weren’t going to be consumed by children, would shareholders really care who was eating the food or just that it was sold?
you didn’t seem to understand my point. What airlines do about pricing, thus create an opportunity for hidden city ticket, due to competition is very much like negative externality used in my example. This is an ECON101, that example is the classic one for every textbook. The solution to this is government regulation, even neoclassical economists would agree on this. Since you extensively explained the competition side of the argument, I thought you would easily understand this typical example in ECON101
I am not convinced that government regulation is the correct step. The market is dealing with it in their own way and United has tools to combat but their choice of actions in this instance would not be my chosen path forward.
you still didn’t get it…maybe you should take an intro econ class before discussing competition extensively. The point is market failure occurs when there is negative externality…”The market is dealing with it in their own way” is called jungle economics…
Ken, what is the “negative externality” in the hidden-city scenario?
This reads like united paid you to write this. They come up with silly fees to tack on to things; customers look for ways to save and if this loophole exists then by all means why wouldn’t they try to save. United, please move on, with your 1b+ in profits for 2017.
Please see the counter-argument here: http://bit.ly/2Jf0LBL
I’m not so sure that United couldn’t win a judgment again the passenger in court based on the CoC. Inefficient, yes; but possible? Perhaps.
Use your restaurant example.
I walk into a restaurant, order a meal, eat half and leave.
Once the restaurant sold me a meal, does it matter how much of the product I consume?
Same with United. I bought a product at a price the airline was willing to sell it for. I consume half. So what? I’m fairly sure a judge or jury would see it that way, too.
the key at stake is you don’t enter into a contract with the restaurant that you would complete the meal…
That’s why I believe that it is unenforceable. I made a similar point in the counter article to this published earlier today.
I’ve seen all you can eat sushi places charge extra to people who just eat the fish and not the rice.
United probably can’t collect damages from the people who persistently hidden city ticket, but they CAN nuke their Mileage Plus accounts and potentially refuse their business. I don’t see them being able to get a judgment.
Super easy to fix this. If you miss your connection we will charge you the fare difference either at time of booking (no big deal) or time of missed flight (could be a lot more). If we are unable to charge the method of payment we’ll send it to collections. Do this three times in a year and we will not sell you a ticket for the following 365 days. Other airlines follow suit and bet the “hidden city” fliers will stop.
Not as easy as that. What happens when you miss flights due to other reasons. And their will always be more reasons other than flights being late. Even if United could prove a passenger missing a flight was with intent in violation of their carrier contract, the cumalitive effect would be to drive away customers. They already double book many of their seats for when passengers ‘miss’ their flights. Triple selling the seats by back-charging a customer for not showing up sounds like a class action waiting to happen. It is entirely possible for United to find a better solution that is more fair to their customers.
Airlines overbook all the time. So when you don’t take the rest of the flight they give your seat to someone else. So they do not suffer any loss in many cases, and infact save money by not having to pay bumped passengers.
Exactly what I thought. Plus, they don’t only save the money to bump the second passenger, they ALSO GET PAID TWICE for the same seat!
I disagree with your Applebees analogy as well. Oftimes, ordering the “kids meal” or “senior meal” is the only way to get the *portion* size I want. It’s not about the discount. If it were, then offer the portion to everyone and provide a “discount” for anyone under 10 or over 55 (or whatever ages) regardless of what they ordered.
I don’t see how hidden city fliers actually harm United. They don’t *like* them, sure. But how does it harm them? What you didn’t show in your example here, is how much the price to Houston would be if it wasn’t part of a trip to CLT. If I book to CLT but get off in Houston, how does that harm United, other than having less weight to carry to CLT?
I had an Emergency and had to fly to Denver, the ticket was $710, yet the same plane with a connecting flight to Houston for $240.
I booked to Houston but only went as for as Denver, told them in Denver.
They thanked me, as they had standby passengers. Everyone was a winner!
Their logic would say that customers of hidden-city tickets cause harm to the airline because they will not have the seat to sell until it’s too late to really put it on the market and you are essentially robbing them of their nonstop market premium by voiding the terms of the contract and misusing their connection route.
Under current law the airlines can’t enforce their attempts at penalty collection. They’d have to prove they have the right to force you to use the full portion of a product they sold you along with the right to charge higher prices for short regional flights which happen to have far less competition. This article was dumb.
I suspect you’re right that it’s unenforceable. But I don’t think hosting a two-sided debate on the topic is dumb.
I just don’t understand the logic here. Why is this any different than if I bought a ticket on a nonstop and then just didn’t show up? They still get my money, so why does it matter if I’m not in the seat? How are they making any extra money by the person physically being in the seat on the second leg, aside from them not buying in-flight menu options, which I can’t even remember the last time I bought any food on a domestic flight.
I have to disagree with the author’s position on City to City pricing. The airline industry was deregulated to create competition to allow cities realized to be monopolized by 1 carrier is not in the consumers best interest if the consumer can figure out how to get around price-fixing which is code-sharing then they should be allowed to do so
Airlines in the US are in the business of stealing from citizens with OUTRAGEOUS fees and fuel charges that never follow prices back down. On top of that airlines in this country are in the cargo business unlike airlines around the world who are in the hospitality business. Since the airlines commit theft everyday and openly I say “[Redcacted by admin]”. It’s not stealing anyway. You must be a republican. Big business forever.
Walter, you may find the counter to this article more your speed (http://bit.ly/2Jf0LBL). Also, as a point of fact, fuel surcharges are much higher outside of the US. Check out the Flying Blue frequent flyer program from Air France/KLM, and British Airways. These make the US carriers look more than reasonable.
I’m sure airlines have no qualms selling that 2nd-leg, empty seat to a standby passenger and profiting from having sold the same seat twice on the same flight.
Apparently United bucks that trend.
I disagree. Airlines strive to overbook their flights because they know a certain percentage of passengers won’t show for whatever the reason may be. The way I see it, if I hop off a flight along the route, they can resell my seat (which was likely already sold via overbooking). As an added bonus, they don’t have to hand out potential vouchers or cash for my seat. And another huge bonus: they don’t risk an embarrassing social media event when their staff and/or security forcefully remove a passenger if they aren’t able to free-up enough of those oversold seats. If airlines aren’t making money off their current model, they need to rethink it without further alienating their clientele and further damaging the client-focus reputation many of them supposedly strive for.
I find that to be a pretty valid sentiment.
A flight to Denver was over twice as much as the same flight that was going to San Diego, changing planes in Denver.
I asked Southwest, ‘what would stop someone from staying in Denver, and not taking the leg to San Diego?’ She said absolutely nothing, and that business travelers do it all the time. Although, you can’t check your luggage in or it’ll end up at the final destination. Also, out of courtesy, you should let the airlines know once there, so they can take you off and fill your seat right away.
Until, the airlines state otherwise, on your ticket purchase agreement, how is it wrong.
If a rental car company has a special on a car with unlimited miles for less, than a car with 100 miles a day. And I only drive 50 miles, should they be able to charge me the 100 mile rate? Or if I get a buy one get one free
and I give it to the person in line behind me, or the homeless person outside, without consuming it myself. Should I have to pay full price for both?? That was their offer, in purchasing it both parties accepted, unless otherwise stated!
Now that’s Econ 101!
The guy who created the site skiplagged was sued I believe by United. His site showed you lower fares for your destination by adding a multi city stop. He won his lawsuit and many came forward to donate legal fees to his cause. I would think if he could win, that would set a precedent that individual travelers can’t be sued or at least not lose.
I can see how airlines may spend a ton to set an example of one unfortunate traveler to scare the rest. They know most of us can’t afford lawyers.
Airlines have little to no regulation on fees. Smart fliers find a way to save money that is not illegal, and yet the greedy airlines go after them. Shame on them and shame on Trump for signing off on the recent laws allowing airlines to charge unlimited amounts for change fees and other penalty fees. It’s those buying coach seats, those people can’t and afford to lose the most, yet they are the ones that do, not those with first class flexible tickets. Airlines nickel and dime like no other business.
Wendy, thanks for your comment. I need to correct a few items factually, though you are on the right track.
United attempted to sue the owner of Skiplagged.com but failed to get it to trial due to filing in the wrong venue (municipality). United could claim that they didn’t lose the lawsuit and they would be correct, though by not filing in a new venue it is more or less an admission that they did not believe they could win a judgment against Skiplagged.com. He didn’t win on the merits of the case, he just won in getting it dismissed because it was incorrectly filed.
To the unlimited change fee pricing, like anything else the market should keep you safer than the limitless fee structure. If United increased their change fee from $200 to $250, and Jet Blue lowered theirs to $100, then customers who found this important would make a market determination. If all the airlines raised their change fees to $1000, consumers who needed to change but couldn’t afford it would either find a way to recuperate their funds or take an alternative means of transportation. After the fee caused a drop in revenue they would drop it back down.
Thank you Kyle for the corrections on skiplagged, I should have double checked the details. Though the bottom line does not change. Like you said, United ultimately didn’t pursue it because they didn’t feel like they’d win versus a single passenger that can’t afford legal bills they could send that person to bankruptcy to prove their point. Whereas skiplagged was getting a lot of support which would resulted in financial legal support, and bad publicity for United if they moved forward.
Other means of transportation is not always practical and sometimes people have no choice to fly, it’s not always vacations you know.
Also, i feel it’s more realistic to think the airlines will price match those penalty fees with each other making it impossible to find an alternative.
I would bet that when a someone participates in a hidden city flight it causes grief for the accounting department at UA. Not only does every airport charge different fees to have a passenger connect / arrive at but some cities/countries incentivize airlines when they bring people there.
From my understanding, a majority of these are used for domestic flights – though the airlines don’t exactly release statistics.
Even domestic airports charge different taxes. My experience as a Canadian who travels to the US frequently is that the best hidden city pricing comes when I select that I am going to Mexico connecting through a US city.
Let’s put it this way. If I want to take a taxis that’s 3 hours away and you agree on a price to get there (let’s assume it’s $100/person). Two people take the ride and half way there one of the passengers decides to get off on the town that’s half way.
The taxi received the agreed upon pricing regardless of carrying 1 passenger or 2 the full distance. He’ll. Both passengers could have decided to get out and the taxi still wouldn’t have lost any money according to the contract.
If the town half way normally costs $100 and it would be $200 to go the full distance then the taxi driver should have either charged the $200 or not bothered to take the passengers. It was the taxis choice to accept a reduced fair.
Why should an airline care if a passenger doesn’t complete the route they purchased. They offered a fare and destination at a certain price and a passenger paid the fare. Those of us that travel to popular destination cities are well aware that there is typically a group of people waiting on standby lists or looking to upgrade. So, in those instances, not only has the airline been paid the original fare by passenger”x”, but now there is a vacant seat for passenger “y” , “z”, etc., on the connecting flight that would not have otherwise been available had passenger “x” not gotten off at the connecting city. Again…Why should customers be punished for paying for a ticket regardless of their travel intentions? I feel it is simple; the airlines offer a flight at a price and of they get their money, it is a dead issue. That’s just my two cents.
Most of the competing carriers have the same clause in their contract, just not the same policy of enforcement.
[redacted by Admin] em.
I’m sure the extremely rare cases of no bum on seat caused by this is more than offset by the widespread and awful act of deliberately selling more seats than are available and bumping passengers.
they really dont have a right to go after people who stay back in a hidden city. why? i can make up any reason not to fly a segment. i feel bad. i dont like that plane and feel it could fall out of the sky, im scared. whatever. this united stuff is GESTAPO crap and if i didnt like in their hub city i would switch airlines, they SUCK. of all the US major airlines i really dislike united the most.
if at any point i could render a judgement AGAINST united airlines on a jury i will do it. they are a disgusting greedy company and given their awesome legacy they are an embarrassment to their former glory.
they really dont have a right to go after people who stay back in a hidden city. why? i can make up any reason not to fly a segment. i feel bad. i dont like that plane and feel it could fall out of the sky, im scared. whatever. this united stuff is GESTAPO crap and if i didnt like in their hub city i would switch airlines, they SUCK. of all the US major airlines i really dislike united the most.
if at any point i could render a judgement AGAINST united airlines on a jury i will do it. they are a disgusting greedy company and given their awesome legacy they are an embarrassment to their former glory.
moderate mileage traveler here held prisoned in a united hub city.
The reasoning are silly and you know it if you just read it out loud.
#1 if I buy a car with 4 wheels and decide to turn it into a batmobile with 2 wheels and throw away the other 2 then I can do it. If I buy a computer then cannibalize the parts for my own Frankenstein machine then I can do it.
The seller have no obligation to offer anything once they sold their stuff unless the law requires it.
#2 If you sell stuff at a discount then you are obligated to give the discount. If you sell kids meals at a discount and don’t tell people “for kids under 10 only” or something similar then people can buy it unless refuse service like a moron and kick out your customers.
However, this is not how the tickets are sold. They never said people actually have to use the tickets or board the flight at all.
#3 If you buy a burger combo with fries and a drink but you don’t eat the fries and throw away the buns and only eat the meat and drink… then can the seller come out and ask you to pay more because the burger combo is a discount and you are obligated to eat everything?
If a company is dumb enough to not realize that people can and will use what they bought for whatever reason the fits them then such company should go out of business.
If I bought a discount 2-seat ticket combo for a movie and showed up solo then should I be charged the full price?
It’s illogical, but it is legal as written.
United has a right to do stupid things, just like everyone else. Unfortunately they are a publicly traded company with a, do I dare say, a HORRIBLE public relations presentation.
Just as United has the right to enforce their less than friendly rules to customers I also have the right to completely AVOID them. As in ALWAYS. And shall continue to do so until i get carried out, boots first!
Should I want to go somewhere only United serves I really don’t want/need/wish to go to that destination any longer! And I think that my attitude is a much bigger problem for United than people using only a part of ticket. Bottom line, wise.
United has a HORRIBLE reputation. And from this discussion there is no chance of their turning it around— anytime soon! If the best advertisement is good word of mouth this discussion certainly does not help United in the slightest. United can go out of business for all I care. And, perhaps, should!
Let’s consider traveling on an Amtrak train or a Gray Hound bus. If we decide to get off at an earlier stop, would we be penalized ? Planes are a means of transportation period. You should be allowed to use this mode of transportation like any other.
That’s a great way to think about it. Though, United is able to add any stipulation they like to their contract and as a customer, one accepts those terms. So while I agree in principal, any customer also agrees to follow the rules of the contract which is quite the opposite.
Did your restaurant sign a contract with you that you have to eat the entire burger otherwise you will get a fine? If your 24 oz burger is 10 dollars but your 12 oz is 12 dollars, why can’t I buy the 24 oz and eat the half? Sure, you are competing against other restaurants on 24 oz burgers, but so what? It’s not my problem.
It’s your burger whether you eat some all or none of it, but if the amount of consumption is written directly into the purchase conditions then it is, in fact, your problem.
The issue is that the passenger enters into a CONTRACT with the airline by agreeing to the contract of carriage and terms. It’s a different situation than a non-contractual arrangement, like at a restaurant.
Even contracts that seem illogical to the contracting parties can be ruled enforceable, and damages can be awarded. It happens all the time.
I agree with that Tom, though I can’t imagine that most (casual) airline customers even understand that they are entering a contract.
In your restaurant analogy.
If a burger costs $5, a drink $2, and fries $3=$10 purchased separately.
But, they often have combos. Say all three for $7.
I have every right to buy the combo–and throw the drink away… To save $1 over buying the burger and fries separately.
Your comparison to getting a kid’s meal is totally off base when talking about “hidden cities”.
The airline comparison to an adult ordering a kid’s meal–is a young passenger getting a senior fare or a non-military person getting a special military fare. Those, clearly, are wrong.
The airline industry is pretty much the ONLY industry that forces customers to use every mile they pay for… If they want to play games with fares and create “hidden city” discounts, fine. But it’s wrong to penalize customers for using them that way… (By wrong, I’m not making comments about legal, contractual obligations, just discussing fairness and common sense; they have cadres of highly paid lawyers making sure they are covered for all possible legal contingencies).
Rob – Perhaps a better analogy would have been my cable bill. I don’t want or need cable or a landline phone but do need high-speed internet. It was cheaper to bundle them all ($80/month) than buying just the internet alone ($89). This is the only other market example where I have seen this (I welcome other examples if you have them).
However, this is different than your example. If instead, the burger was sold on its own for $11, or a burger and fries together for $8, then it would be the same. The Hidden-City fares (more flights) are cheaper than the nonstop so instead of saving a little on a per unit basis but getting more as you have suggested, it’s actually a case of getting more for less on a nominal basis.
Another useless dumb article from a narrow minded dumbfuck.
This whole question would benefit from an actual legal analysis. To put it succinctly, this is a contract of adhesion. The seller has put obscure terms on the sale that the buyer cannot negotiate. In most jurisdictions, terms in such a contract are only enforceable if reasonable. Good luck convincing a judge these terms are reasonable. However, some remedies might be more reasonable than others. Terminating a mileageplus account might be one thing. Asking for more money is another entirely.
But the goal of the airline is not to recoup monies from this individual. It is to discourage him and others from abusing hidden city ticketing. Mission accomplished, I’d say.
There is one more thing that people don’t think about. Taxes and fees. A passenger connecting through New York is charged less money than someone with new York as a final destination. Some tourist destinations offset those fees with hotel tax revenue like fort lauderdale. When those lower fair passenger don’t show up in FLL but are using the facilities of New York as destination passenger, the airlines have some explaining to do and possibly loose the tax advantage in FLL and have to pay money to New York because the passenger was not in fact a through passenger.
This tax avoidance also happens internationally too. Scotland and London have high taxes returning to the us. Leaving from Norway, Poland, Italy, Sweden, and even Spain, can save you hundreds on taxes. Nobody seems to be complaining about people flying JFK-LHR-DUB-JFK instead of JFK-DUB-LHR-JFK even though they have avoided hundreds in extra tax.
Third, certain companies have contracts with the airline to maintain a specific route such as between a factory in one country and a headquarters in another. The company will buy a certain number of seats and the airlines agrees to keep the flight going even if it would otherwise make sense to cancel it or route it through a different hub. These hidden city fliers affect those contracts.
All of this shouldn’t matter to the traveling public. It is up to the airline to set pricing that self corrects the problems (Not through fees.) We did deregulation to fix things, right? If cities are stupid enough to offset landing fees with hotel tax revenue, the they have to deal with people exploiting the loophole. It all goes back so charging what things cost and not having interventions messing up a free market.
BTW I have kids and never thought, wow, I want to order one of those kids meals for myself. It’s usually butter on penne noodles, hot dog, plain cheese pizza, and a tiny cup of juice. They might not make the same profit as an adult meal but they don’t loose money on them either. If you want to save money, split an adult meal. Some restaurants have a sharing fee but usually give you two plates and an extra side. Not bad and healthier for you.
A sharing fee = nickel and diming. That’s what the airline is doing. You sound like an employee of theirs with the lengthy complicated explanation. And frankly, an adult should be allowed to order a kids meal if they want, even though you wouldn’t do such a thing, god forbid.
The best thing we can do is not fly United. All they care about is money, hit them where it hurts. They don’t deserve our business treating us like nothing more than numbers. They are hypocrites.
They allow for the violent removal of a customer who paid for a ticket they double booked to get paid twice for the same ticket or give the ticket to one of their own, but when someone doesn’t use their 2nd leg of a flight, it’s now a problem?!?!. Really? You can now get paid twice for that seat the way you like to do.
United should be a lot more kinder and under the radar after kicking off a paying customer and allowing the physical abuse when he rightfully refused, or perhaps when they caused the death of a dog? They have a lot of nerve. Don’t forget for every such story there are many more we just don’t hear about.
This goes way beyond poor customer service. They should be ashamed for their never ending disgusting behavior.
Amen, they only care about money so we’ll speak that language just as they want. By spending elsewhere.
Charging more for Charlotte to Houston than for Charlotte to Houston to LA, when the latter clearly COSTS United more money, is abuse of a quasi-monopolist position. The “yield management” approach all airlines use across the board is predatory pricing and should be illegal. There should be a fixed cost for any given segment depending only on class of service, not on WHEN you buy the ticket or IF you happen to fly another segment on the same airline after that. The “hidden city” nonsense in particular would all cancel out if EVERYONE had to stop the bizarre and customer-hostile practices that lead people to use it. Airlines would lose business on some routes, but they would gain on others. Abusive pricing on business travelers who often need to book on short notice, on the other hand, is just that – abusive – and it should be illegal.
For the “Kid’s Meal” analogy, restaurants should simply offer meals with smaller portion sizes at a reduced price. Lots of people (including me) would appreciate that option, as opposed to the current American practice of serving 2 full days’ calorie count in a single meal and forcing customers to pay for it whether they want it or not.
Given that we have the situation where, from a competitive aspect, airlines have to charge lower prices for connections via other hubs/cities it is valid that they can and should charge less to compete against others that may have direct non-stop flights.
For passengers to manipulate that to their advantage is certainly valid, BUT it negates the initial objective of providing a competitive fare (if they throw away the final leg). Thus is all passengers were to simply take this approach, this would negatively affect the airline’s profits. (A point here – profits for an airline are a GOOD thing – we do not want to revert to the era of bankruptcies of almost all of the airlines)
In moderation, – the occasional passenger skipping the last leg to save money – is not a major issue for most airlines. When someone does it 68 times in a relatively short time period, that is an abuse of the system. So similarly to card counters or gamblers that abuse casino rules to game the odds in their favor, the airlines are within their rights to take some form of action.
I have done it myself on a few occasions – however, in my defense, very often (over 50% of the time) the final leg was delayed or even cancelled… At no stage – especially for those delayed or cancelled flights could it be considered significant abuse of the system as these were very occasional instances – similar to valid changes of plans.
Of concern, however, is the attitude that passengers are entitled to defraud the airlines. A recent article of the challenges that United has been having through business/first passengers taking there Polaris bedding quoted one passenger stating “I paid enough for my seat therefore I am entitled to take the blankets”. I wonder how many restaurants would consider it acceptable if a patron were to take their silverware and glassware on the basis that the meal was expensive…?
We all need to get an attitude check. Yes, the airlines are not perfect – some of them are very poor. Neither are the passengers. But we can vote with our wallets rather than trying to steal from them.
Written in the spirit of the National Day of Unity
They offered a product, the customer bought the product at the price offered. The airline shouldn’t offer the product at the price they offered it if they didn’t want the customer to use it. They definitely have no right to those fees.
What does United care about negative comments and PR? After pulling the doctor off the airplane their CEO stood in front of the cameras claiming that going forward United with you the right thing, moving forward. Bull!! I traveled extensively early in my career racking up over a 125000 miles on United. I was offered a job that required no travel in another city and took it. Several years later, I learn that during that lull In flying United change their policy and required miles to be gained or used within 18 months, or they would raid your mileage bank account. Those “do the right thing” stinkers stole a 125000 frequent flier miles from me. United shows all the miles I flew over the years as my current lifetime miles, But those 125000 miles are no longer in my actual account to use with that stinkin airline, After repeated contacts with them to do the right thing, they have refused to return the miles that they stole.
I think that taking advantage of hidden cities is more problematic than buying a round trip to get a cheaper fare. In pricing tickets from London to the USA, it’s about a third of the price to buy a round trip. I feel bad buying the round trip knowing I don’t plan to use the return and probably won’t. But unlike with hidden cities I can’t see any justification for pricing this way.
FYI just had similar happen to me with AA. Ive been executive platinum for years and they sent me email showing 15 flights since 2015 that they flagged as hidden cities. They locked me out of my account and said they need to hear back from me within a week at which time they will reprice all those itineraries so (ready, get this) I can “reimburse” them for their loss. Absurd. After my 3 (going on 4) years of loyalty and over 45-50k spent, they are going to restrict my account?! I can’t even log in. I wrote back denying that I did it intentionally as I initially was just so upset. But now that I’ve thought about it, when they write back with their quote for what I have to pay to get my earned status, hundreds of thousands of miles, and SWUs back, I am going to let them know how messed up this is.
my pride wants me to say F them, don’t fly them again. But … they really have me by the u know whats.
I should probably get miles and EQDs for the fare increase if I do go through with it, right? That only seems FARE (pun intended).
The defense is SO SIMPLE. Just subpoena the ticket records from every other traveler on the flights in question. United WON’T produce it and the case will go away. Unless United can show other flyers actually paid more than the traveler using a hidden city ticket, they have no case. Remember, only 1 in 5 flyers actually buys a ticket at the initial fare. The other 80% are flying courtesy of mileage programs & banks.
Take it from me, THE FATHER OF HIDDEN CITY TICKETS, it’s just one big scare tactic. United and its partners don’t have the Cohnes to go through with it. If they did, they would have done it already. TALK TALK TALK, SCARE SCARE SCARE.
Not self promotion, but the entire history of how airlines have used hidden city tickets, AD75 tickets, freebies & mileage programs to fill their most comfortable seats for less than most coach fares is available at https://i-reroute.com. Don’t learn from a stranger. Learn from THE FATHER
Applebee’s sure has the right to refuse your request for 2 kid’s meals. But if they say yes and serve you it, and then later find out that you weren’t a kid, they would not be able to demand payment for the difference.
This is ridiculous. If we are saying that the “agreement” made between the airlines and the passenger is where the passenger errs, then the alternative should be considered as well. What happens when a passenger has an activity booked in another country and the passenger was forced to fly on a later flight because of “overbooking”? Will I be able to sue United for that activity? What if the flight is delayed? If the “contract” is not binding for the airline, how can we say it is for the passenger?