MON wrote:
At the end of the day the défendent can claim his travel plans changed, surely there is nowt LH can do about it?
VirginFlyer wrote:It appears the point is being missed by many posting here. The issue is not that the passenger failed to show up for a flight; it is that the passenger allegedly bought a fare which was sold on the condition of it being for a connection, with no intention of taking the connection. A small quote from the article illustrates the situation quite well:For example, a test booking made by The Independent for travel from Moscow to Paris CDG for September 2019 found a fare of £217. But a ticket using the same flight to the French capital but with an onward connection to Heathrow was only £72, less than one-third of the price.
So it is not simply a case of buying a product which they then don’t use, but rather buying a product at a price which they are not entitled to.9w748capt wrote:The other day I went to the bakery and bought two cinnamon rolls but only ate one - I hope they don't sue me!
I know, "terrible analogy" as all the apologists would say - but the airlines have no one but themselves to blame for this nonsense. Reminds me of when Dougie justified nonrefundable tickets by comparing plane tickets to sporting event tickets. Apparently Dougie hasn't heard of stubhub.
Indeed, a better analogy would be going to a bakery which is offering a 2-for-1 deal for participants in a marathon they are sponsoring, and pretending to be a runner so you can get a free bun, when in fact you are not a participant in the marathon at all.
V/F
hongkongflyer wrote:
Next time I will not no-show but being late to the gate and after they refused to board me I will just reject their offer to rebook me....
so technically I have intention and tried to board the second leg but they just don't allow me to do so....
sorry everyone else onboard the airline forced me to do so and delayed your trip.
hongkongflyer wrote:VirginFlyer wrote:It appears the point is being missed by many posting here. The issue is not that the passenger failed to show up for a flight; it is that the passenger allegedly bought a fare which was sold on the condition of it being for a connection, with no intention of taking the connection. A small quote from the article illustrates the situation quite well:For example, a test booking made by The Independent for travel from Moscow to Paris CDG for September 2019 found a fare of £217. But a ticket using the same flight to the French capital but with an onward connection to Heathrow was only £72, less than one-third of the price.
So it is not simply a case of buying a product which they then don’t use, but rather buying a product at a price which they are not entitled to.9w748capt wrote:The other day I went to the bakery and bought two cinnamon rolls but only ate one - I hope they don't sue me!
I know, "terrible analogy" as all the apologists would say - but the airlines have no one but themselves to blame for this nonsense. Reminds me of when Dougie justified nonrefundable tickets by comparing plane tickets to sporting event tickets. Apparently Dougie hasn't heard of stubhub.
Indeed, a better analogy would be going to a bakery which is offering a 2-for-1 deal for participants in a marathon they are sponsoring, and pretending to be a runner so you can get a free bun, when in fact you are not a participant in the marathon at all.
V/F
Next time I will not no-show but being late to the gate and after they refused to board me I will just reject their offer to rebook me....
so technically I have intention and tried to board the second leg but they just don't allow me to do so....
sorry everyone else onboard the airline forced me to do so and delayed your trip.
usdcaguy wrote:When you do not take a connecting flight, you will not have flown the trip you purchased but instead will have flown a trip that you did not purchase. It's a bit like paying for a ring with rubies and then turning around and taking a ring with emeralds that was more expensive.
usdcaguy wrote:When you do not take a connecting flight, you will not have flown the trip you purchased but instead will have flown a trip that you did not purchase. It's a bit like paying for a ring with rubies and then turning around and taking a ring with emeralds that was more expensive. Even if the cost to the jeweler to produce each ring was the same, you still took something you did not pay for, and the jeweler has the right to price the rings as they see fit, regardless of how much it cost to produce them. Because you took something you did not pay for, the jeweler would have the right to call the cops on you. Why should things be any different when flying?
Big companies are terrible to people, and airlines are no exception, but a sly few should not have a right to game the system while the majority of us are stuck paying for the transportation we intend to use.
usdcaguy wrote:When you do not take a connecting flight, you will not have flown the trip you purchased but instead will have flown a trip that you did not purchase. It's a bit like paying for a ring with rubies and then turning around and taking a ring with emeralds that was more expensive. Even if the cost to the jeweler to produce each ring was the same, you still took something you did not pay for, and the jeweler has the right to price the rings as they see fit, regardless of how much it cost to produce them. Because you took something you did not pay for, the jeweler would have the right to call the cops on you. Why should things be any different when flying?
Big companies are terrible to people, and airlines are no exception, but a sly few should not have a right to game the system while the majority of us are stuck paying for the transportation we intend to use.
3rdGen wrote:The airlines perspective is this, there are two separate products, A to B and A to C (the second is cheaper). It so happens though that there is a chance that an individual can book A to C and yet manage to get away with the more expensive A to B trip. From the perspective of the airline this is cheating, as the passenger is walking away with a product that is more expensive than what he paid for. Unfortunately for them there's not too much they can do about it. (Especially if the individual has no luggage)
SheikhDjibouti wrote:gunnerman wrote:Lufthansa is seeking to sue a passenger who did not take the last leg of their ticketed journey. Here is a not uncommon situation. A person wants to fly from A to B but finds a cheaper fare from A to C via the airline's hub at B. So, a ticket from A to C via B is purchased, the passenger gets off the aircraft at B and discards the B to C ticket. This works best with hand luggage only.
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/lufthansa-passenger-tariff-abuse-cheap-flights-lawsuit-tickets-missing-air-france-british-airways-a8773371.html
I must be missing something.
If I get on a bus with a ticket for A to C, but I choose to get off at B, no problem.
If I get on a train from A to C, but choose to get off at B, no problem.
If I get in a taxi and agree a price for A to C, but change my plans mid-journey, no problem (as long as I pay the agreed fare)
I accept there could be a minor issue if the airport was expecting just five pax to deplane at B, and suddenly found itself swamped with 50 unexpected "guests".
And maybe this would be unacceptable if the mid-point was in a different country, and immigration was not available to process the unexpected arrivals.
Are either of these potential issues a) likely?, b) the airlines problem?
AEROFAN wrote:usdcaguy wrote:When you do not take a connecting flight, you will not have flown the trip you purchased but instead will have flown a trip that you did not purchase. It's a bit like paying for a ring with rubies and then turning around and taking a ring with emeralds that was more expensive. Even if the cost to the jeweler to produce each ring was the same, you still took something you did not pay for, and the jeweler has the right to price the rings as they see fit, regardless of how much it cost to produce them. Because you took something you did not pay for, the jeweler would have the right to call the cops on you. Why should things be any different when flying?
Big companies are terrible to people, and airlines are no exception, but a sly few should not have a right to game the system while the majority of us are stuck paying for the transportation we intend to use.
Why is it considered gaming the system only when it comes to airlines's ridiculous rules. I purchased a product sold by an airline. I use it however I see fit. End of story. The airlines want to have their cakes and eat em too. They need to write such incidences off as the cost of doing business.
twicearound wrote:If you don't like the rules, then don't buy the ticket.
PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:This isn't a revamping of airline economics: it's a change to ensure that ridiculous quirks don't cost consumers money.
3rdGen wrote:The airlines perspective is this, there are two separate products, A to B and A to C (the second is cheaper). It so happens though that there is a chance that an individual can book A to C and yet manage to get away with the more expensive A to B trip. From the perspective of the airline this is cheating, as the passenger is walking away with a product that is more expensive than what he paid for. Unfortunately for them there's not too much they can do about it. (Especially if the individual has no luggage)
The reason why everyone's having so much trouble of creating an analogy for this is that there's almost no analogy for this sort of thing in any other market in the world. Namely. getting away with availing a more expensive product after having paid for a cheaper one, and without the seller being able to do a damn thing about it.
Even if airlines managed to make it harder to get away with this practice a determined pax could feign sickness or some other excuse to get off at B. How is the airline to judge whether they are telling the truth or not, it could lead to a tricky situation.
This kind of loop hole usually exists with hub and spoke airlines that charge passengers premiums for departing or arriving at the hub. I have a friend who has been booking A-B-C for years and forgoing the A-B trip and only flying B-C (he lives at the airlines hub). The airline allowed it for years, until just now when an audit has led them to cut down on this activity.
Another friend of mine, a while ago, called me up as he wanted some advise as he had booked his parents A-B-C and wanted them off at B where he lived but they had luggage, and the airline refused to check it in only to B. He called me as he knew that I worked for the airline and wanted to know if there was anything I could do to help me out. Unfortunately I couldn't, I believe that the airline refused to release the bags and he had to fly to C along with the bags to collect them .
workhorse wrote:You can spin it whatever you like, there is such thing as common sense. Selling A->B->C cheaper than A->B is INSANE. In a sane world, they should be fined by competition authorities just for that.
VirginFlyer wrote:a better analogy would be going to a bakery which is offering a 2-for-1 deal for participants in a marathon they are sponsoring, and pretending to be a runner so you can get a free bun, when in fact you are not a participant in the marathon at all.
V/F
twicearound wrote:AEROFAN wrote:usdcaguy wrote:When you do not take a connecting flight, you will not have flown the trip you purchased but instead will have flown a trip that you did not purchase. It's a bit like paying for a ring with rubies and then turning around and taking a ring with emeralds that was more expensive. Even if the cost to the jeweler to produce each ring was the same, you still took something you did not pay for, and the jeweler has the right to price the rings as they see fit, regardless of how much it cost to produce them. Because you took something you did not pay for, the jeweler would have the right to call the cops on you. Why should things be any different when flying?
Big companies are terrible to people, and airlines are no exception, but a sly few should not have a right to game the system while the majority of us are stuck paying for the transportation we intend to use.
Why is it considered gaming the system only when it comes to airlines's ridiculous rules. I purchased a product sold by an airline. I use it however I see fit. End of story. The airlines want to have their cakes and eat em too. They need to write such incidences off as the cost of doing business.
Wrong. You do not get to use an airline or their products any way you see fit. When you purchase an airline ticket you are entering into a contract with the airline. Hidden city ticketing is prohibited in your contract of carriage. Therefore you are in direct breach of the contract you entered into and are subject to all penalties associated. It's actually very simple. If you don't like the rules, then don't buy the ticket.
AEROFAN wrote:usdcaguy wrote:When you do not take a connecting flight, you will not have flown the trip you purchased but instead will have flown a trip that you did not purchase. It's a bit like paying for a ring with rubies and then turning around and taking a ring with emeralds that was more expensive. Even if the cost to the jeweler to produce each ring was the same, you still took something you did not pay for, and the jeweler has the right to price the rings as they see fit, regardless of how much it cost to produce them. Because you took something you did not pay for, the jeweler would have the right to call the cops on you. Why should things be any different when flying?
Big companies are terrible to people, and airlines are no exception, but a sly few should not have a right to game the system while the majority of us are stuck paying for the transportation we intend to use.
Why is it considered gaming the system only when it comes to airlines's ridiculous rules. I purchased a product sold by an airline. I use it however I see fit. End of story. The airlines want to have their cakes and eat em too. They need to write such incidences off as the cost of doing business.
Lootess wrote:You don't purchase software and use it as you see fit. The second you open the packaging or use it you agree to the EULA license they provided you. You don't own the software, you can't pass it on to friends. You are in-fact purchasing a license to use the software for personal use.
hongkongflyer wrote:3rdGen wrote:The airlines perspective is this, there are two separate products, A to B and A to C (the second is cheaper). It so happens though that there is a chance that an individual can book A to C and yet manage to get away with the more expensive A to B trip. From the perspective of the airline this is cheating, as the passenger is walking away with a product that is more expensive than what he paid for. Unfortunately for them there's not too much they can do about it. (Especially if the individual has no luggage)
The reason why everyone's having so much trouble of creating an analogy for this is that there's almost no analogy for this sort of thing in any other market in the world. Namely. getting away with availing a more expensive product after having paid for a cheaper one, and without the seller being able to do a damn thing about it.
Even if airlines managed to make it harder to get away with this practice a determined pax could feign sickness or some other excuse to get off at B. How is the airline to judge whether they are telling the truth or not, it could lead to a tricky situation.
This kind of loop hole usually exists with hub and spoke airlines that charge passengers premiums for departing or arriving at the hub. I have a friend who has been booking A-B-C for years and forgoing the A-B trip and only flying B-C (he lives at the airlines hub). The airline allowed it for years, until just now when an audit has led them to cut down on this activity.
Another friend of mine, a while ago, called me up as he wanted some advise as he had booked his parents A-B-C and wanted them off at B where he lived but they had luggage, and the airline refused to check it in only to B. He called me as he knew that I worked for the airline and wanted to know if there was anything I could do to help me out. Unfortunately I couldn't, I believe that the airline refused to release the bags and he had to fly to C along with the bags to collect them .
Just show up late at the second leg and his luggage must had been offload from the plane. Again sorry for everyone else.
3rdGen wrote:Yes excellent point.
I was wondering though if the airline had the ability to deny you your luggage until you reached your final destination. Or else.one could simply plan for the luggage to arrive one week after their jump off at the intermediary stop and after a lot of haggling with the airline I suppose. They couldn't keep your bags forever could they?
miegapele wrote:Another analogy would be:
You buy season pass in the theater, but miss some plays. Does it give a right to the theater to bill you full price for all the plays? I don't think so.
3rdGen wrote:This kind of loop hole usually exists with hub and spoke airlines that charge passengers premiums for departing or arriving at the hub. I have a friend who has been booking A-B-C for years and forgoing the A-B trip and only flying B-C (he lives at the airlines hub). The airline allowed it for years, until just now when an audit has led them to cut down on this activity.
casinterest wrote:jetmatt777 wrote:9w748capt wrote:The other day I went to the bakery and bought two cinnamon rolls but only ate one - I hope they don't sue me!
I know, "terrible analogy" as all the apologists would say - but the airlines have no one but themselves to blame for this nonsense. Reminds me of when Dougie justified nonrefundable tickets by comparing plane tickets to sporting event tickets. Apparently Dougie hasn't heard of stubhub.
A more accurate analogy is the bakery only offers the 2-for-1 special for take out orders. As you will not be eating in the store they will not have the cost of washing your dishes, a server serving you at your table, etc. you stand in line at the to-go counter, pay for the 2-for-1 and then take your food and sit down in the dining room. You are using a product you didn’t pay for and took advantage of a cheaper product to get in.
I don't know of any bakery that does this, and that bakery would probably be out of business rather quickly.
MartijnNL wrote:Last year I wanted to fly on the KLM 747. The airline charged 1,500 EUR for a return ticket Amsterdam - San Francisco. From Stockholm the fare was 300 EUR. Between Amsterdam and San Francisco you would fly on the same 747. Ridiculous. As I really wanted to fly on the 747 I booked the trip from Stockholm and added a return ticket Amsterdam - Stockholm for 100 EUR.
I spend 400 EUR to travel AMS-ARN-AMS-SFO-AMS-ARN-AMS instead of 1,500 EUR for AMS-SFO-AMS. Upon return to Amsterdam I thought of skipping the last part of the journey, a completely useless return to Stockholm. But the weather was nice, I wasn't too tired, the onboard catering was tasty and included, so in the end I just did it. More time in the air for much less money.
gunnerman wrote:I am astonished that he got away with flying only B-C with an A-B-C ticket. Airlines have for a long time cancelled the whole of the remaining ticket when someone misses a flight, which I regard as one of the more nasty practices of this consumer-unfriendly industry.
gunnerman wrote:3rdGen wrote:This kind of loop hole usually exists with hub and spoke airlines that charge passengers premiums for departing or arriving at the hub. I have a friend who has been booking A-B-C for years and forgoing the A-B trip and only flying B-C (he lives at the airlines hub). The airline allowed it for years, until just now when an audit has led them to cut down on this activity.
I am astonished that he got away with flying only B-C with an A-B-C ticket. Airlines have for a long time cancelled the whole of the remaining ticket when someone misses a flight, which I regard as one of the more nasty practices of this consumer-unfriendly industry.
MartijnNL wrote:Last year I wanted to fly on the KLM 747. The airline charged 1,500 EUR for a return ticket Amsterdam - San Francisco. From Stockholm the fare was 300 EUR. Between Amsterdam and San Francisco you would fly on the same 747. Ridiculous. As I really wanted to fly on the 747 I booked the trip from Stockholm and added a return ticket Amsterdam - Stockholm for 100 EUR.
I spend 400 EUR to travel AMS-ARN-AMS-SFO-AMS-ARN-AMS instead of 1,500 EUR for AMS-SFO-AMS. Upon return to Amsterdam I thought of skipping the last part of the journey, a completely useless return to Stockholm. But the weather was nice, I wasn't too tired, the onboard catering was tasty and included, so in the end I just did it. More time in the air for much less money.
sk736 wrote:Your train analogy is incorrect, at least in the UK. If you buy a train ticket from A to C, you are not entitled to get off at B.
MartijnNL wrote:sk736 wrote:Your train analogy is incorrect, at least in the UK. If you buy a train ticket from A to C, you are not entitled to get off at B.
In The Netherlands you are completely free to get off at any station before you get to your final destination. But it wouldn't save you any money, as train fares are directly related to the distance travelled.
What a crazy practice in the UK! Who is stopping you from getting off at B? Why would you not be entitled to leave the train at B? What happens if you get off at B?
MartijnNL wrote:Last year I wanted to fly on the KLM 747. The airline charged 1,500 EUR for a return ticket Amsterdam - San Francisco. From Stockholm the fare was 300 EUR. Between Amsterdam and San Francisco you would fly on the same 747. Ridiculous. As I really wanted to fly on the 747 I booked the trip from Stockholm and added a return ticket Amsterdam - Stockholm for 100 EUR.
I spend 400 EUR to travel AMS-ARN-AMS-SFO-AMS-ARN-AMS instead of 1,500 EUR for AMS-SFO-AMS. Upon return to Amsterdam I thought of skipping the last part of the journey, a completely useless return to Stockholm. But the weather was nice, I wasn't too tired, the onboard catering was tasty and included, so in the end I just did it. More time in the air for much less money.
"It's never fun to have to lie to people," said the former customer sales and service agent, who worked at Air Canada's check-in counter at Vancouver International Airport for several months before quitting just over a year ago.
"I had to tell people over and over again that they were gonna get on the plane, when I knew that they might not."
PatrickZ80 wrote:A former colleague of me has once done a similar thing. He lives rather close to Amsterdam and went to Lima, Peru on KLM with his family. Instead of booking the ticket from Amsterdam he booked it from Brussels which was a lot cheaper than from Amsterdam. It included a train ticket Brussels - Amsterdam, but the condition was that you had to check in in Brussels. You couldn't check in in Amsterdam.
What did he do? Of course they didn't all go to Brussels and then back to Amsterdam. He went alone, checked them all in and took the train back to Amsterdam where at the airport his wife and kids were waiting for him. Together they flew to Lima.
When they returned in Amsterdam the ticket granted them a train ride to their final destination which said Brussels. They never took that train, they went straight home.
sk736 wrote:Well for the same reason the airlines don't like you doing it....sometimes longer distance tickets can be cheaper than shorter distance tickets.