Ok, Markxxx, I can understandt that, but wouldn’t this algorithm automatically take into account people who book but don’t fly the second leg of the journey? I would assume this would show up as no-shows in their statistical analysis, and thus be counted in the pricing anyway. So I don’t think it makes a difference.
Second, your shopping analogy is a bit imperfect. It’s more like going to the store and seeing a sign “two for five dollars” and another “one for six dollars” and buying the two, intending only to drink one.
This is getting to be a ridiculous exercise of a lot of people who haven’t a clue just offering their opinions. We are in GQ, not IMHO. Please let’s have a lawyer give an informed opinion and let’s stop all this talking nonsense. Can any lawyers please give an informed opinion on the following questions:
1- I walk into a car lot and see two junked '77 Datsuns. The seller says I can have them both for $500 of one for $600. I give him $500 but take only one and refuse to take the second one. Any lawyers who say I am not obligated to take the second car or pay the difference of $100?
2- I walk into an airline office and they offer me a one way ticket to Shanghai for $1000 or a R/t ticket for $800. I decline the one way ticket and but the R/t but I do not fly the return. Any lawyers who say I would not be found legally liable for the price difference? Any lawyers who say that if the airline refused to sell me a ticket in the future on this account I would have a case against them?
Just to be clear: The system profiles you based on your intended booking dates. It then maps your profile to a periodically-updated pricing grid (based on the algorythm mentioned by Markxxx)? Would that be a correct summary of their pricing methodology?
Following sailor’s line of inquiry:
A) By buying an airline ticket, do you acquire the right to use the airline’s services (meaning you are free to opt out if you wanted) or the obligation to actually sit your butt on the plane?
B) Assuming the latter, if penalty clauses were expressly stated under the ticket’s terms and conditions:
Would your action of paying for it constitute tacit approval of said conditions, and held you liable for any penalties therein stipulated?
Would it be likely that such a clause be construed as “abusive” (I think “leonine clause” is the term. Not sure though; please correct me if mistaken) and thus not upheld in a court of law?
As far as it pertains to the legal questions, I’m aware any answer would be a matter of interpretation and dependent on the jurisdiction; what I’m loking for (and would appreciate) is an informed opinion from a general perspective.
Quite possibly neither, as above. But these options are not mutually exclusive. It is theoretically possible that the contract might both give you a right to use the airline’s services, and an obligation to use them.
Very likely, as long as you knew what the terms were when the deal was struck.
I talked about this before. Having thought about it more, I think probably not, particularly if the airline can show that they probably lost something, and even more so if the airline can show that exactly what they lose would be hard to calculate, thus it was reasonable for them to include a clause that quantified their losses at a reasonable but artificial level, so as to avoid subsequent argument.
I think any contract on a ticket would be pretty weak, because you don’t exactly sign it, and for it to carry real weight the airline has to draw your attention to any obligatory clauses. Just as with those printings on the ticket at a parking garage, or a car rental agency. Or a dry cleaners.
Dang.
As I was going to say, I checked an old rt ticket and nowhere did it say anything about an obligation to use both directions.
So our semi-hijack is moot.
No, travel insurance. They did pay up, too - after “losing” the relevant documents for a few weeks.
Anyway, back to the point, I haven’t had any comeback from BA for not using the return portion of my ticket. Oh, hold on, who’s that at the d
If you believe the only contractual obligationas are what is printed in the ticket then you are, obviously, not a lawyer. Would you also accept that the only obligations of the airline are those printed on the ticket and no more? I don’t think so.
Airlines can, and routinely do, deny a person boarding on the return leg if they did not use the first part. Can you explain how they can get away with this if it were not legal? Are you telling me the airlines are doing this illegally? Do you have any cites of customers who have successfully sued the airlines on this account?
Now I know how Muffin feels when non-lawyers talk about law
Actually, the agents (at least on the corporate level) are not that willing. We are on the side of our clients to get the best fare for their travel.
Remember that for the business traveller, plans change. Meetings get re-scheduled and usually at the last minute. The airlines have found that business folks are willing to spend a little more at times for the option of having a fully refundable ticket with no penalty for changing times and dates.
The average leisure traveller, with a vacation to plan months ahead of time, is able to be more flexible, the ramen-eating college student who doesn’t mind flying at 2am and changing planes 6 times also pays less because of that reason. For your average guy, travel is mostly cheaper on the internet. But if you own a company that buys $120 million dollars of tickets per year, you can’t afford to trust your employees to search all day long on expedia or something to find the best price. They’d wind spending $200 million, and alot of that would be money wasted on nonrefundable tickets that can’t be used.
When you buy a ticket online, try to get it changed or refunded sometime. It’s a hassle. It’s not so bad if you purchased it on the airline’s own website, but if you used Priceline.com or some such it’s a nightmare.
The airlines lowered comissions to ZERO years ago on 99% of all tickets. Now agents make money by primarily charging service fees, hotels, rental cars and cruise lines still give commission, but it’s being lowered year by year.
Remember this: The system that the airlines use doesn’t work for them at all. If the airlines were such great wizards at financial planning and price calculation, why is Southwest the only airline that turns a profit?
A totally inapt comparison. A junked Datsun is a tangible object–a rather large one, at that–of dubious value that may cost more to have towed away and disposed of than one could get from the average seller.
A more appropriate comparison (nontangible, time-restricted):
A theater offers a single ticket at $75 or two side-by-side tickets at $60 (never would happen, but follow, please). You buy the pair of tickets and go to the show alone.
More to the point, and to get away from these silly comparisons, has anyone ever actually been punished by an airline for discarding the second half of their round-trip fare? If so, then there’s your answer. If not, then we should all be checking into RT fares and toss tickets without fear.
Yes, happens every day. It’s called a Debit Memo and it’s sent to the agency from the airline through ARC (the Airline Reporting Corporation, which is the clearing house that the airlines use to move money from the client to the airline and between airlines with the travel agent as the facilitator).
Now pay attention, because it’s kinda complicated, the airlines hate when slick people notice the loophole that’s been repeatedly pointed out in this thread so the have a rule that you may not book what they call Back-to-Back tickets.
For instance: a round trip from NYC to L.A. on United 01Feb2004 returning the next day 02Feb2004 would cost $2294.50. ouch.
But if you booked a roundtrip from NYC to L.A. from 1Feb2004 and returning 12Feb2004 and then booked a round trip from L.A. to NYC from 02feb2004 and a return of 11feb2004 the price of both round trips is $296.50 each, together it’s $593.00. Quite a savings, just buy 2 round rips and throw away the returns.
But, watch out. If the Airline catches you, they can deny boarding and charge you the full fare to get home. Or they can run a name search and if you match up in their computor they will charge your company’s credit card for the difference. They are allowed to do this. This then leads people to book back to back tickets on different airlines, or other dodges.
But, for the business traveller, these options stink, they save money at first, but then their meeting changes dates and they’re stuck paying penalty fees and increased fares.
The question is not whether you can, in fact, do it because we all know from experience the airline is not going after you. The question is whether they have a right to do it and whetehr they could do it if they chose to. The fact is that if you do not fly the first leg they can deny you boarding on the second leg. That is a fact.
The fact that it is not worth their time or effort to go after you if you do not use the second part does not mean they do not have the legal right to do so if they chose to.
Or how do you explain the fact that they can deny you boarding on the second leg until you pay the correct fare for the trip you are actually doing? Please explain that.
Not exactly sure what you mean, sailor. I’m saying that the airline can’t force you to take the return trip, is all. That would be silly. I’m also saying that the printing on the ticket is pretty weak as contrtacts go.
My second post, which you quoted, was meant as an addendum to the one just before. Sorry if I was unclear.
I have no idea of anyone trying to take only the return trip. The only problem I could see with that is if the customer wanted a refund for the outgoing trip. Even then, if the terms weren’t clear at time of sale, I would expect a refund for the difference. (RT - OW)
We do? I sure don’t. I never even heard of the practice before I opened this thread. Bmalion indicates that airlines DO go after you, but the only documented instances seem to be when it’s easy (when you buy two RT tix from different cities for the same apparent trip, thereby tipping your hand).
So is the verdict that it’s reasonably safe, on one-way travel, to buy RT and ditch the return ticket? I think you could fabricate an excuse pretty easily if they flagged you for future reference (i.e., a year later you book a flight with them, they note that you didn’t complete the second leg of your trip, you can say, “Oh, I was sick/had extended business/got drunk and woke up in Tijuana.”).
“legal right”? what the heck does that mean? Of course they have the legal right to go after me. They have the legal right to go after me for refusing to eat the brussels sprouts in my in-flight meal. Doesn’t mean they have any chance of winning.
Brussels sprouts.
So if you don’t use the return, they can “go after” you for both offenses, huh?
Maybe that’s what really pisses them off about missed RT’s. Leftover sprouts.
I’ve done this many times, my travel agents have even encouraged me to do this, so I suppose it’s relatively safe. Nobody’s ever bitched at me yet about it. I’m not saying it’s 100% safe, but I’ve never in my life heard of anyone getting flak or being punished for not using the return leg.
