I doubt UA would follow through considering it is illegal to submit known false debts.
Plus they're outright wrong that it constitutes "fraud," if for no other reason than the person skipping additional legs didn't profit from it, instead they simply limited UA's ability to further profit off of their travel.
If this was "fraud" then any other airline discount or saving would be too. Shop around for the cheapest price? That's "fraud" since UA didn't make as much. Didn't check bags for $50+ and instead overload your carry on? That's "fraud" since UA lost the checked bag fee. Fly to a smaller airport instead of a larger one, then take the bus? That's "fraud" too, UA deserves that money.
UA's creative use of the law here is nothing more than an intimidation tactic. They've run out of ideas so instead are just trying to muddy the waters enough to stop this becoming overly popular. I guess that's easier than re-examining how you ticket/what your business model is.
The elements of common law civil fraud are as follows:
1. Somebody intentionally misrepresents a material fact in order to obtain action or forbearance by another person ("I am traveling to ILM from SFO" but in fact is going to IAD);
2. The other person relies upon the misrepresentation (United prices the fare as though the passenger were going to ILM instead of IAD); and
3. The other person suffers injury as a result of the act or forbearance taken in reliance upon the misrepresentation (United gets less fare).
Note that profit is not an element of fraud, although here, one could argue that the potential fraudster did profit in terms of the difference in fare.
So United has a fair argument that, given the facts at hand, intentionally misrepresenting one's travel plans in order to obtain a better fare probably constitutes fraud.
I wonder if they could structure this as a real debt, by making some legs cost negative money, e.g. on a trip from A->B->C, A->B costs $100, B->C costs -$10, for a total cost of $90. If you book A->B->C and prepay the $90, but get off at B, then you owe the airline $10 because you didn't receive the $10 credit from flying B->C
> I doubt UA would follow through considering it is illegal to submit known false debts.
I wonder if they've snuck in a mandatory binding arbitration clause into their contract, and if that would cover disputes about false debts. Even if the false debts were totally illegal, arbitration could make it impractical to challenge them.
> I doubt UA would follow through considering it is illegal to submit known false debts.
Ahh yes, the "known false debts act of 1789". </s> The fact is corporations have throngs of willing stooges who are happy to perjure themselves in trial and assert that the debts weren't false at all. Who's a judge and jury going to believe? The scammer who cheated the poor impoverished airline out of its money, or the well-dressed stooge with front-row access to United's records?
Lying to the courts to get what you want is in practice a fully sanctioned strategy for corporations who desire to intimidate their customers by "making an example" of their least favorite customers by throwing criminal charges against them.
Sometimes I go to a fast food restaurant and discover that while I don't want fries, it's cheaper to buy the whole combo meal than it is to just buy a burger and drink a la carte.
If I buy the combo and throw away the fries, nobody's going to argue that I've cheated Wendy's and owe them for the difference in price.
But I'd agree they're still free to refuse me service in the future on grounds of wasting food.
I want a Big Mac, 2 cheeseburgers, a soft drink and fries.
Using prices from https://www.fastfoodmenuprices.com/mcdonalds-prices/ , I have two options:
a) Big Mac meal ($5.99) + 2 cheeseburgers ($2.00) = $7.99
or b) 2 cheeseburger meal ($4.89) + Big Mac ($3.99) = $8.88
If I order option a, McDonalds "loses" $0.89. Am I committing fraud?
Fuck United, and any other company that wants to abuse the credit reporting system for this. How would they even prove you have a debt? I paid for a ticket, and the airline provided said ticket. Whether I choose to use the ticket or not should be entirely up to me, and choosing not to fly doesn't magically incur them extra debt that I'd be liable for.
This is especially ridiculous with how exorbitant ticket change fees are. I was in San Jose a few weeks ago and decided last minute to stay a few days longer in SF. It would have cost me 125 dollars to cancel or change my already booked SJC-SEA flight, and it would have netted me <90 dollars in credit so I was essentially paying 35 dollars for the privilege of telling Alaska that I wasn't going to fly with them. Of course I instead just skipped the leg and booked a new flight separately.
I disagree, abuse of the credit reporting system will make it useless which is good thing because in it's current implementation it really shouldn't be trusted.
One very interesting thing here is how they're using the credit score system to blackmail people. If this continues, any company can hold you hostage by threatening to ruin your score, without any recourse from you.
Nah, this isn't a legal debt that they can forward to a collection agency, as pointed out in the article. They can't legally ding your credit for this (you've paid all your actual outstanding obligations to them), and if they do, I imagine the counterclaims could be significant (reputational damage, monetary losses due to higher interest rates or ineligible loans, etc.).
Now, if this were the "social credit" system of a certain country, well, then maybe they really could blackmail you (because you violated a "social order" by playing ticketing games...).
I doubt United will prevail in there efforts. It's "Contract of Carriage"[1] rule 6, sub-section J is where they put in all the verbiage about how they think they should be able to penalize you for avoiding their fare structures. It is pretty bogus and I'd love to see it litigated, to do that you really would have to do this stuff enough to get them to take action against you citing that rule, and then (now that you have standing to sue) you would need to sue them. I would recommend setting this up early because their lawyers haven't yeat put in a mandatory mediation clause to this contract. When they do it will be harder.
Either way, I think they will lose. And when it becomes clear that they can't extract value this way from passengers it will cause ticket prices to change to more accurately reflect actual costs.
I agree that the Contract of Carriage is probably not the strongest basis by which United can demand recompense for abandoning a segment. Instead, I think they have a better chance of prevailing on a common-law fraud theory; see my explanation above.
So I guess United is going to fairly compensate me for the night I spent sleeping in the Philly airport because they canceled my final segment? I'll take cash, no united points for me.
Their definition of `fraud` is insane, but if they want to open the door for more recourse when things don't happen as scheduled I'm okay with that. I think United owes the majority of their customers quite a bit more than hidden city fare users owe them.
One point in defense of the airlines that people often forget. There are certain taxes and fees the airlines must pay when a passenger flies from A to B. However, the government of location B waives fees for connections flying from A to B to C. That makes sense; the passenger never actually visited B.
Passengers can find a cheaper ticket flying JFK->TPE->HKG and ditching the final leg (carry-on only). However, if an airline "knows" a passenger will skip the final leg, then they are helping the individual evade a legitimate tax.
But they have plausible deniability since the customer indicated they were taking the last leg of the flight. The possible tax issues should be on the customer here, right?
I'm surprised we haven't seen more companies abuse the credit reporting system like this. Recourse is painful for the customer, and I imagine a non-trivial number of them will just pay off the debt. I'm guessing with the gutting of agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau we'll see a rise in these type of practices.
There is no debt, though. You can't charge people extra for not showing up at a flight. A non-flying passenger demonstrably makes a resource available: they can sell the seat to someone else. Even if they don't, it's less weight: less fuel burned.
The idea that the passenger should have paid more to get off at that intermediate airport is purely a fabricated entitlement.
If they underlying hypothesis behind this entitlement is that "all people should pay the same for the same flight", it is pure hypocrisy, because the airline industry is responsible for, and profits from the whole situation that people in adjacent seats may have paid wildly different prices.
If they want people not to game the system, they have to remove the game from the system. But that game largely benefits them, so they don't. You can't have it both ways: create a game-like system, and not have people some people play it some of the time.
Falsely damaging someone's reputation in writing is libel. I think if more companies abused the credit rating system, they and the credit bureaus would see a lot more libel claims.
It would even make sense to mechanize these libel claims via a bunch of templates, sort of like how airhelp.com works.
I am genuinely entirely fucking sick of the awful experience of booking air travel. The thought of doing it fills me with dread now.
Here is a recent example: a return flight booked with my partner from the UK to the US. His company later wants to send him to a conference in a place nearby a couple of days prior, and of course will happily pay for travel there, and on to our actual destination. “That’s okay”, I think; “I can cancel the outgoing leg of his flight, even if I don’t get a refund”.
Not. Possible. The price British Airways wants to charge me for cancelling one leg of a return flight for one passenger is more than the entire cost for two return tickets. Of course, he can’t just skip that flight, since the inbound will be cancelled.
Literally nobody gains from this. It reinforces the point that consumer cost is now entirely decoupled from the cost of service. On top of this, the process of buying tickets is utterly baffling. Multiple aggregators linking to multiple external agents who in turn are selling tickets cheaper than the airline directly. Codeshares charged at multiples of the cost for being on the exact same flight. And the obvious hidden city stuff.
Surely I’m not the only one who just wants to exchange money for a flight, based roughly on the actual cost? Even accepting that I might pay more for better cabins, or hold baggage, or advance seat selection? Is the current mess genuinely more profitable? Is there any way to fix it besides some kind of regulation of fares? Is there a disruptor?
Small consolation, but we can think of airline shenanigans like this as just another hassle that makes flying less convenient / enjoyable, and so people will take fewer flights. Air travel (especially intercontinental flights) are a large fraction of a western individuals contribution to global warming. So the earth thanks you.
>Surely I’m not the only one who just wants to exchange money for a flight, based roughly on the actual cost?
Cost per seat per mile flown depends on fuel prices, labor prices, business/leisure demand, origin and destination, weather, etc. If it was easy then we would see the options present themselves, there's not that high of a barrier to entry to become an airline. Many have tried and many have failed, so there must be some reason that it's in the state that it's in.
All of the price discrimination actually helps poorer people fly, as the people who are able and willing to pay more can help pay for a greater share of the costs of operating the airline.
If you haven't read the Contract of Carriage before, I'd suggest you do. It's actually pretty fascinating and could come in handy when you want to set an airline employee straight.
I had no idea the lay out what is acceptable luggage including trophy antlers:
Antlers - Subject to the conditions and charges specified below, one set of antlers retained as hunting trophies per ticketed Passenger will be accepted as Checked Baggage, if aircraft size and load conditions permit.
If you go on hajj, you can bring back 10 L (!) of ZAMZAM water free of charge:
ZAM ZAM Water - Subject to the conditions below, one container or jerkin containing up to 10 liters (2.64 gallons) of ZAMZAM water will be accepted as checked baggage by UA at no extra charge in addition to the Baggage Allowance.
I did this earlier this year flying to Europe. My plans had changed a little so I realized that it would be easier to get off in Amsterdam instead of taking the next flight. It never occurred to me that this could be a problem but the agent gave us a really hard time when I asked to get our bags checked only to Amsterdam.
I honestly thought they would be happy to be able to give our seats to someone else.
They are offering more service for less money? Their pricing scheme is broken. Consumers should continue taking advantage of it until it become so cost prohibitive that they correct their pricing incentives.
It's not clear why exactly the airlines are so upset about this. If the passenger isn't present they can just shoehorn a standby onto the flight, or at least save on fuel costs.
They're scared that it might become popular and cost them too much.
The airline's business model is to try to charge people from point to point, this scheme takes advantage of that fact to find savings.
The airlines could, instead, change how they charge (e.g. per land mile/per minute in the air) but then it becomes harder to justify why direct flights that are cheaper for the airline to run cost consumers more, not less. And why inefficient indirect flights cost consumers less in spite of being more expensive for the airlines.
Airlines need to keep their current business model to prop up their hubs, but they need hubs due to their current business model. If you invented airlines today (particularly with the new Airbus and Boeing aircraft coming on-tap with greater range) you'd see far fewer hubs, and more direct point to point flights.
This is airlines trying to slow the inevitable, which is that they need to evolve.
Because the person was supposed to pay more for the privilege of skipping that flight leg and just staying at that intermediate destination. That customer is robbing the airline of their god-given entitlement to extra revenue.
Because a ticket from x->y->z sometimes costs less than a ticket from x->y. Presumably this has something to do with how much the markets in x, y, and z are able to bear. As in, people in X and Y will pay more for tickets than people in Z, so tickets terminating in Z are cheaper.
Credit isn't a measure of financial savvy. It's a measure of likelihood to repay debts. It may be financially savvy to strategically default, putting the two in conflict.
So if I buy a regular ticket and don't make the flight, by this reasoning that's fraud too? Are they going to send me to collections to get paid twice for missing my flight? Seems pretty ridiculous to me as I see literally no difference between the two scenarios.
The only way to settle this is if they sue someone. They already tried to shutter Skiplagged and failed so their position may not be as solid as they claim.
I never understood how they found out if a passenger was skipping one leg of a flight. If it's the same plane, just get off, and if it's not the same plane, just check in to the next flight and don't board. Is someone counting heads or something while I'm not looking?
The flights are nearly always separate planes, and even if they're not they do count heads on the plane and if you walk up, hand in your boarding pass, and then walk away they're going to note that down because now they have to go into the computer and verify whether you have bags onboard that they have to offload because you aren't taking the flight.
There's no scenario where they don't know exactly who is sitting in what seat for every seat on every plane when it takes off, it's all just data in the computer they can reference.
The article covers this. The short answer though is price discrimination. Airlines want to sell tickets for the most total money they can. There is more demand for A-to-B tickets than for A-to-C tickets, so they are able to charge more. As long as selling A-to-C tickets is marginally profitable though, they will do that as well, even though the price is lower, and regardless of the fact that the most efficient way for them to move people from A-to-C is through B.
Basically airlines will charge what the market will bear; their costs on a given route don't really factor into it, except in as much as they won't generally fly routes that aren't profitable.
Someone1234|7 years ago
Plus they're outright wrong that it constitutes "fraud," if for no other reason than the person skipping additional legs didn't profit from it, instead they simply limited UA's ability to further profit off of their travel.
If this was "fraud" then any other airline discount or saving would be too. Shop around for the cheapest price? That's "fraud" since UA didn't make as much. Didn't check bags for $50+ and instead overload your carry on? That's "fraud" since UA lost the checked bag fee. Fly to a smaller airport instead of a larger one, then take the bus? That's "fraud" too, UA deserves that money.
UA's creative use of the law here is nothing more than an intimidation tactic. They've run out of ideas so instead are just trying to muddy the waters enough to stop this becoming overly popular. I guess that's easier than re-examining how you ticket/what your business model is.
otterley|7 years ago
The elements of common law civil fraud are as follows:
1. Somebody intentionally misrepresents a material fact in order to obtain action or forbearance by another person ("I am traveling to ILM from SFO" but in fact is going to IAD);
2. The other person relies upon the misrepresentation (United prices the fare as though the passenger were going to ILM instead of IAD); and
3. The other person suffers injury as a result of the act or forbearance taken in reliance upon the misrepresentation (United gets less fare).
Note that profit is not an element of fraud, although here, one could argue that the potential fraudster did profit in terms of the difference in fare.
So United has a fair argument that, given the facts at hand, intentionally misrepresenting one's travel plans in order to obtain a better fare probably constitutes fraud.
maxxxxx|7 years ago
rconti|7 years ago
If they're overbooked, they avoid having to pay to bump someone.
They incur less in fuel costs, as the plane lands in its destination city with a slightly greater fuel load.
Some passenger somewhere has a more pleasant flight because they have an empty seat next to them.
oh_sigh|7 years ago
394549|7 years ago
I wonder if they've snuck in a mandatory binding arbitration clause into their contract, and if that would cover disputes about false debts. Even if the false debts were totally illegal, arbitration could make it impractical to challenge them.
lordlimecat|7 years ago
>UA's creative use of the law
You mean "use of contract", assuming they're correct that it violates the contract of carriage (too lazy to check).
unknown|7 years ago
[deleted]
mchannon|7 years ago
Ahh yes, the "known false debts act of 1789". </s> The fact is corporations have throngs of willing stooges who are happy to perjure themselves in trial and assert that the debts weren't false at all. Who's a judge and jury going to believe? The scammer who cheated the poor impoverished airline out of its money, or the well-dressed stooge with front-row access to United's records?
Lying to the courts to get what you want is in practice a fully sanctioned strategy for corporations who desire to intimidate their customers by "making an example" of their least favorite customers by throwing criminal charges against them.
Mr. Lundgren can bear witness to this, as can I.
ben1040|7 years ago
If I buy the combo and throw away the fries, nobody's going to argue that I've cheated Wendy's and owe them for the difference in price.
But I'd agree they're still free to refuse me service in the future on grounds of wasting food.
mynameisvlad|7 years ago
grimjack00|7 years ago
I want a Big Mac, 2 cheeseburgers, a soft drink and fries. Using prices from https://www.fastfoodmenuprices.com/mcdonalds-prices/ , I have two options: a) Big Mac meal ($5.99) + 2 cheeseburgers ($2.00) = $7.99 or b) 2 cheeseburger meal ($4.89) + Big Mac ($3.99) = $8.88
If I order option a, McDonalds "loses" $0.89. Am I committing fraud?
anon49124|7 years ago
[deleted]
mynameisvlad|7 years ago
This is especially ridiculous with how exorbitant ticket change fees are. I was in San Jose a few weeks ago and decided last minute to stay a few days longer in SF. It would have cost me 125 dollars to cancel or change my already booked SJC-SEA flight, and it would have netted me <90 dollars in credit so I was essentially paying 35 dollars for the privilege of telling Alaska that I wasn't going to fly with them. Of course I instead just skipped the leg and booked a new flight separately.
swiley|7 years ago
StavrosK|7 years ago
nneonneo|7 years ago
Now, if this were the "social credit" system of a certain country, well, then maybe they really could blackmail you (because you violated a "social order" by playing ticketing games...).
insomniacity|7 years ago
adrr|7 years ago
ChuckMcM|7 years ago
Either way, I think they will lose. And when it becomes clear that they can't extract value this way from passengers it will cause ticket prices to change to more accurately reflect actual costs.
[1] Updated 9/27/18 with section 6.J --https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.ht...
otterley|7 years ago
I agree that the Contract of Carriage is probably not the strongest basis by which United can demand recompense for abandoning a segment. Instead, I think they have a better chance of prevailing on a common-law fraud theory; see my explanation above.
seaweedlegs|7 years ago
chuckgreenman|7 years ago
Their definition of `fraud` is insane, but if they want to open the door for more recourse when things don't happen as scheduled I'm okay with that. I think United owes the majority of their customers quite a bit more than hidden city fare users owe them.
leelin|7 years ago
Passengers can find a cheaper ticket flying JFK->TPE->HKG and ditching the final leg (carry-on only). However, if an airline "knows" a passenger will skip the final leg, then they are helping the individual evade a legitimate tax.
jakebasile|7 years ago
londons_explore|7 years ago
moonka|7 years ago
kazinator|7 years ago
The idea that the passenger should have paid more to get off at that intermediate airport is purely a fabricated entitlement.
If they underlying hypothesis behind this entitlement is that "all people should pay the same for the same flight", it is pure hypocrisy, because the airline industry is responsible for, and profits from the whole situation that people in adjacent seats may have paid wildly different prices.
If they want people not to game the system, they have to remove the game from the system. But that game largely benefits them, so they don't. You can't have it both ways: create a game-like system, and not have people some people play it some of the time.
CoolGuySteve|7 years ago
It would even make sense to mechanize these libel claims via a bunch of templates, sort of like how airhelp.com works.
matthewmacleod|7 years ago
I am genuinely entirely fucking sick of the awful experience of booking air travel. The thought of doing it fills me with dread now.
Here is a recent example: a return flight booked with my partner from the UK to the US. His company later wants to send him to a conference in a place nearby a couple of days prior, and of course will happily pay for travel there, and on to our actual destination. “That’s okay”, I think; “I can cancel the outgoing leg of his flight, even if I don’t get a refund”.
Not. Possible. The price British Airways wants to charge me for cancelling one leg of a return flight for one passenger is more than the entire cost for two return tickets. Of course, he can’t just skip that flight, since the inbound will be cancelled.
Literally nobody gains from this. It reinforces the point that consumer cost is now entirely decoupled from the cost of service. On top of this, the process of buying tickets is utterly baffling. Multiple aggregators linking to multiple external agents who in turn are selling tickets cheaper than the airline directly. Codeshares charged at multiples of the cost for being on the exact same flight. And the obvious hidden city stuff.
Surely I’m not the only one who just wants to exchange money for a flight, based roughly on the actual cost? Even accepting that I might pay more for better cabins, or hold baggage, or advance seat selection? Is the current mess genuinely more profitable? Is there any way to fix it besides some kind of regulation of fares? Is there a disruptor?
flubert|7 years ago
Small consolation, but we can think of airline shenanigans like this as just another hassle that makes flying less convenient / enjoyable, and so people will take fewer flights. Air travel (especially intercontinental flights) are a large fraction of a western individuals contribution to global warming. So the earth thanks you.
https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=air%20travel%20climate%20chang...
lotsofpulp|7 years ago
Cost per seat per mile flown depends on fuel prices, labor prices, business/leisure demand, origin and destination, weather, etc. If it was easy then we would see the options present themselves, there's not that high of a barrier to entry to become an airline. Many have tried and many have failed, so there must be some reason that it's in the state that it's in.
All of the price discrimination actually helps poorer people fly, as the people who are able and willing to pay more can help pay for a greater share of the costs of operating the airline.
refurb|7 years ago
I had no idea the lay out what is acceptable luggage including trophy antlers:
Antlers - Subject to the conditions and charges specified below, one set of antlers retained as hunting trophies per ticketed Passenger will be accepted as Checked Baggage, if aircraft size and load conditions permit.
If you go on hajj, you can bring back 10 L (!) of ZAMZAM water free of charge:
ZAM ZAM Water - Subject to the conditions below, one container or jerkin containing up to 10 liters (2.64 gallons) of ZAMZAM water will be accepted as checked baggage by UA at no extra charge in addition to the Baggage Allowance.
[1]https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.ht...
maxxxxx|7 years ago
I honestly thought they would be happy to be able to give our seats to someone else.
deckar01|7 years ago
parliament32|7 years ago
Someone1234|7 years ago
The airline's business model is to try to charge people from point to point, this scheme takes advantage of that fact to find savings.
The airlines could, instead, change how they charge (e.g. per land mile/per minute in the air) but then it becomes harder to justify why direct flights that are cheaper for the airline to run cost consumers more, not less. And why inefficient indirect flights cost consumers less in spite of being more expensive for the airlines.
Airlines need to keep their current business model to prop up their hubs, but they need hubs due to their current business model. If you invented airlines today (particularly with the new Airbus and Boeing aircraft coming on-tap with greater range) you'd see far fewer hubs, and more direct point to point flights.
This is airlines trying to slow the inevitable, which is that they need to evolve.
kazinator|7 years ago
pjc50|7 years ago
Skunkleton|7 years ago
kazinator|7 years ago
I'd sooner give a loan to that person than some reckless spender.
recursive|7 years ago
mLuby|7 years ago
Navarr|7 years ago
"Flight completion discounts"
z2|7 years ago
mnm1|7 years ago
tinus_hn|7 years ago
trelliscoded|7 years ago
jki275|7 years ago
There's no scenario where they don't know exactly who is sitting in what seat for every seat on every plane when it takes off, it's all just data in the computer they can reference.
qwerty456127|7 years ago
tempestn|7 years ago
Basically airlines will charge what the market will bear; their costs on a given route don't really factor into it, except in as much as they won't generally fly routes that aren't profitable.
unknown|7 years ago
[deleted]
naveen99|7 years ago
rebecca19|7 years ago
[deleted]