Lufthansa is cracking down on a way for airline passengers to get cheaper fares—with a lawsuit that brings fresh attention to the practice. Airlines put a premium on nonstop flights, and "skiplagging" passengers exploit that practice by booking flights with a layover, and then skipping the last leg of the flight. The German airline is suing a passenger who booked a Seattle-Frankfurt-Oslo flight, then saved money by skipping the last leg of the flight and taking another flight to his real destination, Berlin, CNN reports. Lufthansa, which is seeking $2,385 compensation, says the passenger violated terms and conditions.
The terms and conditions of some airlines state that passengers who buy a ticket have agreed to complete their journeys. The Telegraph reports that there are some ways the strategy, also known as "hidden city" flying, can backfire. If passengers miss the first leg of a flight, the entire journey is canceled—and unless they restrict themselves to carry-on baggage only, their luggage will go to the wrong city. The Lufthansa passenger's case was dismissed by a court in Berlin last year, but an airline spokesperson tells CNN that the company has decided to appeal. (United Airlines sued a website that took advantage of the trick in 2014, but the case was thrown out of court the following year.) |
The amount sought in the lawsuit was for the fare the person would have paid had they booked the trip they actually took.
Quote:
that you actually took?
The amount sought in the lawsuit was for the fare the person would have paid had they booked the trip they actually took.
She buys the two boxes and promptly throws the second box out. The store claims she should have to buy the 16 oz. box.
That's sort of what I see. The passenger has paid a specific price for a flight and only uses part of it. It has been paid for and should be up to the passenger what to do with it.
Except instead of throwing the 2nd box out, she just leaves the 2nd box at the register on her way out.
Revenue management software for airlines must forecast demand and price thousands of potential city pairs and tens of thousands of potential routings in such a way that maximizes the revenue generated by each seat flown by the airline. Individual markets are affected by demand seasonality, irregular spikes, booking patters (leisure vs. business), capacity, competition (stimulating demand), etc. There are millions of variables and the systems used by airlines are reasonably good at maximizing revenue per seat, but the result of these mostly-automated pricing decisions, fare rules and inventory allocation will, from time to time, yield what appear to be irrational pricing, such as the hidden-city phenomenon.
I recognize the fact that people generally hate airlines, and air travel often elicits emotional responses possibly associated with past negative experiences, but the fact remains that this practice is expressly prohibited in the contract of carriage between the airline and the passengers. As a matter of law, these contracts are held to be valid and enforceable. If the passenger's motivation (based on a pattern of behavior) is to engage in this ticketing practice deliberately, for the purpose of avoiding a higher fare in the market he actually intends to fly, why would the business not be justified in taking action against the passenger?
There's no property right to a particular seat over a particular routing; generally speaking the published fare on the itineraries is between point of origin and destination with a series of permissible transfer points.
Quote:
Can't break tackles either.
Dead horse, meet Joey.
Now you're talking to dead animals...while n0t entirely unexpected from you, its still not a good look.
Still, whether right or wrong, fair or unfair, it’s written into the contract. I’m just trying to illustrate the basis for the airline’s claim.
The flaw in this analysis is the presumption that the customer had a contractual obligation to complete the flight. I do not think they do.
If the passenger failed to get on the first leg of the flight and stayed in Newark, has he/she breached the contract with the carrier? No.
If the passenger failed to take the second leg because of sudden illness, family emergency, being inattentive, or some other non-fare related reason, have they breached the contract? No.
I don't think even the finest print can impose a contractual obligation on an individual to require that they must take the second leg of the flight but only depending on their state of mind. The contract imposes an obligation to act or not act. I cannot imagine one that requires the counterparty to act based on their subjective state of mind at the time, much less one that forcibly compels someone to complete the last leg of the flight under threat of financial penalty.
Quote:
There’s nothing to hide. If you buy a ticket from Newark to Chicago to Green Bay, you’re getting transportation from Newark to Green Bay. The transfer point is immaterial. If one treats it as a flight from Newark to Chicago with an option to continue to Green Bay, solely for the purpose of avoiding a higher fare on Newark to Chicago (if priced individually), then that’s a breach of the contract of carriage, and the passenger doing so proceeds at his own risk. The odds of the airline noticing are extremely remote, and more remote still is the possibility of the airline taking action. In this case, Lufthansa is simply attempting to enforce the contract of carriage, much like any other kind of commercial dispute. It just happens to be extraordinarily rare in this context.
Still, whether right or wrong, fair or unfair, it’s written into the contract. I’m just trying to illustrate the basis for the airline’s claim.
The flaw in this analysis is the presumption that the customer had a contractual obligation to complete the flight. I do not think they do.
If the passenger failed to get on the first leg of the flight and stayed in Newark, has he/she breached the contract with the carrier? No.
If the passenger failed to take the second leg because of sudden illness, family emergency, being inattentive, or some other non-fare related reason, have they breached the contract? No.
I don't think even the finest print can impose a contractual obligation on an individual to require that they must take the second leg of the flight but only depending on their state of mind. The contract imposes an obligation to act or not act. I cannot imagine one that requires the counterparty to act based on their subjective state of mind at the time, much less one that forcibly compels someone to complete the last leg of the flight under threat of financial penalty.
No, airline contracts of carriage do not impose an obligation to *complete* the journey as ticketed, but the breach occurs when the passenger deliberately books a certain itinerary to circumvent the published fare on the actual intended flights on the day of travel.
That language is contained here:
American
Reservations made to exploit or circumvent fare and ticket rules are strictly prohibited.
Examples include (but are not limited to):
Purchase a ticket without intending to fly all flights to gain lower fares (hidden cities)
Buy a ticket without intent to travel, including to gain access to our airport lounges or other facilities
Combine 2 or more roundtrip excursion fares end-to-end to circumvent minimum stay requirements (back-to-back ticketing)
Book a ticket in someone's name without the person's consent (which is illegal)
Hold reservations for reasons including securing upgrades, blocking seats or obtaining lower fares
If we find evidence that you or your agent are using an exploitive practice, we reserve the right to:
Cancel any unused part of the ticket
Refuse to let the passenger fly and check bags
Not refund an otherwise refundable ticket
Charge you for what the ticket would have cost if you hadn't booked it fraudulently.
United
Fares apply for travel only between the points for which they are published. Tickets may not be purchased and used at fare(s) from an initial departure point on the Ticket which is before the Passenger’s actual point of origin of travel, or to a more distant point(s) than the Passenger’s actual destination being traveled even when the purchase and use of such Tickets would produce a lower fare. This practice is known as “Hidden Cities Ticketing” or “Point Beyond Ticketing” and is prohibited by UA.
The purchase and use of round-trip Tickets for the purpose of one-way travel only, known as “Throwaway Ticketing” is prohibited by UA.
The use of Flight Coupons from two or more different Tickets issued at round trip fares for the purpose of circumventing applicable tariff rules (such as advance purchase/minimum stay requirements) commonly referred to as “Back-to-Back Ticketing” is prohibited by UA.
The failure to comply with applicable stayover requirements, the failure to meet the purpose or status requirement associated with the Ticket’s fare category, and the purchase or use of a Ticket that UA determines circumvents the applicable fare rules.
Any practice that United believes, in its sole discretion, is exploitative, abusive or that manipulates/bypasses/overrides United’s fare and ticket rules.
UA’s Remedies for Violation(s) of Rules - Where a Ticket is purchased and used in violation of the law, these rules or any fare rule (including Hidden Cities Ticketing, Point Beyond Ticketing, Throwaway Ticketing, or Back-to-Back Ticketing), UA, without notice to the passenger, has the right in its sole discretion to take all actions permitted by law, including but not limited to, the following:
Invalidate the Ticket(s);
Cancel any remaining portion of the Passenger’s itinerary;
Confiscate any unused Flight Coupons;
Permanently ban or refuse to board the Passenger and to carry the Passenger’s baggage, unless the difference between the fare paid and the fare for transportation used is collected prior to boarding;
Assess the Passenger for the actual value of the Ticket which shall be the difference between the lowest fare applicable to the Passenger’s actual itinerary and the fare actually paid;
Delete miles in the Passenger’s frequent flyer account (UA’s MileagePlus Program), revoke the Passenger’s Elite status, if any, in the MileagePlus Program, terminate the Passenger’s participation in the MileagePlus Program, terminate any other air transportation agreement between UA and the Passenger, or take any other action permitted by the MileagePlus Program Rules in UA’s “MileagePlus Rules;” and
Take legal action with respect to the Passenger.
Delta
Delta prohibits ticketing practices intended to circumvent the published fare that Delta intends to offer for your true itinerary. These practices include, but are not limited to:
1) Back to Back Ticketing - The purchase or usage of two or more tickets issued at round trip fares, or the combination of two or more round trip fares end to end on the same ticket for the purpose of circumventing minimum stay requirements.
2) Throwaway Ticketing - The purchase or usage of round trip fares for one way travel.
3) Hidden City/Point Beyond Ticketing - The purchase or usage of a fare from a point before the passenger's actual origin or to a point beyond the passenger's actual destination.
As I've said, the reason US carriers generally don't sue for breach of contract in this case is because proving intent is difficult (and costly), while other remedies, such as dumping FF accounts and revoking membership, can be done with virtual impunity if a pattern of behavior is discovered.
The important thing to remember is that hidden-city ticketing isn't just about carelessly missing a flight, it's booking an itinerary a passenger does not intend to fly solely for the purpose of avoiding a higher published fare on the routing the passenger actually intends to fly.
$125 for the flight with $125 in casino vouchers. I was in my mid-20's at the time, the youngest person on the plane - BY FAR, and made a crapload playing poker. It was essentially a free day trip
Interesting - they'd let you use the voucher for table games? That's a steal
It sounds like that is exactly what they do in most instances.
Quote:
flights from Charlotte to the casinos in Mississippi.
$125 for the flight with $125 in casino vouchers. I was in my mid-20's at the time, the youngest person on the plane - BY FAR, and made a crapload playing poker. It was essentially a free day trip
Interesting - they'd let you use the voucher for table games? That's a steal
I remember in the 80"s we could take a bus from DC to AC (which was still fairly new at the time). It cost something like $20 round trip but they gave us $20 in quarters.
Not knowing anything about tables, my wife and I spent the quarters on slots in minutes plus the few dollars of our own that we brought. That was like 10 AM by that time. So, with no money we had to wait until 5 PM to take the bus home. AC was such a shithole back then and we had to hang around with absolutely nothing to do. It was a terrible trip.
OTOH, in college a couple of my fraternity brothers went on a free cruise to Bermuda (maybe it was the Bahamas) based purely on the promise that they had to spend X amount of time in the ship casino. Worked out great for them.
The important thing to remember is that hidden-city ticketing isn't just about carelessly missing a flight, it's booking an itinerary a passenger does not intend to fly solely for the purpose of avoiding a higher published fare on the routing the passenger actually intends to fly.
So what?
As FMIC said earlier, lets say someone wants to drink 1L of Coke - that bottle costs $1. But the 2L bottle of coke is currently on sale for 90 cents. So what does the consumer do? He/he naturally buys the 2L bottle... and maybe they throw it out after drinking the Liter they wanted. So the fuck what.
If an airline is stupid enough to price A to B (and then to C) cheaper than A to B... that's on them. Clearly they're just trying to price gouge consumers on the A to B direct to begin with since they're going to let "C" customers fly that exact same route so much cheaper.
For example, our organization has a price for Asia quoted in dollars, but a price for Japan quoted in Yen. We have to make sure they are equivalent. In the past, we had Japanese customers purchase at the Asia price which was several thousand dollars less, and then resell at a large profit.
The burden to price correctly in the rest of the world fall to the companies, not the individual
Quote:
for passengers who do this. That would curtail it without imposing problems on normal passengers.
It sounds like that is exactly what they do in most instances.
I think they ban you from that airline. I mean a shared blackball list across all airlines. It’s a shared problem it seems