Hidden-city ticketing and the Streisand effect: a cautionary tale
Paxing All Over The World
In the simplest form: When you enter a shop, pick an item from the shelf and go to the till/cash register: When the staff says, "That is 49 cents" and you say "Yes" the contract is made. If you say, "I'll pay 49 cents but take two" no contract wil be made.
The argument is that a person standing outside the shop telling potential customers that they can pay 49 cents and take two items would be encouraging those people to break the contract.
The argument is that a person standing outside the shop telling potential customers that they can pay 49 cents and take two items would be encouraging those people to break the contract.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would actually say it is more like this; When you enter a shop, pick two items from the shelf and go to the till/cash register: When the staff says, "That is 49 cents" and you say "Yes" the contract is made. If you say, "I'll pay 49 cents but take one" no contract wil be made.
The person standing outside the shop telling potential customers that they can pay 49 cents and take just one item would indeed be encouraging those people to break the contract, but it is worth pursuing that person and giving them more publicity than they could ever dream of?
The person standing outside the shop telling potential customers that they can pay 49 cents and take just one item would indeed be encouraging those people to break the contract, but it is worth pursuing that person and giving them more publicity than they could ever dream of?
Paxing All Over The World
Yes Delight, that is correct.
Sadly, one probably outcome is the change in fares that will follow the example of RyanAir's 'Wheelchair tax'. But humans are not logical and the media like 'sound bites'. The pricing structure of airlines is extrmely complex as it has old roots that have had to have modern economica grafted on to them. I doubt that any company would start up with the process' they have now!
Sadly, one probably outcome is the change in fares that will follow the example of RyanAir's 'Wheelchair tax'. But humans are not logical and the media like 'sound bites'. The pricing structure of airlines is extrmely complex as it has old roots that have had to have modern economica grafted on to them. I doubt that any company would start up with the process' they have now!
"I should like to buy an egg, please," Alice said timidly. "How do you sell them?"
"Fivepence farthing for one - Twopence for two," the Sheep replied.
"Then two are cheaper than one?" Alice said in a surprised tone, taking out her purse.
"Only you must eat them both, if you buy two," said the Sheep.
"Then I'll have one, please," said Alice, as she put the money down on the counter.
"Fivepence farthing for one - Twopence for two," the Sheep replied.
"Then two are cheaper than one?" Alice said in a surprised tone, taking out her purse.
"Only you must eat them both, if you buy two," said the Sheep.
"Then I'll have one, please," said Alice, as she put the money down on the counter.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the simplest form: When you enter a shop, pick an item from the shelf and go to the till/cash register: When the staff says, "That is 49 cents" and you say "Yes" the contract is made. If you say, "I'll pay 49 cents but take two" no contract wil be made.
The argument is that a person standing outside the shop telling potential customers that they can pay 49 cents and take two items would be encouraging those people to break the contract.
The argument is that a person standing outside the shop telling potential customers that they can pay 49 cents and take two items would be encouraging those people to break the contract.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: on the cusp
Age: 52
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the contract is from A-C within defined times and limits.
That's the point I was trying to make, the clause the airline invokes protects them against the insistence that you travel via B. If the aircraft stops at B and I can get off and out with no impact to the airline then it is my right. I am a free person. If the airline wishes to sue me for breach of contract they can. But, in general they will fail because there has been no damage to them as a result. They could point to a clause that says I have to pay full fare, but again it could be disputed that this is just and fair as there is no basis for the charge other than the contract itself. I suspect judgements have gone either way in the past. They can also choose not to do business with a repeat "offender" as it wouldn't be discrimination, but why turn down business?
That's the point I was trying to make, the clause the airline invokes protects them against the insistence that you travel via B. If the aircraft stops at B and I can get off and out with no impact to the airline then it is my right. I am a free person. If the airline wishes to sue me for breach of contract they can. But, in general they will fail because there has been no damage to them as a result. They could point to a clause that says I have to pay full fare, but again it could be disputed that this is just and fair as there is no basis for the charge other than the contract itself. I suspect judgements have gone either way in the past. They can also choose not to do business with a repeat "offender" as it wouldn't be discrimination, but why turn down business?
Paxing All Over The World
dClbydalpha
ExXB
If the aircraft stops at B and I can get off and out with no impact to the airline then it is my right. I am a free person. If the airline wishes to sue me for breach of contract they can. But, in general they will fail because there has been no damage to them as a result. They could point to a clause that says I have to pay full fare, but again it could be disputed that this is just and fair as there is no basis for the charge other than the contract itself. I suspect judgements have gone either way in the past.
Hidden cities is a breach of contract. No doubt there. Time and time again the courts, government agencies and consumer associations, have agreed that the terms are fair.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be good to see some actual case law, rather than just conflicting assertions.
Given ExXB's location is stated as "Confoederatio Helvetica" and stated age suggests is of working age probably in a senior position, I would hazard a guess that ExXB ought to be given the benefit of the doubt as ExXB probably knows what's what.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suffice it to say that if any airline had lost even once it would have been headline news in every tabloid rag on the planet. Everyone would be doing it, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ticketing & Res.course with BOAC (yes, that long ago) took several weeks, due to the complexity of the subject among IATA airlines.
We were trained to explore every possible option on behalf of the customer until we found the optimum route and price to get him or her to where they wanted to go, including ancillaries like hotels and surface connections.
On a complex journey, it was common to spend hours on a single customer's long haul explorations, writing connected tickets with up to 10 or more flights coupons on a single fare payment.
Among the many strategies available when constructing a total fare was one known as "fictitious waypoints" or something like that, used to reduce a fare if possible. It was not only legitimate, but we were encouraged to use it.
It would have been very late '60s, early '70s, I think and continued for some years after that, probably until giving the customer the best possible deal became a sacking offence in most airlines.
There's nothing new in "hidden cities". What has changed is that airlines now seek to fleece their customers to the maximum possible extent, using ponderous legal threats as a revenue enhancement tool, rather than providing a good deal and the best possible service.
We were trained to explore every possible option on behalf of the customer until we found the optimum route and price to get him or her to where they wanted to go, including ancillaries like hotels and surface connections.
On a complex journey, it was common to spend hours on a single customer's long haul explorations, writing connected tickets with up to 10 or more flights coupons on a single fare payment.
Among the many strategies available when constructing a total fare was one known as "fictitious waypoints" or something like that, used to reduce a fare if possible. It was not only legitimate, but we were encouraged to use it.
It would have been very late '60s, early '70s, I think and continued for some years after that, probably until giving the customer the best possible deal became a sacking offence in most airlines.
There's nothing new in "hidden cities". What has changed is that airlines now seek to fleece their customers to the maximum possible extent, using ponderous legal threats as a revenue enhancement tool, rather than providing a good deal and the best possible service.
Last edited by Capot; 16th Jan 2015 at 22:58.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: The right side of the Pennines
Age: 74
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies for not researching now, but wasn't there a recent incident in England where a train passenger was prosecuted for buying a ticket from London (?) to Southampton, and alighting at the stop before Southampton (Eastleigh ?).
Correct
Couple fined for getting off train too early - Telegraph
But remember there may be a ticket check as you leave a station which would pick this up, I've never seen one at an airport.
Couple fined for getting off train too early - Telegraph
8:07AM BST 06 Sep 2010
Emma Clark and her fiancé Davyd Winter-Bates were travelling home to Southampton, Hants, from London when they decided to alight two stops early at Eastleigh.
However, they were shocked when they handed over their tickets and were told they had to pay a penalty for not staying on the train until their destination.
They were each fined £57 by the rail operator South West Trains – twice the cost of a standard fare of £28.50.
Miss Clark, a 22-year-old art student from Bishopstoke, Hants, told The Sun: “It is utter madness. I could understand being fined if I had stayed on the train two stops beyond my destination.”
The train company said the couple incurred the fines because they were using discounted tickets, which were not valid for travel to Eastleigh.
Related Articles
Half of all rail ticket advice is wrong 24 Feb 2011
The pair had bought the single tickets for £6 online and were not aware of the conditions.
A South West Trains spokesman said: "The customers in this case booked a journey from London Waterloo to Southampton through the megatrain.com website. Megatrain.com does not offer journeys or fares from London to Eastleigh.
"It is made very clear in the terms and conditions of travel that leaving the train at an intermediate station is not permitted on these heavily discounted tickets.
"As with any service offered by any company, it is important passengers comply with the terms and conditions.
"This particular journey is provided on a South West Trains service. It took place in a penalty fare zone, where anyone travelling without a valid ticket is liable to pay £20 or double the full standard single fare, whichever is greater.
"In this case, the tickets were not valid for travel to Eastleigh. The cost of the full standard single fare from London to Eastleigh is £28.50, resulting in a penalty fare of £57 for each passenger."
The couple were on their way home after a theatre trip and hotel stay in the capital to celebrate Mr Winter-Bates’s 25th birthday.
Emma Clark and her fiancé Davyd Winter-Bates were travelling home to Southampton, Hants, from London when they decided to alight two stops early at Eastleigh.
However, they were shocked when they handed over their tickets and were told they had to pay a penalty for not staying on the train until their destination.
They were each fined £57 by the rail operator South West Trains – twice the cost of a standard fare of £28.50.
Miss Clark, a 22-year-old art student from Bishopstoke, Hants, told The Sun: “It is utter madness. I could understand being fined if I had stayed on the train two stops beyond my destination.”
The train company said the couple incurred the fines because they were using discounted tickets, which were not valid for travel to Eastleigh.
Related Articles
Half of all rail ticket advice is wrong 24 Feb 2011
The pair had bought the single tickets for £6 online and were not aware of the conditions.
A South West Trains spokesman said: "The customers in this case booked a journey from London Waterloo to Southampton through the megatrain.com website. Megatrain.com does not offer journeys or fares from London to Eastleigh.
"It is made very clear in the terms and conditions of travel that leaving the train at an intermediate station is not permitted on these heavily discounted tickets.
"As with any service offered by any company, it is important passengers comply with the terms and conditions.
"This particular journey is provided on a South West Trains service. It took place in a penalty fare zone, where anyone travelling without a valid ticket is liable to pay £20 or double the full standard single fare, whichever is greater.
"In this case, the tickets were not valid for travel to Eastleigh. The cost of the full standard single fare from London to Eastleigh is £28.50, resulting in a penalty fare of £57 for each passenger."
The couple were on their way home after a theatre trip and hotel stay in the capital to celebrate Mr Winter-Bates’s 25th birthday.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couple fined for getting off train too early - Telegraph
If there was similar dispute with an airline in the UK then presumably this would be handled under contract law and the airline would have to prove damages?
Whereas with the railway the issue whether the passenger has a valid ticket for the journey because this may be handled as a crimninal offence if you fail to settle it via a penalty offer.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there was similar dispute with an airline in the UK then presumably this would be handled under contract law and the airline would have to prove damages?
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: M
Age: 42
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exept its not quite that straight forward. There are 2 different ways to work out the airlines cost.
1 the difference in fair between a-b-c and a-b
2 the cost of to the airline of the pax not occupying their paied for seat on b-c (cost £0)
a case brought in the UK would bee under civil law (where fines/penatlys cannot bee issued). under UK civil law where there is ambiguility (ie 2 different methods to work out costs) in a contract the clouse that benifits the person who did NOT write the contract/t's&c's is the one that MUST be applyed.
The story metro man linked to is different simply because it applys to train travel. In the old days Brittish Rail being owned by the government WAS allowed to impose fines/penatilies (and they dont even have to be "fair" unlike consumer contracts where ALL terms/clouses must be fair). This abbility to issue fines was maintained during privitation. The airline industry has never had this ability
1 the difference in fair between a-b-c and a-b
2 the cost of to the airline of the pax not occupying their paied for seat on b-c (cost £0)
a case brought in the UK would bee under civil law (where fines/penatlys cannot bee issued). under UK civil law where there is ambiguility (ie 2 different methods to work out costs) in a contract the clouse that benifits the person who did NOT write the contract/t's&c's is the one that MUST be applyed.
The story metro man linked to is different simply because it applys to train travel. In the old days Brittish Rail being owned by the government WAS allowed to impose fines/penatilies (and they dont even have to be "fair" unlike consumer contracts where ALL terms/clouses must be fair). This abbility to issue fines was maintained during privitation. The airline industry has never had this ability
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: up north
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rail example is also different in that the Ts&Cs are very specific about the cost of "breaking the contract", so the purchaser is very aware (if they read the Ts&Cs) of the cost of their actions.
In the air ticket case, the additional cost is not specified. Just saying that the cost will be the normal single fare to the point of exit does not provide specific information. A "logical" person reading that would assume/argue that the cost of A-B would be less than they have paid A-B-C. If the ticket said something like "if you get off at B, there will be a supplementary fare of £500" that would be a different matter.
In the air ticket case, the additional cost is not specified. Just saying that the cost will be the normal single fare to the point of exit does not provide specific information. A "logical" person reading that would assume/argue that the cost of A-B would be less than they have paid A-B-C. If the ticket said something like "if you get off at B, there will be a supplementary fare of £500" that would be a different matter.
I'd just like to see some evidence that they have actually won one, ie that hidden-city ticketing has ever resulted in a court case at all between an airline and an individual traveller.
See above. I'm not interested in proving anybody right or wrong because I have no idea who is. I'd just like to see some evidence that airlines take individual passengers to court when it seems equally reasonable that they would avoid the risk of the adverse publicity that ExXB has referred to, should they lose.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capot, in the days the fictitious construction point was used primarily in calculating fares for round the world journeys. Primarily when the passenger's main destination wasn't half-way around the world. For example a London Passenger travelling to Jakarta travelling outbound via SIN and returning via TYO and NYC. The combination of west about and east about fares for cities along the route would differ, sometimes substantially. Fares for some cities were not available as the MPM was exceeded by more than 20%. For London the magic point was usually Jogjakarta as this point gave both the best total fare and the most MPM (maximum permitted mileage) for the passenger. It simplified the fare calculation for the airline/travel agent and gave the best IATA price for the customer. Also recall that no single airline could offer these itineraries - they required vast amounts of interline.
In the naughties the UK's OFT reviewed the airlines conditions of carriage, including these under discussion. With some tweaking of language (plain English and additional clarity) the OFT determined that these terms were not unfair under UK/EU legislation.
The fare for your journey is that from the point of origin to the destination as shown on your ticket. You may not change your itinerary, origin or destination without our agreement. Should you wish to change any aspect of your journey we will recalculate your fare and you will be given the option of accepting our revised fare or maintaining your original journey as ticketed. If you change your journey as a result of force majure we will not recalculate your fare, but you must advise us as soon as reasonable. (or words to that effect, I'm depending on memory here)
In the naughties the UK's OFT reviewed the airlines conditions of carriage, including these under discussion. With some tweaking of language (plain English and additional clarity) the OFT determined that these terms were not unfair under UK/EU legislation.
The fare for your journey is that from the point of origin to the destination as shown on your ticket. You may not change your itinerary, origin or destination without our agreement. Should you wish to change any aspect of your journey we will recalculate your fare and you will be given the option of accepting our revised fare or maintaining your original journey as ticketed. If you change your journey as a result of force majure we will not recalculate your fare, but you must advise us as soon as reasonable. (or words to that effect, I'm depending on memory here)