This thread inspired me to spend (way too much) time last night walking through the NWA Contract of Carriage. Based on that once-through (which was, by no means comprehensive), I'd have to agree with the other posts as to why NWA can do this. However, whether or not they should have done it is a different matter. The rules are there, in part, to keep people from gaming the system to get a lower fare (and that is a vast oversimplification... it's not just about the fare, but also about seat inventory and a lot more). The Contract goes into some detail regarding this issue, and if they discover you playing this game they can legally cut off your hand or something. But that doesn't mean that everything that appears to fit this bill is, indeed, in conflict with the Contract. The case at hand is a wonderful example of a circumstance which should have prompted thinking, human intervention by NWA staff. This is especially the case given the distances and costs to the passenger involved. In short, it appears to me that NWA did something that they legally could do. But it was unnecessary, stupid, and petty under the circumstances. That’s not customer service. NWA has done little to increase its bottom line in making the pax buy a new ticket, and has all but guaranteed that this passenger will never again be a NWA customer. Therefore, that passenger won’t have learned from the experience—it’s not like he won’t make the same mistake and skip a segment on NWA again, because he’s never going to fly NWA again. There’s just no upside for the company on this decision.
Note: that ain't legal advice.
Dave