Airlines charging pax who 'buck the system'?

[Capetonian]

As we all know, a return is often cheaper than a one way.

With the LOCO's this doesn't apply, but I've just found a situation, whilst looking at helping a friend of mine to buy a ticket home (Europe to SA), where a one way would cost 4 times more than a cheap return. He has no intention of coming back and would simply ignore the return coupon.

In theory, if the passenger no-shows for the return flight, the airline is entitled to collect the difference. I have heard of a case where a business travel agency whose customer bought returns and never used the inbound segment, received ADM's (agency debit memos) from the airline for the difference.

Has anyone heard of a case where a passenger books on the airline's website, or through an on-line travel agency, and is subsequently charged through their credit card for the difference in such a case?

[PAXboy]

No, not heard of any examples for personal customers. If you have paid in full, you will lose all the govt and airport taxes - which the airline will pocket.

[Final 3 Greens]

I heard of a couple, in the USA, must be 7-8 years ago.

Nothing since.

I would have thought that if the passenger was ill/certified unfit to travel and paid a medic £5 or whatever they charge for certificates these days, then the airline would have no recourse whatsoever.

[Avman]

Did it myself a few times. Never had a problem. This was some years ago mind.

[Anansis]

I'm sure if you turn up late for the inbound sector the airline would be quick to remind you that the ticket is non amendable and non refundable. In your case that might be a good thing. Check the terms and conditions...

[PAXboy]

All the timers I have heard of difficulties is with regards to not using the first, or intermediate, sectors. It would appear that by the last sector, they have got their money and, by not carrying you, can make more money but using the seat for an overbooked or other transfer. But don't miss the first sector ...

[Two-Tone-Blue]

I read something on the BA website about using tickets in the correct sequence a few weeks ago. I suspect if you made a habit of doing it, the airline concerned would have you flagged on their computer system and start to make a wee fuss.

[Final 3 Greens]

This may all come to a head at some stage, with the EU consumer people.

If you choose to go to a restaurant and skip the starter of a fixed price meal, can they force you to eat it?

A lower level court in Germany has already said not, in the case of Lufthansa, but the case has not been appealed AFAIK, as the higher courts can make a binding decision.

If the airlines do push it, I'd expect some reaction.

[Pontius Navigator]

I read something on the BA website about using tickets in the correct sequence a few weeks ago. I suspect if you made a habit of doing it, the airline concerned would have you flagged on their computer system and start to make a wee fuss.

The same pax 'scam' applied to the channel crossings too. Get two cheap day-returns. Use one out and later use the other back. Easy to say you missed the first return ferry. Difficult to argue that you had 'missed' the second outbound, ie first sector. :)

Agree about the charging scandal tho.

Looked for a friend to travel Canada, London, Humberside, Schipol, Canada.

Humberside return £748. Heathrow return £666. Air Canada to LHR £1700! Didn't even look at the Humberside-Schipol link. Only issue might be trying to get a layover in Schipol on return.

[PAXboy]

I recall the carriers trying to have a go about people using back-to-back tickets so that you could avoid the Saturday night stay trap. AFAIR the airlines had to let it go as you were using each ticket in compliance with it's fare rules.

There can be little doubt that we will see similar movements in ticketing in the next decade as we have seen in the last.

[ulxima]

If you choose to go to a restaurant and skip the starter of a fixed price meal, can they force you to eat it?


No, they cannot.
But they will bring it to the table for the check-in :E

Ciao ciao
Ulxima

[Alsacienne]

The same pax 'scam' applied to the channel crossings too. Get two cheap day-returns. Use one out and later use the other back. Easy to say you missed the first return ferry. Difficult to argue that you had 'missed' the second outbound, ie first sector.

Cross channel ferry companies are getting wise to all sorts of loop holes, especially trying to buy a day return ticket for a ferry leaving after lunchtime (for the outward leg) as that costs far less than a single.

Single tickets be they for flights or ferry crossings are EXTORTIONATE and certainly more than twice the cost of a return ticket ...

Oh well, the world is not a fair (fare?) place is it ..

[Anansis]

Capetonian-

Air Berlin fly from Germany to Capetown (MUC-CPT I think). They allow customers to book l/h one way tickets without paying a premium. Might be worth checking them out...

Anansis

[Pontius Navigator]

Single tickets be they for flights or ferry crossings are EXTORTIONATE and certainly more than twice the cost of a return ticket ...

I wonder how long they keep a marker on you?

Until the next computer upgrade?:}

[bfisk]

Fly out and don't fly home, fine. However, if you plan to fly home but don't show up for the outbound flight, expect problems on your return.

Of course the airline is not entitled to charge you for the difference in price between a return and a one way fare, if the latter is more expensive. Pay with a credit card; any problems and you can direct them towards the credit card company.

[ExXB]

It was just a few months ago that we had a extensive debate on 'sequential' and 'complete' use requirements of airlines.

From a legal perspective this has been examined by the UK OFT, and many courts in the EU. Although lower courts have not always agreed with the airlines' perspective to my knowledge it has been ultimately determined that the airline's requirements do not infringe the 'unfair terms in consumer contracts' Regulation.

From the airlines' perspective they have a price for each and every service they provide. They have a prices for one way journeys and for round trip journeys - they even have prices from points beyond their hubs, that are lower than flights from their hubs. The rub comes when the passenger, WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE AND AGREEMENT (sorry for shouting) of the airline attempts to substitute one service, which has one price, for another service (which has another price), or a connecting service via their hub with a non-stop service FROM their hub. This is no different that F3G's restaurant customer deciding that he would like the caviar, champaign and lobster thermidor special but at the lower price of the 'daily plat de jour' (and finds some way of fooling the restaurant to give to him at the lower price, without their agreement). A passenger buys a ticket from where s/he is to where s/he wants to go, and usually return to where s/he started - the airlines are simply saying that s/he cannot substitute a different journey (which has a different price) without their knowledge or agreement.

As mentioned above someone who occasionally uses only the outbound without using the return is likely to get away with it - and the airlines are likely to overlook it. But if they detect fraud (and let's be honest, that is what this is) they will do what they can to stop it.

The OP mentioned that LCCs don't do this - and he's right. But the LCC business model says that if the passenger no-shows, they still get the money. But that isn't the case for network airlines. Many of the tickets they offer are at least partially refundable - and if the passenger's ticket was issued by another airline, there is no way for the airline to get the money from the issuing airline.

The real issue here is that the purchaser doesn't like the price being offered for the service s/he wants, and thinks s/he should be able to substitute the price offered for a different service without first getting the agreement of the service provider. Wouldn't we all like to get that First or Business class seat, but only pay for 'back of the bus'?

[Capetonian]

Thank you all for the different opinions and input. Quite an interesting divergence.

ExxB's post sums it up as I see it. Having worked in airline revenue management and protection, albeit a while ago, I try to see both sides.

We've cancelled the o/w LHR JNB and booked a r/t ticket from ZRH where he lives, via a hub (I'm not being specific as he's paranoid that someone will find out .... which is crazy but ....) for exactly 60% of the one way on BA. In addition he gets a 2PC baggage allowance instead of 1PC, which is useful, and the European leg included whereas before he'd have had to pay for the ZRH LON.

I believe that the airline would be within their legal rights to charge the difference, but commercially it would be madness. Anyway he'll be lcosing his Swiss bank accounts and associated credit cards with a week of leaving, so they'll have a hard time to recover the difference.

[Remers]

Just don't complain if you are someone that does this regulary if you get denied boarding due to an overbooked flight as you are the reason the airlines overbook flights!!!

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

Just don't complain if you are someone that does this regulary if you get denied boarding due to an overbooked flight as you are the reason the airlines overbook flights!!!

Surely that's "a" reason not "the" reason.

I suspect that ordinary no-shows due to changed plans etc., rather than premeditatedly to "buck the system", are the majority.

[Final 3 Greens]

Just don't complain if you are someone that does this regulary if you get denied boarding due to an overbooked flight as you are the reason the airlines overbook flights!!!

If your assertion was correct, why would the airlines need to overbook?

They would have the revenue for the flight, regardless of whether the passenger filled the seat.

Maybe you want to have a think about your logic?

[ExXB]

but not the only one. Practically every flight is going to have no-shows. Missed connections, traffic jam, accident on the motorway, wrong kind of leaves (or snow) on the connecting train's track, pax slept in etc.

In the vast majority of cases the network airlines will do what they can to get the passenger on their way as quickly as possible. If it is obviously not force majure the airline may charge a fee, but not always (at least not on this side of the pond, and not yet).

The non-network airlines won't normally do this, it doesn't fit their model.