Dodgy Tickets
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dodgy Tickets
A travel agent has just tried to sell me a heavily discounted return ticket on the basis that I can throw away the second coupon and use the first as a cheap one way ticket.
Whilst it is irritating to be "stung" for an expensive one way flight, my immediate reaction is that this tactic is fraudulent and I did not accept the offer, I booked one way only.
Any lawyers out there care to comment? Am I being too naive?
Whilst it is irritating to be "stung" for an expensive one way flight, my immediate reaction is that this tactic is fraudulent and I did not accept the offer, I booked one way only.
Any lawyers out there care to comment? Am I being too naive?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London,Bucharest...wherever...
Posts: 1,014
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is possible and not necessarily dodgy or illegal but the agent will come under some pressure from the airlines and consolidators if they sus his game as that's officially a no no...on the other hand it could be a dodgy ticket...I never buy tickets from any source other than my trusted business travel arranger and if he chooses to buy my ticket from a consolidator he only buys direct from the airlines designated consol agent here in the UK...and yes we have done the trick you mention...
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tea green International
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA do it....
I checked in a few days ago, and was asked by the check in staff if I intended to use the return half....said no...she said, shall I can it now...I said what a load of B******cks, if a return ticket, is cheaper than a single. she said, that's the system.....so lets all play the game....
Paxing All Over The World
Yep, that's the way it works. The carriers will not let the principle drop as that would officially open the floodgates. From the moment that they started to supply tickets to 'bucket shops' (consolidators), then they were confounding their own rules.
Agents that advertise or make a habit of this may get into trouble, individuals are not so likely to be touched as the bad punlicity would not be good. "Airline punishes a person for buying a ticket that they had authorised and permited them to travel on the outward journey of ..."
ps Hi Bumz!
Agents that advertise or make a habit of this may get into trouble, individuals are not so likely to be touched as the bad punlicity would not be good. "Airline punishes a person for buying a ticket that they had authorised and permited them to travel on the outward journey of ..."
ps Hi Bumz!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks for the comments guys, BTW I've checked with a lawyer friend and this practise apparently creates a breach of contract between the passenger and the airline (not the agent), so it is unlawful behaviour by the pax.
As you say, it doesn't seem to be an issue for individuals in Europe, as the airlines don't pursue, but apparently this is not the case in the states presently.
It seems that there have been recent court cases for damages, as well as people being added to "refuse" lists and thrown out of FF clubs.
It will be interesting to see if that trend comes to Europe.
As you say, it doesn't seem to be an issue for individuals in Europe, as the airlines don't pursue, but apparently this is not the case in the states presently.
It seems that there have been recent court cases for damages, as well as people being added to "refuse" lists and thrown out of FF clubs.
It will be interesting to see if that trend comes to Europe.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Granite Belt, Australia
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only time it will become a problem is if you ask for a refund of the unused flight coupon. There are many excuses (read reasons) you can use for not using the return leg... even as lame as a traffic jam. They won't hold the aircraft for you - will they!!?!!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Breach of contract" ?
Where in the contract (ticket) or rules (ticketless) of travel does it state that you "must" travel ? As long as you pay for the journey and the airline supplies it then the contract has been fulfilled.
If you choose not to travel then the airline normally has the right to retain your money particularly on discounted tickets. As has been pointed out already, you cannot demand a refund for the unused portion, but your failure to utilize it would be your loss (or gain). How would the airline have suffered a greater loss by your failure to travel than if you had actually travelled ? That would need to be established to even stand a chance of quantifying a loss.
Where in the contract (ticket) or rules (ticketless) of travel does it state that you "must" travel ? As long as you pay for the journey and the airline supplies it then the contract has been fulfilled.
If you choose not to travel then the airline normally has the right to retain your money particularly on discounted tickets. As has been pointed out already, you cannot demand a refund for the unused portion, but your failure to utilize it would be your loss (or gain). How would the airline have suffered a greater loss by your failure to travel than if you had actually travelled ? That would need to be established to even stand a chance of quantifying a loss.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Beazlebub
Here, in the general conditions that the pax accepts by having the ticket issued, in this case KLM, ....
"(b) The passenger wishing to change any aspect of his
itinerary (i.e. the place of departure, a stopover or the place of destination as mentioned in the ticket), shall contact Carrier in advance. The fare for the altered itinerary will be calculated and the passenger will be given the option of accepting the new fare or maintaining his original itinerary. Should the passenger change his original itinerary without the consent of Carrier, Carrier will assess the correct fare for the altered itinerary. Any difference between the fare of the original itinerary and the fare of the altered itinerary shall be settled in accordance with subparagraph (d)."
"(d) Should the fare of the original itinerary be higher than the fare of the altered itinerary, the difference shall be reimbursed by Carrier to the passenger. Should the fare of the original itinerary be lower than the fare of the altered itinerary, the difference shall be paid by the passenger to Carrier."
My lawyer friend assures me that failing to use the second coupon is changing the original itinerary without the consent of the carrier and thus consitutes breach of contract.
To answer your question about how the loss is calculated, that's pretty simple.
If the A-B fare is EUR500 and the A-B-A fare is EUR 300, then the pax owes the airline EUR200.
Whilst is appears that these contracts are honoured more in the breach
, if the airline wanted to get stroppy, it could.
Where in the contract (ticket) or rules (ticketless) of travel does it state that you "must" travel ?
"(b) The passenger wishing to change any aspect of his
itinerary (i.e. the place of departure, a stopover or the place of destination as mentioned in the ticket), shall contact Carrier in advance. The fare for the altered itinerary will be calculated and the passenger will be given the option of accepting the new fare or maintaining his original itinerary. Should the passenger change his original itinerary without the consent of Carrier, Carrier will assess the correct fare for the altered itinerary. Any difference between the fare of the original itinerary and the fare of the altered itinerary shall be settled in accordance with subparagraph (d)."
"(d) Should the fare of the original itinerary be higher than the fare of the altered itinerary, the difference shall be reimbursed by Carrier to the passenger. Should the fare of the original itinerary be lower than the fare of the altered itinerary, the difference shall be paid by the passenger to Carrier."
My lawyer friend assures me that failing to use the second coupon is changing the original itinerary without the consent of the carrier and thus consitutes breach of contract.
To answer your question about how the loss is calculated, that's pretty simple.
If the A-B fare is EUR500 and the A-B-A fare is EUR 300, then the pax owes the airline EUR200.
Whilst is appears that these contracts are honoured more in the breach
, if the airline wanted to get stroppy, it could.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DO NOT admit in advance that you will not use the return. Say nothing and simply don't use it. There are a whole host of 'valid last minute reasons you could give as to why you didnt use the return coupon(s) should the airline bother to chase the matter up (which they won't).
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hotel Tango
I'd choose not to do that, because this flight is on business for a client.
Would they expect me to submit a falsified invoice? Of course not, so why would they expect me to take a dodgy deal from their corporate travel agent.
Notwithstanding the fact that I would, no doubt, get away with it, what message would it send about my professional ethics?
If they can't afford a legit ticket, I'd rather not do business with them.
And of course, they have subsequently paid for a legit ticket.
I'd choose not to do that, because this flight is on business for a client.
Would they expect me to submit a falsified invoice? Of course not, so why would they expect me to take a dodgy deal from their corporate travel agent.
Notwithstanding the fact that I would, no doubt, get away with it, what message would it send about my professional ethics?
If they can't afford a legit ticket, I'd rather not do business with them.
And of course, they have subsequently paid for a legit ticket.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F3G , I was in fact responding to Bumz-rush and making a general statement vis-a-vis a cheap return versus an expensive one-way. If airlines insist on charging ridiculous one-way fares costing double or more of an excursion type return and I have to pay out of my own pocket, I know what I'm going to do! However, I certainly will not declare my intentions in advance. Your case (i.e client is paying and requires invoice) is different, but you didn't mention that in your first post.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been doing this for years and refined it somewhat through back to back tickets.
This is where you buy two return tickets.
For example, a day return can be very expensive so the way round it is to buy two over the weekend returns with the two outward flights being on the same day.
If you are really lucky as I have been, I have been able to use the other returns as an out and back too hence getting two trips for less than half the cost of one.
This is where you buy two return tickets.
For example, a day return can be very expensive so the way round it is to buy two over the weekend returns with the two outward flights being on the same day.
If you are really lucky as I have been, I have been able to use the other returns as an out and back too hence getting two trips for less than half the cost of one.
Guest
Posts: n/a
It seems that the airlines must be aware of all this activity (their revenue leakage people are pretty smart) and yet it is allowed.
Do I detect collusion with pax, for whatever reason?
Makes easy, the Ryans and other locos look pretty above board, since all the sectors are priced individually, thus avoiding this nonsense.
HT
You didn't say that you were responding to Bumz Rush, that makes your post read a little differently too.
Do I detect collusion with pax, for whatever reason?
Makes easy, the Ryans and other locos look pretty above board, since all the sectors are priced individually, thus avoiding this nonsense.
HT
You didn't say that you were responding to Bumz Rush, that makes your post read a little differently too.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Granite Belt, Australia
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buying several return tickets at once is legal.
To obtain the cheapest fare between two international ports for a regular commuter we combined several advance puchase fares as the passenger didn't stay long enough at the destination. Thus he travelled on one ticket and returned on another. His first return leg was at full fare, but the rest wasn't.
There is nothing in the rule books that say that you cannot do it.
To obtain the cheapest fare between two international ports for a regular commuter we combined several advance puchase fares as the passenger didn't stay long enough at the destination. Thus he travelled on one ticket and returned on another. His first return leg was at full fare, but the rest wasn't.
There is nothing in the rule books that say that you cannot do it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Animal Club
No one is saying that the practices discussed here are not legal.
Not legal means committing a criminal offence and breach of contract in this instance is not a criminal offence (to the best of my knowledge.)
The example you give is different to the one I quoted, but if you read KLMs t&c's carefully, I think that they could argue their case strongly (since you have in effect changed your itinerary for every ticket) and in any event, they can put you on the refuse list or hurl you out of the FQTV club, since possession is 9/10ths of the law, as the old saying goes.
But since this goes on widely and does not seem to be enforced in Europe at least, then the airlines must be choosing to turn a blind eye... I still wouldn't take the risk, why should I, as a professional I use the ethics argument to justify advice given and if I as busted for flying on a dodgy ticket, it wouldn't make me look too good, would it?
No one is saying that the practices discussed here are not legal.
Not legal means committing a criminal offence and breach of contract in this instance is not a criminal offence (to the best of my knowledge.)
The example you give is different to the one I quoted, but if you read KLMs t&c's carefully, I think that they could argue their case strongly (since you have in effect changed your itinerary for every ticket) and in any event, they can put you on the refuse list or hurl you out of the FQTV club, since possession is 9/10ths of the law, as the old saying goes.
But since this goes on widely and does not seem to be enforced in Europe at least, then the airlines must be choosing to turn a blind eye... I still wouldn't take the risk, why should I, as a professional I use the ethics argument to justify advice given and if I as busted for flying on a dodgy ticket, it wouldn't make me look too good, would it?
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
What I find a bit strange is that in the days when we used to construct through fares according to IATA rules (do they still do that?) it was common practice to include ficticious points in the itinerary to achieve a lower fare quote.
So, for example, if you were travelling from Heathrow to Los Angeles via several intermediate points, the fare you paid might actually be that for Southend to Merced CA, although you would never know that unless you deciphered the Fare Construction box on the ticket.
I don't quite grasp the distinction between that practice and this one. It still involved 'throwing away' unused sectors for which the passenger had paid, only in this case those sectors didn't have separate flight coupons.
So, for example, if you were travelling from Heathrow to Los Angeles via several intermediate points, the fare you paid might actually be that for Southend to Merced CA, although you would never know that unless you deciphered the Fare Construction box on the ticket.
I don't quite grasp the distinction between that practice and this one. It still involved 'throwing away' unused sectors for which the passenger had paid, only in this case those sectors didn't have separate flight coupons.
Hmmmyeah
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Leopardess.
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel more is being made of this than perhaps need be. Is there not some distinction between 'change' and 'cancellation'?
Having read the extract of KLM's T&C's it seems to me that they have covered themselves either way quite nicely but that they are essentially ensuring that they are covered for real world changes of itinerary that could of resulted in a higher total fare than at the time of original purchase, not so much non-use which would be of no financial detriment to them what so ever.
Having said that I do agree with the comment regarding not involving any third party unwittingly in the purchase and subsequent use (potential miss-use) use of a ticket in this way.
For my own part where it involves no one else I frequently fail to use the return portion of tickets purchased as a cheaper alternate to the one way ticket, I have never considered it wrong, I have never asked the question to be honest. I shall next time, If I am told that I am in some way contracturally obliged to use both parts my wrist watch may pack up shortly before return causing me to miss the flight. I shall not ask again and will, I sure, by the next trip using the same carrier have forgotten ever having asked the question.
I feel that I am doing nothing morally wrong and really think the chances of being hunted down, dragged through the courts and being made to pay for not using a ticket I have paid for are zero.
Just a thought but surely if I dont travel at all then I have no itinerary (and therefore contract with the carrier) therefore I cannot change it and consequently be charged extra since it doesn't exists as I have failed to check in, travel under and be bound by said contract or T&C's laid down by the carrier.
This is un-notified cancellation or non-fulfillment on my part, not 'change of itinerary' as referred to and as such how does the carrier determine the cost difference against a non-existent reference. Can they lawfully compare it to the original one way cost as this is not a 'change' of itinerary it is a comparison to something I have already paid for in full but not utilised. From the part of the KLM T&Cs quoted there is no mention of cancellation on my part or of a requirement to notify thereof.
The concept of potentially being forced by law to pay an additional ammount for a service I elect NOT to receive is, to my mind at least, insanity.
Having read the extract of KLM's T&C's it seems to me that they have covered themselves either way quite nicely but that they are essentially ensuring that they are covered for real world changes of itinerary that could of resulted in a higher total fare than at the time of original purchase, not so much non-use which would be of no financial detriment to them what so ever.
Having said that I do agree with the comment regarding not involving any third party unwittingly in the purchase and subsequent use (potential miss-use) use of a ticket in this way.
For my own part where it involves no one else I frequently fail to use the return portion of tickets purchased as a cheaper alternate to the one way ticket, I have never considered it wrong, I have never asked the question to be honest. I shall next time, If I am told that I am in some way contracturally obliged to use both parts my wrist watch may pack up shortly before return causing me to miss the flight. I shall not ask again and will, I sure, by the next trip using the same carrier have forgotten ever having asked the question.
I feel that I am doing nothing morally wrong and really think the chances of being hunted down, dragged through the courts and being made to pay for not using a ticket I have paid for are zero.
Just a thought but surely if I dont travel at all then I have no itinerary (and therefore contract with the carrier) therefore I cannot change it and consequently be charged extra since it doesn't exists as I have failed to check in, travel under and be bound by said contract or T&C's laid down by the carrier.
This is un-notified cancellation or non-fulfillment on my part, not 'change of itinerary' as referred to and as such how does the carrier determine the cost difference against a non-existent reference. Can they lawfully compare it to the original one way cost as this is not a 'change' of itinerary it is a comparison to something I have already paid for in full but not utilised. From the part of the KLM T&Cs quoted there is no mention of cancellation on my part or of a requirement to notify thereof.
The concept of potentially being forced by law to pay an additional ammount for a service I elect NOT to receive is, to my mind at least, insanity.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Syllogism Check
As insane as it might seem, by buying a cheap return you are enabling yourself to take advantage of an offer that is not available to one way pax.
Therefore if you cancel by no showing, the theory is that you are liable to pay the difference for receiving less
But it never seems to be enforced.
In terms of natural justice, this seems very unfair and I do wonder if there is a defence of unfair contract/dominant party, but to be honest I'm not going to tak the risk for reasons stated in earlier posts.
O'Leary may take some stick on these boards, but what you pay with Ryanair (and easy) is straight forward and transparent.
What irritates me about this subject is that the person potentially left carrying the baby in this game is the pax,when it is the industry who set up and manipulate the rules f
g great.
As insane as it might seem, by buying a cheap return you are enabling yourself to take advantage of an offer that is not available to one way pax.
Therefore if you cancel by no showing, the theory is that you are liable to pay the difference for receiving less
But it never seems to be enforced.
In terms of natural justice, this seems very unfair and I do wonder if there is a defence of unfair contract/dominant party, but to be honest I'm not going to tak the risk for reasons stated in earlier posts.
O'Leary may take some stick on these boards, but what you pay with Ryanair (and easy) is straight forward and transparent.
What irritates me about this subject is that the person potentially left carrying the baby in this game is the pax,when it is the industry who set up and manipulate the rules f
g great.
the logical extension of this to a 'reductio ad absurdum'seems to be the passenger who arrives at destination, dies and is cremated. Ashes shipped back separately, can the airline then claim off the passengers' estate for the flight he/she didn't take because of force majeure?
I know it's silly, but so is a there and back ending up cheaper than a one way.
I know it's silly, but so is a there and back ending up cheaper than a one way.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Granite Belt, Australia
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FTG
I was with an airline when my staff issued the aforementioned tickets. If any error was made in a fare construction it was my job to collect the difference in fares. I never had to.
Please, may I suggest that you call the airline offering these strange fares and ask the question about not utilising the second coupon. The airlines are not idiots... they know that this situation is going to occur time and again and obviously don't care. They want a bum on a seat and will do almost anything to get it as their product is the most perishable item. There's no chance of resurecting the seat once the aircraft has departed.
I started with the airlines in the days mentioned by Desk Jockey and felt bound to offer the cheapest fare available for any itinerary so long as it was within (in those days) IATA rules and airline fare construction rules (it won me business). So rules change... use them to your advantage. The airlines want you to. They want your business.
If you're ever in doubt about any offer from an airline call the airline concerened. You may need to call a couple of times (speak to different people) to get the interpretation of the rules that you want, but 9 times out of 10 the airline will agree with your interpretation. Be bold!!
Sorry if I bored you.
Cheers.
I was with an airline when my staff issued the aforementioned tickets. If any error was made in a fare construction it was my job to collect the difference in fares. I never had to.
Please, may I suggest that you call the airline offering these strange fares and ask the question about not utilising the second coupon. The airlines are not idiots... they know that this situation is going to occur time and again and obviously don't care. They want a bum on a seat and will do almost anything to get it as their product is the most perishable item. There's no chance of resurecting the seat once the aircraft has departed.
I started with the airlines in the days mentioned by Desk Jockey and felt bound to offer the cheapest fare available for any itinerary so long as it was within (in those days) IATA rules and airline fare construction rules (it won me business). So rules change... use them to your advantage. The airlines want you to. They want your business.
If you're ever in doubt about any offer from an airline call the airline concerened. You may need to call a couple of times (speak to different people) to get the interpretation of the rules that you want, but 9 times out of 10 the airline will agree with your interpretation. Be bold!!
Sorry if I bored you.
Cheers.