Hidden-city ticketing and the Streisand effect: a cautionary tale
Not just flights. Coach tickets to London Victoria on services that stop at Heathrow are cheaper than tickets to Heathrow.
Whether more people get off than should at Heathrow I cannot say.
Whether more people get off than should at Heathrow I cannot say.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Geneva
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mixture and ExXB, I was not talking about how airline pricing works. I am well aware of how it is done (in principle). The Economist article linked in my OP (which Mixture still evidently hasn't bothered to read) has quite a good explanation of how the A-B vs. A-B-C pricing difference eventuates.
I was talking about how it appears to the average punter, who couldn't give a toss about the arcane practices of airline revenue management, but sees nothing wrong in using only a part (A-B) of what he or she has paid for (A-B-C).
And mixture, are you still maintaining that hidden-city ticketing is fraud? No doubt you can quote cases, judgements, etc, to that effect?
I was talking about how it appears to the average punter, who couldn't give a toss about the arcane practices of airline revenue management, but sees nothing wrong in using only a part (A-B) of what he or she has paid for (A-B-C).
And mixture, are you still maintaining that hidden-city ticketing is fraud? No doubt you can quote cases, judgements, etc, to that effect?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And mixture, are you still maintaining that hidden-city ticketing is fraud? No doubt you can quote cases, judgements, etc, to that effect?
The definition of fraud is as I have quoted, or if you prefer, I'll quote you a legal definition from Black's dictionary :
Fraud consists of some deceitful practice or willful device, resorted to with intent to deprive another of his right, or in some manner to do him an injury. Fraud, as applied to contracts, is the cause of an error bearing on a material part of the contract, created or continued by artifice, with design to obtain some unjust advantage to the one party, or to cause an inconvenience or loss to the other.
But a prosecution for fraud would obviously be the last resort option. The airlines have 101 other tools at their disposal to deal with offenders, many of the options don't even involve a judge in court and can be dealt with on a customer/supplier level.
I retain my original position that there are 101 ways you can legally save a large amount of money on airfares without having to resort to illegal options and/or breach of contract.
As ExXB said, hidden-city rules et. al have been in existence on airfares since time immemorial ... these have been challenged, time and time again .... and each time the people challenging them have lost and the rules remained in place, as they should !
Show more respect for the airlines Gibon2, and the dog-eat-dog industry in which they operate. I bet you would struggle to run an airline on the basis you are proposing it.... if it were possible to take such a simplistic view on pricing matters, somebody would have done it already !
Last edited by mixture; 14th Jan 2015 at 12:34.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Geneva
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You seem to have some problems with reading comprehension mixture. I have not proposed anything with respect to airline pricing. I have not suggested that their pricing approach is incorrect, unjustifiable, or anything else. Why do you think I have?
And again, have you actually read the article?
And just to clarify, you maintain that hidden-city ticketing is illegal?
And again, have you actually read the article?
And just to clarify, you maintain that hidden-city ticketing is illegal?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is 'hidden-city ticketing' illegal?
If a customer was to change the price of any product or service, without the knowledge and agreement of the retailer, and attempted to avail themselves of that product or service at a lower price than that sought by the retailer (for example, switching price tags) - in my view that would be illegal.
If I did it in a shop, I could be arrested because the retailer has decided I was stealing from them and has chosen to prosecute.
Airlines have not chosen to deal with hidden-city ticketing as a criminal act, but as a civil breach of contract. That decision does not make the activity 'legal', but it remains a substitution of prices for which the seller has not been informed or agreed to.
This young man is accused of counselling customers to breach their contracts with airlines. Now, is that 'illegal'? We shall see.
If a customer was to change the price of any product or service, without the knowledge and agreement of the retailer, and attempted to avail themselves of that product or service at a lower price than that sought by the retailer (for example, switching price tags) - in my view that would be illegal.
If I did it in a shop, I could be arrested because the retailer has decided I was stealing from them and has chosen to prosecute.
Airlines have not chosen to deal with hidden-city ticketing as a criminal act, but as a civil breach of contract. That decision does not make the activity 'legal', but it remains a substitution of prices for which the seller has not been informed or agreed to.
This young man is accused of counselling customers to breach their contracts with airlines. Now, is that 'illegal'? We shall see.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure you do. If someone shoplifts or switches price tags in a shop the retailer can decide not to have the criminal arrested, or not to prosecute. If they did that wouldn't mean a crime hadn't been committed - just that they chose not to prosecute.
Now if it was the cops see that saw the criminal activity, you may be right, but if the retailer chose not to prosecute ...
In fact I think most police expect a criminal complaint before they take action.
Now if it was the cops see that saw the criminal activity, you may be right, but if the retailer chose not to prosecute ...
In fact I think most police expect a criminal complaint before they take action.
Hippopotomonstrosesquipidelian title
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: is everything
Posts: 1,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're accidentally or deliberately misinterpreting the situation. Hidden cities is, possibly, a breach of contract. The airline doesn't have the option of making it a criminal offence. You can't manufacture criminality on demand.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Forget I suggested it could be a criminal offence too. That has no bearing on the discussion and I apologise if I mislead anyone.
But the issue here is not the validity of the contract terms. That has been settled. The issue here is if someone counselling others to breach their contracts.
Forget I suggested it could be a criminal offence too. That has no bearing on the discussion and I apologise if I mislead anyone.
But the issue here is not the validity of the contract terms. That has been settled. The issue here is if someone counselling others to breach their contracts.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airline doesn't have the option of making it a criminal offence.
If you look, for example, at the CPS notes for "Fraud by false representation (Section 2)" :
The defendant:
• made a false representation
• dishonestly
• knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading
• with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.
The offence is entirely focused on the conduct of the defendant.
• made a false representation
• dishonestly
• knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading
• with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.
The offence is entirely focused on the conduct of the defendant.
A false representation can be express or implied, stated in words or communicated by conduct. So the act of knowingly buying a hidden-city ticket would be implied by conduct.
But as I said, it takes time and money to build a case, and the airline already has 101 non-legal tools at its disposal that are very effective. So recourse to law would be a last resort.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: on the cusp
Age: 52
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can understand that an airline cannot price their tickets on the basis of cost plus ... it's simple maths as, unlike producing and selling paint, the fixed costs of providing the flight are dominant compared to the proportionate unit (per seat) costs. *The only cost plus formula that would work would be if the 1st ticket buyer paid all the fixed costs, then upon a second ticket being sold the first ticket holder gets a refund of half etc. etc. to do this would be clearly ridiculous.
1) The point of this is not airline revenue. *Logic dictates that if I have bought a ticket that entitles me to fly from A-B-C then the airline, using whatever revenue formula they use, have ensured they have covered both legs A-B and B-C. *It makes no difference to the airline revenue whether I sit in the seat or not. *I have paid the money and they have provided the flight. *The fact that they could have charged more, due to supply and demand, for the leg A-B if I hadn't already taken the seat is not a loss of revenue, simply a loss of extra profit - the complex revenue calculation must already have accounted for that overall - other wise if everyone on the flight flew A-B-C they would always make a loss and the airline would be forced to re-evaluate its pricing policy. *Simple.
2) Airlines often overbook flights. *It has happened to many people on this forum. *In this instance the airline chooses to take the risk that some people will "no show". *This is an accepted practice. So not everyone always gets to fly anyway.
3) The airline could choose to take legal action, but they would probably lose. *Firstly if I have paid for the service in full there are no consequential damages on the service provider. *They have the money, as point 1 has shown they may have lost potential further profit, but this is not actual and so could not be proven as had I been there they would not been able to obtain that profit. *So although a contract has been breached there are no damages and so nothing to be recovered. But what is being said by some here is that it is my contractual obligation to complete A-B-C. Are peolpe really suggesting that if I turn up at the airport and check in, I no longer have the freedom of choice to turn around and leave the airport without flying? *Seriously, any airline that tried to bring that case to court would be a laughing stock.
In summary, airlines are using complex pricing structures and algorithms to maintain profit whilst being competitive. *They are water tight contractually against anyone seeking the right to demand to be let off at B, i.e. they can wash their hands of any responsibility for anything that may happen at B for example security or baggage. They, just like any other business, can refuse to deal with a customer if they feel that they are repeatedly taking advantage, but this is a commercial not legal decision. In the end, as had already been pointed out, the result is that the revenue protecting algorithms get altered to accommodate this.
1) The point of this is not airline revenue. *Logic dictates that if I have bought a ticket that entitles me to fly from A-B-C then the airline, using whatever revenue formula they use, have ensured they have covered both legs A-B and B-C. *It makes no difference to the airline revenue whether I sit in the seat or not. *I have paid the money and they have provided the flight. *The fact that they could have charged more, due to supply and demand, for the leg A-B if I hadn't already taken the seat is not a loss of revenue, simply a loss of extra profit - the complex revenue calculation must already have accounted for that overall - other wise if everyone on the flight flew A-B-C they would always make a loss and the airline would be forced to re-evaluate its pricing policy. *Simple.
2) Airlines often overbook flights. *It has happened to many people on this forum. *In this instance the airline chooses to take the risk that some people will "no show". *This is an accepted practice. So not everyone always gets to fly anyway.
3) The airline could choose to take legal action, but they would probably lose. *Firstly if I have paid for the service in full there are no consequential damages on the service provider. *They have the money, as point 1 has shown they may have lost potential further profit, but this is not actual and so could not be proven as had I been there they would not been able to obtain that profit. *So although a contract has been breached there are no damages and so nothing to be recovered. But what is being said by some here is that it is my contractual obligation to complete A-B-C. Are peolpe really suggesting that if I turn up at the airport and check in, I no longer have the freedom of choice to turn around and leave the airport without flying? *Seriously, any airline that tried to bring that case to court would be a laughing stock.
In summary, airlines are using complex pricing structures and algorithms to maintain profit whilst being competitive. *They are water tight contractually against anyone seeking the right to demand to be let off at B, i.e. they can wash their hands of any responsibility for anything that may happen at B for example security or baggage. They, just like any other business, can refuse to deal with a customer if they feel that they are repeatedly taking advantage, but this is a commercial not legal decision. In the end, as had already been pointed out, the result is that the revenue protecting algorithms get altered to accommodate this.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You obviously don't do much flying in the US.
You can have a flight cancellation here, which the airline will invariably blame on weather, and unless you bought a refundable ticket for 4X the fare, which nobody does, there is no refund. You now have a credit which you can use on some future flight subject to various restrictions.
Getting rebooked here is also difficult, since load factors have been very high for the past five years or so. Unless you are aware of the possibility of being interlined or flowed through novel connections and make the CSA pursue it, your travel plans are left in shreds.
You sometimes have to use your own phone to find a routing that will work and then get the CSA to make it happen.
Been there, done that.
If you're charming, polite and well informed, the airline staff can usually be pursuaded to do what they're suposed to do for any stranded traveler.
You can have a flight cancellation here, which the airline will invariably blame on weather, and unless you bought a refundable ticket for 4X the fare, which nobody does, there is no refund. You now have a credit which you can use on some future flight subject to various restrictions.
Getting rebooked here is also difficult, since load factors have been very high for the past five years or so. Unless you are aware of the possibility of being interlined or flowed through novel connections and make the CSA pursue it, your travel plans are left in shreds.
You sometimes have to use your own phone to find a routing that will work and then get the CSA to make it happen.
Been there, done that.
If you're charming, polite and well informed, the airline staff can usually be pursuaded to do what they're suposed to do for any stranded traveler.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You would think that if an airline sells a seat for travel A-B-C, but the passenger only uses A-B then the airline should be very happy. They have saved some fuel, saved an in-flight meal, and less work for all staff concerned.
I do not see their problem.
I do not see their problem.
Interesting that the conversation doesn't touch on whether the clause in the terms is actually legal or enforceable.
When you get on the aircraft, you don't become an indentured slave and I would suggest they airlines would have a hard time convincing a court that the passenger must be restrained and shackled to their seat to complete the journey. Thats in effect what the clause is suggesting.
Given the American liking for freedom from just about anything, it'll go the way of many contract clauses and be found legally unenforceable on a passenger.
As to the attempt to stop him telling people where to find the tickets, the airline will lose on 1st Amendment grounds - its the equivalent if running around out side your house demanding that everyone close their eyes when they go past because there's a large hole in the front door, and then insisting that you tell nobody.
When you get on the aircraft, you don't become an indentured slave and I would suggest they airlines would have a hard time convincing a court that the passenger must be restrained and shackled to their seat to complete the journey. Thats in effect what the clause is suggesting.
Given the American liking for freedom from just about anything, it'll go the way of many contract clauses and be found legally unenforceable on a passenger.
As to the attempt to stop him telling people where to find the tickets, the airline will lose on 1st Amendment grounds - its the equivalent if running around out side your house demanding that everyone close their eyes when they go past because there's a large hole in the front door, and then insisting that you tell nobody.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Geneva
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that the conversation doesn't touch on whether the clause in the terms is actually legal or enforceable.
When you get on the aircraft, you don't become an indentured slave and I would suggest they airlines would have a hard time convincing a court that the passenger must be restrained and shackled to their seat to complete the journey. Thats in effect what the clause is suggesting.
SkyGod
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Palm Coast, Florida, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
1 Post
Hmm, Hidden City ticketing are still going on?
Have not heard the term in 25 years..
Used it once or twice myself and did not think it was a big deal, or fraud, rather a hidden "option"
I remember buying a ticket from Paris to Oklahoma City, as it was much cheaper than Paris to Dallas. Then getting off the flight in Dallas.
Have not heard the term in 25 years..
Used it once or twice myself and did not think it was a big deal, or fraud, rather a hidden "option"
I remember buying a ticket from Paris to Oklahoma City, as it was much cheaper than Paris to Dallas. Then getting off the flight in Dallas.
Hmm, Hidden City ticketing are still going on?
Have not heard the term in 25 years..
Used it once or twice myself and did not think it was a big deal, or fraud, rather a hidden "option"
I remember buying a ticket from Paris to Oklahoma City, as it was much cheaper than Paris to Dallas. Then getting off the flight in Dallas.
Have not heard the term in 25 years..
Used it once or twice myself and did not think it was a big deal, or fraud, rather a hidden "option"
I remember buying a ticket from Paris to Oklahoma City, as it was much cheaper than Paris to Dallas. Then getting off the flight in Dallas.
Airline Flap Over Hidden City Ploy - Los Angeles Times
It implies that, in those days at least, airlines would go after agencies that promote the practice, but not individual travellers.
So, what will they do in this case:
Flight from A through B to C is substantially cheaper than A to B. So I fly A-B-C and then take a bus back to B. I've deprived the airline of selling me the more expensive A-B ticket.
I question the whole ethics of the 'we could have sold you a more expensive X' logic.
Flight from A through B to C is substantially cheaper than A to B. So I fly A-B-C and then take a bus back to B. I've deprived the airline of selling me the more expensive A-B ticket.
I question the whole ethics of the 'we could have sold you a more expensive X' logic.
Paxing All Over The World
As i understand it, it's called the 'free market economy' and is how the USA rule their lives. If so - then we may expect the courts to uphold the practice. Not so? If the market does not like this way of doing business, then the market will cause it's downfall. or so the rule book states. 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EEngr
No, that isn't the case. What the courts focused on is what is part of the contract, that either party cannot change it without the express agreement of the other, and those components that are not key contract terms.
The airline's hold the view, and the courts have agreed, that passengers are contracting (in our example) for transportation from AAA to CCC. They are not contracting for transportation from AAA to BBB (which has a different price), or from AAA to CCC via BBB.
The routing the airline proposes to use to fulfil their obligation is not a key term of the contract. In the event of a schedule change or irregular ops the airline can change the intermediate point(s) or substitute a non-stop flight, etc. (these are also spelled out in the terms and conditions).
In your example the airline and the customer have satisfied the terms of their contract.
No, that isn't the case. What the courts focused on is what is part of the contract, that either party cannot change it without the express agreement of the other, and those components that are not key contract terms.
The airline's hold the view, and the courts have agreed, that passengers are contracting (in our example) for transportation from AAA to CCC. They are not contracting for transportation from AAA to BBB (which has a different price), or from AAA to CCC via BBB.
The routing the airline proposes to use to fulfil their obligation is not a key term of the contract. In the event of a schedule change or irregular ops the airline can change the intermediate point(s) or substitute a non-stop flight, etc. (these are also spelled out in the terms and conditions).
In your example the airline and the customer have satisfied the terms of their contract.