I doubt UA would follow through considering it is illegal to submit known false debts.<p>Plus they're outright wrong that it constitutes "fraud," if for no other reason than the person skipping additional legs didn't profit from it, instead they simply limited UA's ability to further profit off of their travel.<p>If this was "fraud" then any other airline discount or saving would be too. Shop around for the cheapest price? That's "fraud" since UA didn't make as much. Didn't check bags for $50+ and instead overload your carry on? That's "fraud" since UA lost the checked bag fee. Fly to a smaller airport instead of a larger one, then take the bus? That's "fraud" too, UA deserves that money.<p>UA's creative use of the law here is nothing more than an intimidation tactic. They've run out of ideas so instead are just trying to muddy the waters enough to stop this becoming overly popular. I guess that's easier than re-examining how you ticket/what your business model is.
Sometimes I go to a fast food restaurant and discover that while I don't <i>want</i> fries, it's cheaper to buy the whole combo meal than it is to just buy a burger and drink a la carte.<p>If I buy the combo and throw away the fries, nobody's going to argue that I've cheated Wendy's and owe them for the difference in price.<p>But I'd agree they're still free to refuse me service in the future on grounds of wasting food.
Fuck United, and any other company that wants to abuse the credit reporting system for this. How would they even prove you have a debt? I paid for a ticket, and the airline provided said ticket. Whether I choose to use the ticket or not should be entirely up to me, and choosing not to fly doesn't magically incur them extra debt that I'd be liable for.<p>This is especially ridiculous with how exorbitant ticket change fees are. I was in San Jose a few weeks ago and decided last minute to stay a few days longer in SF. It would have cost me 125 dollars to cancel or change my already booked SJC-SEA flight, and it would have netted me <90 dollars in credit so I was essentially paying 35 dollars for the privilege of telling Alaska that I wasn't going to fly with them. Of course I instead just skipped the leg and booked a new flight separately.
One very interesting thing here is how they're using the credit score system to blackmail people. If this continues, any company can hold you hostage by threatening to ruin your score, without any recourse from you.
I doubt United will prevail in there efforts. It's "Contract of Carriage"[1] rule 6, sub-section J is where they put in all the verbiage about how they think they should be able to penalize you for avoiding their fare structures. It is pretty bogus and I'd love to see it litigated, to do that you really would have to do this stuff enough to get them to take action against you citing that rule, and then (now that you have standing to sue) you would need to sue them. I would recommend setting this up early because their lawyers haven't yeat put in a mandatory mediation clause to this contract. When they do it will be harder.<p>Either way, I think they will lose. And when it becomes clear that they can't extract value this way from passengers it will cause ticket prices to change to more accurately reflect actual costs.<p>[1] Updated 9/27/18 with section 6.J --<a href="https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.ht...</a>
So I guess United is going to fairly compensate me for the night I spent sleeping in the Philly airport because they canceled my final segment? I'll take cash, no united points for me.<p>Their definition of `fraud` is insane, but if they want to open the door for more recourse when things don't happen as scheduled I'm okay with that. I think United owes the majority of their customers quite a bit more than hidden city fare users owe them.
One point in defense of the airlines that people often forget. There are certain taxes and fees the airlines must pay when a passenger flies from A to B. However, the government of location B waives fees for connections flying from A to B to C. That makes sense; the passenger never actually visited B.<p>Passengers can find a cheaper ticket flying JFK->TPE->HKG and ditching the final leg (carry-on only). However, if an airline "knows" a passenger will skip the final leg, then they are helping the individual evade a legitimate tax.
I'm surprised we haven't seen more companies abuse the credit reporting system like this. Recourse is painful for the customer, and I imagine a non-trivial number of them will just pay off the debt. I'm guessing with the gutting of agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau we'll see a rise in these type of practices.
Warning: general rant about the cost of flights.<p>I am genuinely entirely fucking sick of the awful experience of booking air travel. The thought of doing it fills me with dread now.<p>Here is a recent example: a return flight booked with my partner from the UK to the US. His company later wants to send him to a conference in a place nearby a couple of days prior, and of course will happily pay for travel there, and on to our actual destination. “That’s okay”, I think; “I can cancel the outgoing leg of his flight, even if I don’t get a refund”.<p>Not. Possible. The price British Airways wants to charge me for cancelling one leg of a return flight for one passenger is more than the entire cost for two return tickets. Of course, he can’t just skip that flight, since the inbound will be cancelled.<p>Literally nobody gains from this. It reinforces the point that consumer cost is now entirely decoupled from the cost of service. On top of this, the process of buying tickets is utterly baffling. Multiple aggregators linking to multiple external agents who in turn are selling tickets cheaper than the airline directly. Codeshares charged at multiples of the cost for being on the exact same flight. And the obvious hidden city stuff.<p>Surely I’m not the only one who just wants to exchange money for a flight, based roughly on the actual cost? Even accepting that I might pay more for better cabins, or hold baggage, or advance seat selection? Is the current mess genuinely more profitable? Is there any way to fix it besides some kind of regulation of fares? Is there a disruptor?
If you haven't read the Contract of Carriage before, I'd suggest you do. It's actually pretty fascinating and could come in handy when you want to set an airline employee straight.<p>I had no idea the lay out what is acceptable luggage including trophy antlers:<p><i>Antlers - Subject to the conditions and charges specified below, one set of antlers retained as hunting trophies per ticketed Passenger will be accepted as Checked Baggage, if aircraft size and load conditions permit.</i><p>If you go on hajj, you can bring back 10 L (!) of ZAMZAM water <i>free of charge</i>:<p><i>ZAM ZAM Water - Subject to the conditions below, one container or jerkin containing up to 10 liters (2.64 gallons) of ZAMZAM water will be accepted as checked baggage by UA at no extra charge in addition to the Baggage Allowance.</i><p>[1]<a href="https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.ht...</a>
I did this earlier this year flying to Europe. My plans had changed a little so I realized that it would be easier to get off in Amsterdam instead of taking the next flight. It never occurred to me that this could be a problem but the agent gave us a really hard time when I asked to get our bags checked only to Amsterdam.<p>I honestly thought they would be happy to be able to give our seats to someone else.
They are offering more service for less money? Their pricing scheme is broken. Consumers should continue taking advantage of it until it become so cost prohibitive that they correct their pricing incentives.
It's not clear why exactly the airlines are so upset about this. If the passenger isn't present they can just shoehorn a standby onto the flight, or at least save on fuel costs.
Passengers who save hundreds of dollars should get a credit boost for their demonstration of financial savvy.<p>I'd sooner give a loan to that person than some reckless spender.
Meanwhile, Skiplagged seems to have gotten a kick out of the ordeal with their new tagline: "Our flights are so cheap, United sued us... But we won."
So if I buy a regular ticket and don't make the flight, by this reasoning that's fraud too? Are they going to send me to collections to get paid twice for missing my flight? Seems pretty ridiculous to me as I see literally no difference between the two scenarios.
The only way to settle this is if they sue someone. They already tried to shutter Skiplagged and failed so their position may not be as solid as they claim.
I never understood how they found out if a passenger was skipping one leg of a flight. If it's the same plane, just get off, and if it's not the same plane, just check in to the next flight and don't board. Is someone counting heads or something while I'm not looking?