Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Skiplagged sued by United and Orbitz

skiplagged.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 146 posts

Re: Skiplagged sued by United and Orbitz

#131

Post by dogma1138 »

While this might be an unpopular opinion but layover or not the passengers are still on the manifest for the final destination. This means that if they decide to use this method they'll get off at the layover without telling anyone about it. This act alone can will cause delays while the flight crew and the airport staff will try to locate the missing passengers. Additionally depending on the security situation at the time and other conditions such as if it's the same aircraft or not of if they've checked in luggage (intentionally or by misstake since you can always apply for missing luggage and you'll get it delivered to you after a day or 2) this trick can lead to complete off boarding of the aircraft and a secondary security screening of all the passengers and the checked in luggage.

Even if this event will only happen once in a 100 flights it will still cost the airline, the airport, and the people enough time and money for everyone really pissed about this nonsense.

While i agree that the law suit might be slightly out of place, i think there are some good reasons why this practice isn't kosher. Tho the fact that it's hard or near impossible to buy the same tickets directly without going trough a booking agent that can fix the price for you kinda sucks, i would think that most people would want to kill that guy that made them wait for 2 hours while they got their shit screened again just beause he tried to save 50$...

Re: Skiplagged sued by United and Orbitz

#132

Post by otterley »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #47
Pyxl101 wrote: post #44

> “Purchasing a ticket to a point beyond the actual destination and getting off the aircraft at the connecting point is unethical,” according to the letter by American, which isn’t party to the case. “It is tantamount to switching price tags to obtain a lower price on goods sold at department stores.” What in the world? How is that comparison anywhere near remotely justifiable? Absolutely ridiculous. > American Airli…

Probably the same way folks try to justify selling a DVD that only plays on North American DVD players. Generally people substitute the phrase "it isn't fair when ..." when they meant to say "I don't like it when ..." I expect that the airlines will be unsuccessful in their suit but will get the FAA to approve a fee that would be charged if a passenger did not make the complete flight. In the back rooms they will tel…

As a practical matter I'm not sure how the airlines could impose this fee on travelers who pay them indirectly (i.e. via a travel agent).

Re: Skiplagged sued by United and Orbitz

#133

Post by [deleted] »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #47
Pyxl101 wrote: post #44

> “Purchasing a ticket to a point beyond the actual destination and getting off the aircraft at the connecting point is unethical,” according to the letter by American, which isn’t party to the case. “It is tantamount to switching price tags to obtain a lower price on goods sold at department stores.” What in the world? How is that comparison anywhere near remotely justifiable? Absolutely ridiculous. > American Airli…

Probably the same way folks try to justify selling a DVD that only plays on North American DVD players. Generally people substitute the phrase "it isn't fair when ..." when they meant to say "I don't like it when ..." I expect that the airlines will be unsuccessful in their suit but will get the FAA to approve a fee that would be charged if a passenger did not make the complete flight. In the back rooms they will tel…

[deleted]

Re: Skiplagged sued by United and Orbitz

#134

Post by jowiar »

justinsb wrote: post #117
colordrops wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once again, what law or contract has skiplagged broken? They do not purchase tickets, and they do not enter contracts with airlines.

My concern is that a passenger might buy a ticket through skiplagged, and not understand that they risk getting banned from the airline. If you live near a one-airline airport, that's a pretty serious risk.

I think "getting banned" is far less of a risk-by-way-of-misunderstanding than "the airline isn't compelled to deliver you where you want to go". When I've bought ticket A->B->C, my actual travel has included routes such as: A->C, A->D->C, A->D->E->C, A->D-(train)-C, A-(Cab)-A'->C.

Re: Skiplagged sued by United and Orbitz

#135

Post by pdabbadabba »

colordrops wrote: post #96
jowiar wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you buy a ticket, you're entering into a contract with the airline. See pg. 11 here for the relevant bits: http://www.united.com/web/format/pdf/Contract_of_Carriage.pd...

Once again, what law or contract has skiplagged broken? They do not purchase tickets, and they do not enter contracts with airlines.

I haven't looked into the actual legal details of this case, but in most jurisdictions it is a tort (i.e.l illegal) to interfere with others' business contracts. It's a notoriously tricky area of law though, and the source of a lot of borderline frivolous lawsuits. There are also numerous exceptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

Re: Skiplagged sued by United and Orbitz

#136

Post by pdabbadabba »

ElComradio wrote: post #123
bweitzman wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The airlines aren't suing passengers though, they are suing Skiplagged. Whether or not you agree with the way that airlines charge for tickets, the ticket is a contract between the passenger and the airline and breaking that contract has consequences. For the passenger, the contracts say that you are expected to use all legs of the tickets and if you do not then the rest of legs of the flights are voided. For the air…

How can: > the contracts say that you are expected to use all legs of the tickets and > There are no legal repercussions for the passenger not using all legs of the flights both be true? In other words, I as the customer have no obligation to use all legs of the flight. I did not promise the airline I would fly all the way to my destination (as far as I know); I do not promise that I even get on the flight at all. Ho…

The latter is not true. Airlines' contracts of carriage prohibit "Point Beyond Ticketing." Here is what (e.g.) United's contract of carriage says:

> Fares apply for travel only between the points for which they are published. Tickets may not be purchased and used at fare(s) from an initial departure point on the Ticket which is before the Passenger’s actual point of origin of travel, or to a more distant point(s) than the Passenger’s actual destination being traveled even when the purchase and use of such Tickets would produce a lower fare. This practice is known as “Hidden Cities Ticketing” or “Point Beyond Ticketing” and is prohibited by UA.

And violation of this provision can, in fact, have repercussions:

> UA’s Remedies for Violation(s) of Rules - Where a Ticket is purchased and used in violation of the law, these rules or any fare rule (including Hidden Cities Ticketing, Point Beyond Ticketing, Throwaway Ticketing, or Back-to-Back Ticketing), UA has the right in its sole discretion to take all actions permitted by law, including but not limited to, the following:

> 1) Invalidate the Ticket(s);

> 2) Cancel any remaining portion of the Passenger’s itinerary;

> 3) Confiscate any unused Flight Coupons;

> 4) Refuse to board the Passenger and to carry the Passenger’s baggage, unless the difference between the fare paid and the fare for transportation used is collected prior to boarding;

> 5) Assess the Passenger for the actual value of the Ticket which shall be the difference between the lowest fare applicable to the Passenger’s actual itinerary and the fare actually paid;

> 6) Delete miles in the Passenger’s frequent flyer account (UA’s MileagePlus Program), revoke the Passenger’s Elite status, if any, in the MileagePlus Program, terminate the Passenger’s participation in the MileagePlus Program, or take any other action permitted by the MileagePlus Program Rules in UA’s “MileagePlus Rules;” and

> 7) Take legal action with respect to the Passenger.

Re: Skiplagged sued by United and Orbitz

#137

Post by jowiar »

rev_bird wrote: post #122
jowiar wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that travel is a bit more complicated than sandwiches -- flight prices end up being set more by competition rather than cost of production. Let's say, per your model, you offering flights from SFO to PDX for $200, LAX to SFO for $100, and sell the LAX->PDX route for $250 (with a stopover in SFO). I decide to start an airline which doesn't fly to SFO, but offers direct flights from LAX->PDX for $190. Yo…

I've been all worked up about this story since I first read it, but yours is the first comment to make me actually understand a potential, non-bullshit argument from the airline side of things. Thank you. That said, I think I'm still grumpy at the airlines for doing it. The basic issue they're trying to resolve is that they want the LAX-SFO-PDX flight to compete only with the other airlines' LAX-PDX direct flights, w…

Two issues:

LAX->SFO->PDX isn't an equivalent product if you're going to SFO -- the airline can rebook you on any of a number of options (in case of weather, capacity, mechanical difficulties or whatnot) that may or may not go through SFO.

Adjusting routing is nontrivial. Planes are expensive. Gate rental is expensive. Pilots are expensive. Getting pilots and planes to where people are with routes planned to haul them to where they want to be is complicated. As an example of how complicated (and fragile) this is, watch the United departure board when there's a decent storm brewing in Chicago -- It's not just the flights going into and out of ORD that get screwed up -- it's pretty much every flight in the country.

Re: Skiplagged sued by United and Orbitz

#138

Post by pdabbadabba »

pas wrote: post #109
jowiar wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you have a near-full plane of passengers perfectly willing to pay $200 to fly from LAX to SFO - you're throwing away profit from all of them if you cut their fare because I'm competing for a different set of customers.

But, obviously, you have some customers who are not that willing, because they use these little hidden-city hacks. So what's the problem? You try to maintain your profits as everyone else, but before customers/passengers/clients smartened up it was easy, now you have to sue and lobby but eventually you have to directly fight against the rights of your passengers (the FAA exit fee someone proposed). Since airlines are…

> eventually you have to directly fight against the rights of your passengers

The airlines have already fought and won this battle. Airlines contracts of carriage already prohibit hidden city ticketing.

We should also consider the possibility that the profits from, e.g., an the LAX->SFO->PDX and LAX->SFO routes are not sufficient to cover expenses if you impose the external requirement that the former must always be more expensive than the latter. Maybe, under these constraints, people decide there are better things to invest their money in than setting up these airline routes, or maybe they replace these two routes with a single, direct LAX-PDX route, and nobody gets to fly to SFO.

Re: Skiplagged sued by United and Orbitz

#139

Post by SilasX »

sjwright wrote: post #85
jowiar wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not really "selling you tickets" on specific flights. They're selling you the service of hauling you from from your starting point to your destination - possibly on the route planned, or possibly on other routes. This includes such things as sending you on another airline, or on a train, or putting you up in a hotel room. I think the airlines would be willing to ignore a handful of people skipping out on a le…

> They're not really "selling you tickets" on specific flights. They really are. Coca-cola are marketing a refreshing tasty sparkling beverage, but what they're actually selling is carbonated water with sugar and acid. If I use it to clean my driveway, that's my prerogative, and Coca-cola don't get to retroactively charge me more because driveway cleaning chemicals are a more profitable market.

Funny that you bring that up, because that's actually happened! (Almost.) It's why alcohol-for-drinking is more expensive than alcohol-for-cleaning.

The government wanted to tax people it they drink it but not if they just clean with it. But then people (well, alcoholics mainly) realized they could buy the untaxed one "for cleaning" but then turn around and drink it. Can't have that!

End result: denatured alcohol, which (given taxes) is cheaper than the drinking kind because they "yuck it up" to the point that you can't drink it.

I just hope they don't do the analogous thing here, which would be like "poison you and hold the antidote at the ticket's final location" :-O

Re: Skiplagged sued by United and Orbitz

#140

Post by SilasX »

jowiar wrote: post #21
hayksaakian wrote: post #5

This sounds absurd. This is the best analogy i've come up with: A Sandwich shop sells half sandwiches at 5$ and full sandwiches at 6$ You, and a friend would both like half a sandwich. Instead of ordering two separate halves. You order only 1 full sandwich and cut it in half yourself. Now the sandwich shop is suing you because you paid $6 for one sandwich, and only ate half of it. That's instead of paying 10$ for two…

The problem is that travel is a bit more complicated than sandwiches -- flight prices end up being set more by competition rather than cost of production. Let's say, per your model, you offering flights from SFO to PDX for $200, LAX to SFO for $100, and sell the LAX->PDX route for $250 (with a stopover in SFO). I decide to start an airline which doesn't fly to SFO, but offers direct flights from LAX->PDX for $190. Yo…

Great explanation, thanks! Still not convinced though. In a sane world, you don't violate the generalized triangle inequality. In this case, the first airline should see an equal drop in demand for the two legs and cut prices to fill the gap (draw the marginal traveler for either or for both legs).

Having a special "both legs only" deal, in the face of higher actual costs for both than for only one, should immediately reveal itself as stupid, though an airline may (foolishly) be trying to kill its competitor.

Yet another analogy: the first business makes a template for cutting cookie shape A and a second for shape B. The second business sees demand for people who need an equal amount of both cookies, and makes a special template that "stamps out" an A and B stuck together. The one template is cheaper than two. Now it can sell the A/B bundle cheaper than the first business.

Some people like having separate cookies, some don't, and some only want one of them. Some like having both and don't mind breaking the fused one. The second business sells the fused one cheaper.

How should the first react? What if it tried to steal the "A/B bundle market" by trying to offer a major discount for people who buy A and B together, but only if they really like both?

Post reply on HN