It’s no secret that fare rules — the all-uppercase gibberish you often see on the bottom of your computer screen when buying your ticket — are designed to make your airline a few extra bucks. Some of so-called tariff rules require a Saturday night stay. Others insist you use both halves of the ticket.
Like most travelers, Robert (no last name, and I’ll explain in a second) try to travel within the rules. But then life happens.
Here’s the note I got from Robert about his tariff rule trouble. Maybe you can help him do the right thing.
I have an airline puzzle.
I booked three non-refundable round-trip tickets for me and my family from the Washington area to Salt Lake City recently. We were planning to stay in Utah for a week and a half and return on June 22.
A month after I booked the tickets, my sister announced she was going to get married on June 25, so I called American Airlines to see if I could change my return tickets.
They said it would be $150 per ticket, plus up to $80 extra for each ticket for the fare difference. But looking at one-way trips from Salt Lake City to Washington, I discovered tickets that would only cost $80, a third of what it would cost to change the date on the return ticket.
It would make a lot more sense for me to just miss my return flight home on the 22nd and catch the one-way ticket home on Saturday.
Unfortunately, I made the mistake of calling the airline back to try and negotiate with them again, and I asked them why it was reasonable for them to charge me $230 in change fees when I could just buy an additional one-way ticket for $80.
The customer service rep was upset and said “You can’t do that! And the fact that you’re telling me this makes it three times worse, because now the airline will be checking.”
I responded that I wasn’t necessarily going to do that, and that I didn’t have to extend my ticket; only that I wanted to do it if it wouldn’t be too expensive. I further said that if I couldn’t buy a one-way ticket home on American Airlines, I could do it on another airline.
She basically hung up on me after that.
I immediately booked the $80 one-way tickets through Expedia. But now I’m worried that something bad will happen. Will they force me to pay outrageous fees when I try to board the one-way flight home on June 25 after I missed the original flight home?
This is a terrific question. So I put it to American Airlines. Here’s the response from spokeswoman Andrea Huguely.
We don’t know exactly what the agent said or in what tone, but we will definitely pass these concerns on to the Reservations Staff supervisors so they can follow up as necessary.
Regardless of what is said, it always needs to be conveyed in a professional manner. If that, indeed, was not the case, we would certainly apologize. We suspect she may have been trying to explain that any employee, RES agent or anywhere else, who finds out about anyone violating our ticket rules or tariffs must report it from an ethical standpoint. We are not saying the customer KNEW he was doing that, and if not, that probably should have been explained to him as well.
We cannot say for sure what becomes of every situation reported by an employee.
It may, or may not be followed up. There are many factors in that — the nature of the fare rules violation and how significant it is, whether it appears to be a continued pattern of abuse or gaming, the sheer volume of things to check out at any one particular time, or whether other potential factors come into play….not all of which can be discussed for fear of providing a “how-to” lesson. Ultimately, [the passenger] will need to decide how he is going to travel.
From all appearances, our policies were correctly followed in terms of the change fees and new fare. The customer had originally purchased a low-fare, non-refundable ticket in which change fees apply (as you know, not all types of tickets are subject to a change fee). Since the customer asked to change the date of travel the change fee applied.
Also required in such changes is that the new fare offered be in the same fare category as the original ticket. That is why the fare offered was also in addition to the change fee.
As you’ll see below, even though you’ve probably looked at them from time to time, our Conditions of Carriage spell out the rules about changing itineraries, as well as a separate section about certain practices that violate our tariffs and/or fare rules.
Unfortunately, and the passenger may not be aware, but by not using the second leg of his round-trip ticket AND by also purchasing an additional one-way ticket for the same itinerary, he is violating the tariffs by engaging in a practice called “throwaway ticketing.” American specifically prohibits this practice.
Buying a ticket is a contract, one that the carrier must uphold AND the customer as well. But, it’s important that the customer read the fare rules in the information provided in the Conditions of Carriage. Such information is available by clicking on each fare on AA.com to see its rules. I would encourage a customer to do that for such information, and also, should they have additional questions, to call our Reservations number.
We are not saying, as I noted above, that this will definitely happen, but we may under those fare rules.
Here’s what might happen if Robert is caught. American could,
Cancel any remaining portion of the passenger’s itinerary, confiscate unused flight coupons, refuse to board the passenger or check the passenger’s luggage, or assess the passenger for the reasonable remaining value of the ticket, which shall be no less than the difference between the fare actually paid and the lowest fare applicable to the passenger’s actual itinerary.
It should be obvious why Robert doesn’t want his last name used in this story. What’s less obvious is what he should do now.
No one wants to run afoul of an airline’s rules, even if the rules don’t make any sense. And let’s be clear: From a passenger’s perspective, these rules don’t make any sense.
So should Robert stay or go?
I had a follow-up conversation with him after checking with American, and he can’t bring himself to paying the change fee. He’s sticking to his original itinerary — throwing the return ticket away and flying on the one-way return.
I think American will look the other way. The airline typically goes after fare rule violators who are elite-level frequent fliers with a track record of being repeat offenders or travel agents who enable this kind of behavior. Not people like Robert who are going to their sister’s wedding.
What do you think? Should Robert pay American the extra money? Should he take the one-way flight? Do these tariff rules make sense to you?
✓ Get the latest travel news, tips and commentary from Elliott’s E-Mail, the subversive newsletter from industry gadfly Christopher Elliott. You’ll travel like a pro. Sign up here. It’s free.
Sign up for my 
{ 46 comments… read them below or add one }
Robert did the right thing by buying a less expensive, one-way return. My travel clients frequently “throw away” returns for a different option, as things often change. The key is not to make a habit of it with the same airline. The occasional “throw-away” should not be a problem.
The column tells a good story about this customer and his problem but not WHY it is a problem. Please explain to me why you can’t buy a plane ticket and then not use half of it.
I buy a loaf of bread, but I don’t eat the heels. I buy a newspaper but I don’t read the classified section. I buy a candle but the last two inches never get burned. I buy a quart of milk and sometimes that last few drops go bad.
If the airlines sell me a round-trip ticket, isn’t not using the second half of it a bargain for them? It’s a no-show seat that they can sell to someone else and get revenue on it a second time!
Getting the information from American as to what his options were was a good thing. At that point he should have thanked them, hung up the phone and then do exactly what he did, without informing or suggesting to AA what his intentions might have been. He should have no problem flying home on his new date.
I agree with Bruce…just because a person buys something does not in the slightest obligate them to use it.
What really frustrates me about these convoluted tariff rules is that the airlines can make any change deemed necessary by them without penalty or even discussion. I recently was informed that my return ticket from Cancun in July would be on a different flight/time than the one that I booked. This was announced via email as a ‘change in itinerary’ with no explanation about why I now leave 2 1/2 hours earlier than booked (I booked the later flight to have additional time at our hotel with our grandchildren). Why can’t I charge the airline for the inconvenience, lack of information and breaking of contract? Oh, it’s probably covered in some archaic rule.
@ Bruce
*begin sarcasm* The airline industy cares because it screw up their highly efficiant price scheming system *end sarcasm*
Legacy airline pricing is nothing short of stupid. It relies on passengers having to follow bizzare rules so the airline can manage its prices and inventory through stratigic overbooking. If you buy a ticket with the intention not to use it then it messes all that up so they force you to agree to a contract stating you will use all of your ticket. Its decidedly consumer unfriendly.
Airlines like JetBlue, Airtran and Southwest have their own flaws, but at least their pricing is a little easier to figure out and their cancelation policies allow rebooking with far less hassle.
How would the airline handle it if Robert arrived a few minutes late for his return flight? From reading your column, we know they would say his ticket was invalid and make him buy a new one. He’s just buying a new one for a few days later. I would be sure to buy the ticket on a diferent airline – not a code share either – and perhaps use a different credit card or have wife make the purchase so it is filed under her name just to obscure the trail.
It seems to me the airline is the winner here, they have an extra seat which they can fill with a walk up or standby passenger at a higher rate. But they will not know this until the very last minute because Robert cannot call early to say he is not going to use the tickets without exposing his plans.
Southwest and AIrtran both sell one way tickets for all their flights so a round trip is really just two one ways. The world has really changed when Southwest and Airtran – the former low frills arilines – are offering better service than the legacy lines.
So the airlines are allowed to overbook flights, change our dates and or times of departure to suit themselves, yet a guy who’s being honest and up-front with them could be refused boarding.
It’s not their losing revenue is it, all the passenger has done is to book another ticket online for the same price as the agent quoted, and did it without having to pay a ridiculous amount for the privelidge.
A $150 change fee for 5 mins work changing details on a computer is a rip-off, and 12 of those an hour makes AA $1800 an hour, and that’s immoral even if it’s legal. There should be a cap on the amount of fees an airline can charge of say around 5-10% of the actual ticket cost before taxes are added.
My favorite part is when the American representative asserts: “Buying a ticket is a contract, one that the carrier must uphold AND the customer as well.”
… I about spit out my coffee when I read that. The airlines wrote the convoluted contracts of carriage (and continue to re-write them) to force customers into the worst possible situations, frequently (and without remorse) break their own rules, and they have the gall to huff and puff when customers want to try to do something that is a bit more convenient while still paying the airlines?
These guys are incredible! As long as the airlines continue to jerk customers around, customers shouldn’t feel any remorse reciprocating.
The airlines claim that this is a “contract” however it is so lopsided in their favor that it probably would not stand up to a true court test. They can’t say that if you don’t travel for some legitimate reason your ticket is worthless but on the other hand by refusing to let you voluntarily throw it away that there is a penalty for not using it.
This is obviously a case of policy overriding common sense. If a brand new one-way ticket is less than the change fee + fare difference, the airline is creating an illogical situation. I know why the rules exist, and that reason is not a case like this one.
SirWired
@Sheila: When an airline changes an itinerary, you do have the right to make a one-time, fee free change, if the new itinerary does not suit you.
I did the same thing where I bought a non-refundable, roundtrip fare ticket on Orbitz. I had to change the return portion due to work. When I found out that the change fee + the difference I would have to pay was going to be double what I originally paid for the ticket, I paid for a one way ticket that was half the price. No one has come after me yet!
But I wonder, how would they go after you to collect the money? A collection agency? Ask Orbtiz for your credit card info?
My favorite part was when the AA rep says “anyone violating our ticket rules or tariffs must report it from an ethical standpoint. ” Perhaps they should rethink their own ethics of charging twice the amount in change fees and fare differences for something that they sell to a different person (or in this case Robert2) for half that amount.
So because the airlines try so hard to make money, they confuse and anger the passengers. Then the passengers go to the cheap seat airlines – or just don’t fly, because we don’t have the money any more. Next, the airline will apply for a government handout, like the other major corporations…….. and the government will be in the airline business, too. Mortgage, Banking, Car Business and now airlines….. Yep. Life is good!! I love change.
The industry is all screwed up and we know that. Until they straighten things out and make it work the way it should, we’re going to be stuck with absurd rules.
I would not have paid them extra. I would have flown home on another airline.
I guess we’ve done something like that before.
The two times we have moved to the USA and back we purchased a round-trip ticket for about €400-€700 instead of a one-way ticket of about €1700-€2100. The difference in fare is because when purchasing a round-trip you can book the lowest fare class called Take-Off Fare by KLM/Northwest instead of the higher fare called Flex Economy(Flex Coach).
I never knew this was a violation of the terms of carriage.
This really cries out for either a lawsuit with a real court ruling, or to be incorporated in consumer legislation — there’s NO WAY the airline should be able to claim a contract violation if you don’t use their service.
They’re certainly free to create fare rules and try to slot products into different segments, but those rules only determine how their own system will sell the tickets — i.e. “Saturday night stay required” means their system won’t sell a Mon-Wed round trip ticket.
They really [should] have no right to dictate what you do outside of the ticketed flights (e.g. a nested trip) or require that you use the return portion (they suffer no costs if you paid but don’t show up, and may in fact gain by re-selling the seat). I suppose they can refuse to sell the conflicting ticket to the same frequent flyer account, but they absolutely can’t prevent you from purchasing it from another airline.
It’s the airline’s job to sell the ticket combinations they choose to sell, and my job to optimize which combinations of those products I want to purchase and how to use them.
“Here’s what might happen if Robert is caught. American could,
Cancel any remaining portion of the passenger’s itinerary, confiscate unused flight coupons, refuse to board the passenger or check the passenger’s luggage, or assess the passenger for the reasonable remaining value of the ticket, which shall be no less than the difference between the fare actually paid and the lowest fare applicable to the passenger’s actual itinerary.”
Sounds exactly like the same things AMERICAN AIRLINES does even if you follow your part of the “contract”, most definitely if you’re a few minutes late checking in. They can cancel your membership in AAdvantage FF also when you throw away return coupons like this. What’s the threat factor? You can’t get a flight with FF points.
RIP Fast Draw Jack
Nobody was faster
I agree that the rules are ludicrous and benefit only the airline. Basically, the airline can do whatever it wants, but the passenger cannot do what he wants with his own ticket. If you pay for something, you own it– yet in this case you cannot use it as you see fit. What kind of “contract” is that? Still, I am not sure I would do what Robert did because I’d be too nervous that the airline would bar me from boarding unless I paid up. The Trade Practices Act prohibits unconscionable conduct directed at consumers, and this is based on several factors including the relative bargaining strengths of the business and the consumer. Obviously the airlines have all the bargaining strength here and the consumer has none, so it is questionable whether their rules would hold up in court if someone chose to take it to that level.
Your readership certainly covered all the issues with the “throw away” ticket and repurchase. I loved the one regarding buying a loaf of bread, with the example of, ‘but I don’t eat the heals.’ Of course, the fine print on the loaf of bread may let you know the true content of the fiber in your bread but it does not say, “you must eat the heals to comply to our FDA rulings”. My beef with the airline for years has been their total disregard for valuing their customer and doing their best in meeting their needs. Most all of them can not balance their books, cry over the cost of running the airline compared to revenue yet treat the consumer ($$$) with distain, add on fees, checked luggage charges, lucky to get your small bag of pretzels and basically ignore you once you are on board. For me, leaving a customer with a “good taste” in their mouth with SOME consideration in helping them far outweighs the “horrific airline stories” that the customer will repeat to other travelers 100 fold. As an example, this story makes me even more determined to NOT fly American and throw my money at Hawaiian Air, which I do fly often. I would rather pay a little more upfront and be treated like a human being then have the phone conversation that Robert endured. I would throw away the ticket and face the consequences with my gloves on…”get ready for a good fight and exposing American to the general public”, as this posting has done. The consumer has to stop being “afraid” of airlines retaliation. I recently told the airline when I had an unforseen change “Justice is the issue and until you XYZ airline give justice to the customer that pays your wages, you are further creating a hate relationship that will further sink your enterprise”.
I had a similar experience with American Airlines on trying to change a US leg of an international flight that made the new ticket cost $3000 more even though all of the international legs were identical to what I had booked. The reservation agent actually suggested that I book the one way new ticket with a different airline. The agent realized how ridiculous the rules where but said there was nothing he could do about it.
Buy the new ticket. Ailrlinesa threaten you all of the time, but cannot do a thing on the return. Never try it on the opening 1st flight, they will catch it every time.
Good for Robert and you. And for the first three commentors. It would be nice to stick it to the airline–but, really, AA is in the good position of selling three more tickets than if Robert had kept his original itinerary. I wonder if there is (OK, OK – apart from Detroit) any other business that cares less about its customers than the airline biz?
The real question here is one of business ethics and power. The rules that airlines impose would be unconscionable and unenforceable in most industries. It is ludicrous that failing to consume an entire product is a violation of the rules.
The rules are clearly one sided. This is why I suspend my normal capitalist outlook and believe that airlines should be very generous when a passenger has an unusual set of circumstances and should waive change fees accordingly.
By example, my father had emergency surgery and missed a flight later that day. I called the airline the next day on his behalf. AA’s position was that since he hadn’t cancelled before the plane departed, the entire itinerary was cancelled. I made a big stink about how stupid that was and escalated it several levels until AA relented and gave my father full credit. My basic line was, “so should my father have called from the ambulance or emergency room.” At some point AA got a clue.
We really do need a passenger’s bill of rights which should include
Change fees must be reasonable based on airlines cost
Medical or legal emergency should allow a single no fee change
The full value of every ticket should be appliable to another ticket minus a reasonable change fee.
Passengers can use tickets as they see fit including hidden city and back to back
Just a few thoughts
tHE AIRLINES DON’T VOLUNTEER INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS WHEN THEY OVER BOOK OR OWE YOU WHEN THEY MAKE A MISTAKE. SO IF THE PASSENGER MAKES A “MISTAKE” BY BOOKING A THROW AWAY LEG OF A TRIP THE PASSENGER NEED NOT INFORM THE AIRLINE!
I called NWA for a one way flight that I have booked for next week and the agent actually suggested to me that I just book a new one-way ticket online and ditch the original, becuase the new one-way was cheaper than the change fee.
& if as a Delta medallion, if they ever did somthing like this to me (like cancelling my account, remaining PNRs, etc) I’d tell them to shove it, and i’ll just do a status match on another airline, no biggie to me,,, its their loss in the long run….
I think it is ridiculous for an airline to charge such fees when a one way flight is so much less expensive. My husband flies on business more times than I care to count on the most expensive fares because his job requires last minute travel. Does the airline cut me any slack in the rare instance that I do purchase a cheaper ticket and yet have to change it? Does the airline consider that I’ve paid top dollar more than low dollar? Not on your life. If our travel time in the car is 8 hours or less, we drive and laugh at the airlines and their outrageous fares! And, don’t EVEN get me started on trying to use all those miles he has accumulated . . . ..
The nerve! The airlines routinely OVERBOOK, put people on stand-by without asking, kick people off planes for nonsense and personal reasons that have nothing to do with flying (the girl in the short skirt, for example). They oversell on purpose, then scream “contract rules” when you decide for yourself what deal to take on their flights?
They’re SCAM ARTISTS of the highest accords. No real food, no silverware, no pillows, no blankets, running out of WATER, keeping people hostage on the tarmac, letting people rifle through your luggage, making you throw away liquids for no good reason, virtually STRIPPING us with machines then “assuring” the pictures will be kept “private” with no policy that states anything about privacy (yeah, right), maintain the right to DENY that ticket for ANY reason. Then they scream “contract” when people figure out how to use their system for their own good! What a laugh!
They take you for everything you’re worth, so take them for what they’re worth in return. Buy the cheaper ticket.
Robert is doing the right thing. Airline rules are not the law, in fact airlines themselves do things that are not right when it suits them, for example suddenly deciding that they are not going to offer special meals to customers in first class, even though other passengers there are getting meals that they have paid for in the ticket.
Having said that, we do like to be able to get good deals with the airlines, and maybe airlines couldn’t offer such great prices if they didn’t have these conditions. However in this case Robert did not set out to deceive the airline. What airlines should do is make it easier for changes to made, especially today when changes can be made online with little manual effort by the airline, perhaps allowing changes as long as there is the same class of inventory left on the flight to be changed to. In reality airlines can be shooting themselves in the foot by not allowing this, since the original flight might be sold out by now, and the new flight might be empty – thus anyone buying the original seat that goes back into inventory would be paying 5 or 10 times the original price, and the change fees are a disincentive for change.
I do however resent the fact that when I am a customer, doing business with a vendor, I am required to abide by their rules, yet I myself as an employee of a great company live by the belief that the customer is king, that it is our privilege to have the business of the customer. So it bothers me that so many big companies (and not just airlines) these days treat customers as if it’s the customer’s privilege to be getting a service from the service provider,
First and foremost, the airlines couldn’t care the less about any of us. Secondly, and I preface by stating I hate government regulating businesses, but the government needs to save the airlines from themselves and us. Most couldn’t make any money if they tried.
I work in the travel industry and have for too many years. The airlines computers specifically look for abuse like ‘back to back’ ticketing, ‘throwaway’ ticketing, etc.
The worst thing that can happen, and I have seen it happen, is the airline will cancel both sets of tickets to force ‘Robert’s’ hand.
Further, you will find in the airline’s contract they could go back to Robert and attempt to force him to pay the one way fare on the round trip tickets he bought since he had no intention of using the return. Technically (save us all) he is defrauding the airlines by doing this.
Although I don’t agree with this policy it is not like the analogy stated of buying a loaf of bread and only eating half. Reason is simple, if bread was priced in 2 tiers (the airline tickets were – one way or round trip), $2.00 if you eat the whole loaf and $3.00 if you eat half the loaf, and you only intended to eat half but bought the $2.00 loaf, you would be intentionally breaking the bread buying policy. Admittedly any intelligent person would be hard pressed to try and determine why you should pay more for less, but I am sure the airlines can explain why they do.
Save us from these airlines who cannot save themselves!
I’m going with the bread analogy. Once I book a non-refundable, I accept that I’ve paid for it; but if things change, I toss it. I have the right to throw away the bread when it gets moldy.
I might change my mind if the seat were required to fly empty. I had this argument with Budget, from whom I no longer rent–I had a reservation that required a one day payment in case of cancellation, but there was no car when I was trying to leave for my grandfather’s funeral. I finally got a little action when I pointed out that I did not have the right to cancel for free, so they had to find me a car. I went from the downtown location at Rowes Wharf Boston, to the airport, and they found one.
Isn’t it obvious to everyone that the rules are in place to protect the airline from people trying to subvert the sytem so they don’t lose money in the long run? Of course there will always be inocent people who get trapped and have to “take a chance”. In a COMPLETELY different industry there is also such a unique rule that works the same idea. Blackjack players are not allowed to count cards because it subverts the sytem for the casino’s.
Do I agree these are not “fair” rules? That would depend on what side of the counter I’m on!
@Jay …
It’s perfectly legal for me to count cards in a casino. The only thing they can do is bar me. Here the airline is caught. The interesting thing here is that the airline is making MORE money than if he didn’t change his ticket at all. He’s now buying two seats instead of one for his return and he’s buying up a cheaper fare.
The airlines will never learn but will continue to pull this as long as we continue to buy their tickets
The back-to-back ticketing rules have been in effect ever since the airlines started discounting fares for round trips. The airline sets the prices. The client accepts the rules when they make the purchase. The fares aren’t supposed to make sense;
They’re designed to get revenue for the airlines, not to save the client money but to get their money. The roundtrip discount fares are loss leaders, you get a bargain if you buy exactly what’s offered, nothing different and changing from roundtrip to one way is a different product. The roundtrip discounted fares state “nonrefundable, nonchangeable” yet they can be changed for a fee.
Never buy an airline ticket without buying insurance on it.
When a flight is missed the computer cancels everything downline.
You can’t just cancel a flight without that happening downline.
The airlines can’t charge you for missing a flight but they can take away your frequent flyer miles and they can, and do, charge a travel agency who sells a ticket that is used in what they label fraudulent, i.e. bought as roundtrip but planned to be used as one way. The travel agency can lose its ticketing privileges if it doesn’t pay this ridiculous charge, and
the said agency has no control over how the ticket is used once it is sold
to the client. So how’s that for unfair? It could actually put the agency out
of business.
Been there, done that, but paid Delta $2000 for a $100 roundtrip ticket that was only used one way. No recourse.
The way I see it, AA makes more money (or loses less?) one way or the other–if Robert uses the $80 ticket AND still has paid for the original ticket, AA is $80 per person ahead then if he had stuck to the original itinerary. Or I am missing something obvious here?
Go for it Robert–I bet AA isn’t smart enough to figure out what you’re doing.
@ Steve Rabin
AA would make more money from Robert if they forced him to reschedule his ticket rather than buying a new one because of the punitive change fees. The wants to sell Robert a ticket for $230 that they would sell to anyone else for $80.
@Ed
I see your point, but I have to disagree. I don’t think it is ethical to price a good or service based upon how I use it and whether or not I even use the item. Once I buy the goods and services, they are mine to do with as I see fit. Thus the bread analogy works for me. I can’t think of any other industry that charges for non-use.
As long as consumers allow the airlines to rip them off, treat them like criminals, and steal their money, the airlines are going to keep doing it…because NO ONE is really trying to take any significant, meaningful steps to stop it. All you’ve got are a few bloggers (like Chris) and a couple of upset passengers (like Kate Hanni) who publicly try to shame the airlines. So how’s that working so far? lol!
All politicians care about is gay marriage and abortion because it keeps them getting elected. Take on the airlines and they’d lose those contributions to their retirement funds, AND their constituents really wouldn’t care. Because the voters only really care about gay marriage and abortion too.
So everyone’s getting what they deserve.
Our only chance is to force a terminology change on the airline industry so that fees are now called “abortions” and poor service is called “gay marriage.” Then, at least, 50% of all customers would be 100% satisfied at all times.
OR, you could stop voting for politicians who don’t take on the airline industry, REGARDLESS of where they stand on abortion and gay marriage. There’s a concept! Taking a stand on something that would actually make a *difference* in this country. Wow.
@Carver
As much as I would like to agree with you unfortunately you are ‘legally’ incorrect. When you purchase a ticket you purchase all the stipulations that go along with the ticket, you just need to read the fine print. Your theory could be correct if there wasn’t a ‘contract of carriage’ that went along with the sale.
Let me try another analogy, you buy software but you actually don’t own it to do with it as you please. Your purchase of the software, when accepting the terms, is nothing more than a limited license. Your ownership doesn’t give you the right to redistribute it or alter it.
Don’t confuse my explanation as sympathy for the airlines as I believe we have to all rise against their business practices. I would love to start seeing more people take them to court for their actions against their customers…hmmm, don’t think they consider us customers.
We have choices and should make them wisely. Stop flying the airlines that impose these rules and tariffs and spend your money with the few airlines that don’t rape or nickel and dime you.
Better yet, take the train.
Want to start a national boycott the airlines month?
@Ed
I appreciate your point. However, I wasn’t discusing whether the contract of carriage was enforceable or not. My issue was whether it was ethical and in comformity with acceptable business practices. You can write anything in a contract, but that doesn’t make it ethical.
I submit that the airlines contract of carriage would be considered unethical in the overwhelming majority of industries.
I also appreciate the software analogy but it doesn’t really apply. Intellectual proprety is unique in law and ethics in that the base assumptions are not necessarily true. For example, stealing goods and services imporverishes the owner, while not true in intellectual property.
@Ed
I also appreciate your cojones in telling an attorney that’s he’s legally incorrect. LOL
I have often likened airlines to a crooked casino. They not only make the rules, but they change or “interpret” them at their whim. They don’t shuffle the cards, but use “yield management” schemes to watch the cards and deal from whatever part of the deck happens to maximize revenue at that moment (while hiding all the cards from players until they’re irrevocably dealt). They control all aspects of the game so they always win. But if a player ever tries to take any advantage or control to win any part of the game, he’s guilty of “cheating” and immediately sentenced to whatever punishment the airline decides.
The casino analogy is particularly apt in that flying is pretty much a crapshoot. You throw the (weighted) dice strictly as the airline demands. What you get for your bet is an opportunity to travel as scheduled. But the airline has no obligation to get you and your baggage to your destination at any particular time. They’re free to change the schedule at the last minute if it suits their needs, cancel a flight if it’s not full enough, and even make you buy another expensive ticket if their changes result in a missed connection. But if you need to change anything, or perhaps miss a flight due to a flat tire, you have to pay whatever penalties the airline decides because you’ve violated the solemn covenant you made when you bought the ticket.
I’m not aware of any other industry where corporate executives consider it Good Business to treat paying customers so shabbily. But they can get away with it because they know we have practically no alternative to their inferior product. No matter how much they abuse us, they know we’ll soon be back at the airport to queue up in our stockinged feet for more abuse.
Valid contract ==
“Two parties agree to a set of terms that differ from common law, (or you won’t need a contract), which is not illegal, and that both parties fully understand when the agreement was made orally or in a written format, agreed to and either signed or not.”
In this ticket contract, my guess is that no one in their right mind would knowingly enter into a contract that REQUIRES them to return on a certain date, or pay a penalty for no show. I would bet that there is NOTHING spelled out in the contract that says, if you miss your flight, you owe us $x. Further, if you assume that you do “owe the airline” a debt of “riding on their airplane” if you’ve agreed to, there are NO DAMAGES to the airline if you don’t! What that means is, if the airline decided to sue on THIS ticket contract, they could win. But, the damages would be ZERO.
Now, for a NEW ticket, one way or whatever–that’s a NEW contract. I would bet that there are not restrictions that would say, “if you book a ticket as “john Smith”, for example, we will just decide to confiscate your NEW ticket, and, in addition, since we are acting as judge and jury, we will include the old contract and collect that as well, ignoring the damages issue, since as “judge and jury”, we can do anything we want that benefits us.
Notice: It seem me to me that there is no person that understands that they will OWE the airline if they don’t take the flight and can be sued for an unknown amount.
As an extreme example of this, suppose there is another clause in the contract you weren’t aware of. Lets say, a new airline is trying to look successful. They sell tickets for $50, round trip across the country as a promotion. Part of the “fine print” says that, if you miss any segment, including the first one, the last one, or both, you owe the airline $2,000. Would the airline win? I think not. Maybe they prove they were damaged because you didn’t go, resulting in looking bad to their investors. Proper notice of that term to you would be required. You’d even have be aware that you were agreeing to be sued. So, without agreement, there is no contract.
In another aspect of knowing you owe, lets say you know they almost never enforce the rule, and decide to sue you anyway. Did you “know” you owed the money? No, to the contrary, you knew they don’t charge customers… until now. Again, no contract term exists, if you didn’t agree you’d be charged and those charges would not be ignored.
Contract law unfortunately is a difficult subject for most of us, since we seldom have to decide these things. Nevertheless, we are subject to the effects of not understanding what a contract or contract term is, and is not.
I’d suggest that someone put up a site to allow all of us to insert any situation, and apply a very few key concepts of contract law to see what would happen if the contract were enforced by law. This would help decrease misconceptions about: Oral contracts, enforceable? Is understanding of the terms required to be enforceable? If you made an offer and don’t rescind it, are you bound if the other party accepts it later? What if the offer was “only done orally”? It is still binding, but it would be harder to prove without written evidence or witnesses.
More and more companies are taking advantage of consumers by obscuring the terms of onerous contracts, or simply charging consumers for things that they know would cost the consumer more time to pick up the phone and complain about and fix, than to just pay. When’s the last time any of us called about a dropped call? Internet or cable stopped working for a short time? That new one dollar fee for accessing something about your account that was already online?
As consumers, we must find a better way to fight these small battles efficiently. But this starts with some working understanding of contract law we can all use and apply daily.
@Alan
That was a long post. I’m out of breathe just reading it. I appreciate the attempt athough unfortunately, much of what you wrote on the legal side isn’t true.
1. The definition of contract is very inadequate. Both sides merely need to understand the major terms for it to be valid. That’s why the contract of carriage concept works.
2. Every frequent flier understands that if you violate the contract of carriage which includes throwaway tiickets, back to back, and hidden city tickets, you are subject to repricing and your travel agenecy faces a debit memo.
3. Your argument that the airline suffers no damages doesn’t work. Loss of profit is an adequate basis to support a damage claim. Basically, if you followed the contract the profit would have been $100, but since you didn’t they only made “$40″ profit. The remaining $60 is damages.
4. The new ticket as a new contract is a novel idea, but, the old contract is still in play and the act of purchasing a new ticket violated the old contract and the airline takes advantage of the remedies in place there.
5. The airline promotion concept actually exists in hotels. If you book a hotel with Hilton or Starwood using points and you no-show, the hotels have the option of returning the points and charging your credit card for the full rack rate. It’s in the contract. It happened to me at one hilton garden inn and I won’t ever stay at that hotel again.
You also see that with time share promotions. If you receive a reduced hotel rate to attend a time share and you don’t show up, the hotel reprices the room rate.
6. The unknown amount defense doesn’t work. An amount is “known” is it can be ascertained with certainty, even if a dollar amount is not specified. In this case, if its pegged to the rack rate, or a market rate, then it’s sufficiently specified in the contract.
Good try, but as you stated, contract law is very difficult unless you’ve been specifically trained.
At the end of the day, the airlines have legions of attorneys and very large firms with very large salaries who created the carriage of contract. The only real flaw is that the terms and conditions are often offensive to common US business practices which is why airlines are most vulnerable in small claims court.
I think Rob should just tell them to go to hell. Our country was built on competition, if he finds a cheaper fare and the airline was too stupid to keep him from doing it within their own system thats on then and he should be able to do it.
I think Congress needs to investigate airlines. They are gouging people for fares. Case in point, you look for a fare, find one and select it but then before you purchase it, you get buyers remorse and don’t get it. You then do a search again and much to your surprise, that same flight you just changed your mind on has gone up in price. How can that be? An average person would say, they sold the ticket and it must have been the last one. Fair enough.
Now, open your browsers options, clear your cookies and then disallow cookies. Close your browser and reopen it. Try the search again. How about that? The flight went back to the same price you got the first time you looked at it! Now go to Expedia and try it. Well, well, well, Expedia won’t even let you search if your cookies are turned off. Now why is that? Is it perhaps because the cookie it put on your PC keeps track of what you want and then tells the site to raise the price if you keep looking? Hmmm, one wonders huh?
I think the airlines should not use your computer to raise pricing. That should be illegal. If you buy a bus ticket, it costs the same a month out as it does five minutes before you board the bus. So why do the airlines gouge you using your own computer to assist them in raising pricing? That is BS and Microsoft was investigated and fined for using similar tactics with their internet browser back in the 90’s.
The airlines explain this by saying the fuels costs vary and so do the jet taxiway taxess. BS, Airlines buy their fuel in advance, sometimes years ahead -all so that the price of gas to fly the planes is no longer a variable cost but a fixed cost. The only time the price of the ticket should change is when they use up the fuel they bought in one lump sum and start using a new lot they paid more for. As for the taxiways, I believe it’s another another scam, one would guess you pay the same taxiway tax at each airport. The governments don’t typically add premiums to their taxiway tax just because a plane landed in rush hour!
Food for thought….