Glad I wasn't a “wing walker”.

 

I saw a wheel rim fly up thru a ceiling once. Very loud.

And I once saw a hydraulic car lift.....break with a loud snap.....and dumped a brand new pick-up.......on it's side. The owner was right there with me.....watching it fall.

Paramedics had to sedate the poor fellow. Never heard such cussing and crying.

 

This is an interesting problem regarding conflict of interests:

https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/lufthansa-sues-passenger-scli-intl/index.html

Lufthansa has taken a passenger, who didn't show up for the last leg of his ticketed journey, to court in an apparent bid to clamp down on "hidden city" ticketing.

 

This is an interesting problem regarding conflict of interests:

https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/lufthansa-sues-passenger-scli-intl/index.html

Charging Someone For Not Using Something They Bought?

 

This is an interesting problem regarding conflict of interests:

https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/lufthansa-sues-passenger-scli-intl/index.html

What's the conflict of interest?

If you enter into a contract in which you voluntarily agree to complete all circuits of a flight, and you prematurely deplane at an intermediate destination, you are in default of the contract.

Certainly, there are those that believe that being a lying, weaseling welcher is in one's own best interest. In that case, I understand why some may assume a conflict.

 

Charging Someone For Not Using Something They Bought?

You're right, of course. The airline is looking for compensation for missing profits, while at the same time it's deliberately ignoring the fuel saved because the passenger didn't catch the second plane.

If there's a loophole that the passenger can take advantage of, it's entirely the airline's fault. But I won't be surprised if a new rule is passed penalizing those who take advantage of a situation like this one. Airlines will always go out of their way to protect their own interests.

 

Airlines will always go out of their way to protect their own interests.

No. They will go out of their way to remain profitable -- and therefore, in business.

Edit: if you think you can make a better airline (from the point-of-view of the passenger), then DO IT. If you are right, the world will beat a path to your door. If you are wrong, you will fail miserably.

 

You're right, of course. The airline is looking for compensation for missing profits, while at the same time it's deliberately ignoring the fuel saved because the passenger didn't catch the second plane.

If there's a loophole that the passenger can take advantage of, it's entirely the airline's fault. But I won't be surprised if a new rule is passed penalizing those who take advantage of a situation like this one. Airlines will always go out of their way to protect their own interests.

I would think the most they could really do was to penalize you if you belonged to a promo plan. A demand letter for payment is bogus.

 

A demand letter for payment is bogus.

Yes, in a world where a contract, and therefore, justice, is meaningless.

 

No. They will go out of their way to remain profitable -- and therefore, in business.

Edit: if you think you can make a better airline (from the point-of-view of the passenger), then DO IT. If you are right, the world will beat a path to your door. If you are wrong, you will fail miserably.

Let me rephrase that: "everyone will always go out of their way to protect their own interests"

In the case of large corporations (such as airlines), they have the resources and means to press their customers into agreements advantageous to their interests. While at the same time a customer has every right to legally save money through whatever means they can find.

And no... an airline is probably the last business that I'd ever get into. Their profit to operation/investment ratio is extremely small. And I have the highest respect for the people managing their logistics. It's hard and ungrateful work.

 

Yes, in a world where a contract, and therefore, justice, is meaningless.

The 'Contract of Carriage' is not valid in a US court. If the airline takes this to court for some crazy reason it will cost them a lot more than the amount of the bogus demand letter if they took him to collections and damage his credit score.

 

Let me rephrase that: "everyone will always go out of their way to protect their own interests..."

In reality, yes -- and only the honest will admit this. Run from anyone who claims to work only for the "common good".

In the case of large corporations (such as airlines), they have the resources and means to press their customers into agreements advantageous to their interests.

Only to the extent that their competitors cannot offer superior terms at a better price.

While at the same time a customer has every right to legally...

Good word, "legally". Do you know what that means? It means when you (voluntarily) agree to the provider's terms, you agree to be bound by those terms. Entering into a contract with the intent of violating it is fraud.

...save money through whatever means they can find.

I like hiding in wheel-wells.

Their profit to operation/investment ratio is extremely small. And I have the highest respect for the people managing their logistics...

The cognitive dissonance is killing me.

 

The 'Contract of Carriage' is not valid in a US court. If the airline takes this to court for some crazy reason it will cost them a lot more than the amount of the bogus demand letter if they took him to collections and damage his credit score.

Are you speaking of this specific case? I don't know enough about it to comment either way. My guess is that a suit against the customer would be successful in some jurisdiction.

In general? What's the point of a COC (which all airlines have) if they are not enforceable?

 

The cognitive dissonance is killing me

Congrats, you've just invented a new and most elegant way of saying "naïve" ...

 

Congrats, you've just invented a new and most elegant way of saying "naïve" ...

No. It's a way of saying "the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change."

 

Been years since I have flown but even during my high travel years I never actually read all of the "fine print" in the ticket agreement. Interesting stuff. I guess we wait on a court to sort things out.

Ron

 

I guess we wait on a court to sort things out.

Or, one could just behave honorably by default -- a comment which, I suppose, reveals my naivety.

 

Or, one could just behave honorably by default -- a comment which, I suppose, reveals my naivety.

And therein lies the problem, how can a normal person be expected to honor a deliberately obscure agreement filled with landmines hidden in small print? ... I agree that ignorance of the law is never an excuse, but large corporations tend to take things to an extreme.

 

how can a normal person be expected to honor a deliberately obscure agreement filled with landmines hidden in small print?

Exactly why I don't do Windows.

I agree that ignorance of the law is never an excuse, but large corporations tend to take things to an extreme.

Nah. IRS does extreme in spades.

 

Are you speaking of this specific case? I don't know enough about it to comment either way. My guess is that a suit against the customer would be successful in some jurisdiction.

In general? What's the point of a COC (which all airlines have) if they are not enforceable?

Yes, in this specific case.

In what jurisdiction is 'kidnapping' by larceny legal? Once passengers are free to move in and out of the plane at any terminal before the final destination you have a constitutional freedom of movement (right to travel) to exit the plane if you want.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law