In what jurisdiction is 'kidnapping' by larceny legal?

B.S.

No one is going to enforce such a contract at the point of a gun, and doing so would be illegal.

Freedom cuts both ways. You have a right to enter into a contract -- or not. You have a right to limit your options in exchange for a lower price. If you then choose to ignore those self-imposed limitations, the other party has the right to collect the higher price you would have paid had you not intended to cheat them. A court of law is where such rights are protected (with force, if necessary), and adjudication in a court of law is available to all.

It is patently obvious they have no right to use force to prevent you from leaving the plane (at a time when other passengers are also allowed to leave the plane). But I don't believe anyone argued that they did.

 

B.S.

No one is going to enforce such a contract at the point of a gun, and doing so would be illegal.

I agree, that's why they are threatening larceny (the taking of someone else's property without the use of force). This case is naked as a Jaybird just like most Non-compete agreements.

 

I agree, that's why they are threatening larceny (the taking of someone else's property without the use of force). This case is naked as a Jaybird....

Sorry, you lost me. I suspect you are being pedantic.

...like most Non-compete agreements.

Tossing in a non sequitur fails to clear things up.

 

This is an interesting problem regarding conflict of interests:

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

I've seen this stuff before and it always leaves me scratching my head. They want to charge MORE to take someone from A to B than to take them from A to B to C?

I can fully understand the reasoning that I would charge someone the SAME to do either route, on the premise that there isn't enough demand for just B to C for me to fill that seat if I sell a ticket to someone from just A to B. So if someone wants to just go to B, they have to effectively buy the ticket all the way to C because otherwise I could simply sell the full route ticket to someone else.

But to charge MORE?

If I were the court, I wouldn't have much sympathy for the airline. I would say that they sold the right to use a seat on the flight from A to B to C to someone and the person exercised that right to put themselves in the seat from A to B and to fill it with air from B to C.

Now, there actually IS a legitimate security concern involved here. Suicide bombers aside (separate concern), a terrorist would love to have a way to get a suitcase with a bomb onto an airplane on which they are not a passenger. Is you book A to B to C, your luggage is (probably) on that plane from A to B to C. But if you get off at B, you've achieved your objective.

Many (all?) airlines check their manifests before a flight and if there's a missing passenger they pull that passenger's luggage from the plane. You can imagine that this takes a fair amount of time and effort, causing delays that not only inconvenience all of the passengers, but can have ripple effects across parts of the entire system. So IF that was the basis for the suit, I would be much more receptive to it.

Back before security started getting clamped down, your airline ticket didn't have a name on it. One of my neighbors would swap kids with their cousins every summer and since they were gone for the entire summer the round-trip cost was a light higher than a round-trip cost over a weekend. So they would by three round-trip tickets at the beginning of summer and send one group of kids one way and, after a week, the other group of kids would use the return trip tickets to go the other way. Then they would do the same thing at the end of the summer. The end result was not only a substantial savings, but the parents at each end got both a week with no kids and a week with all of the cousins together.

 

Now, there actually IS a legitimate security concern involved here. Suicide bombers aside (separate concern), a terrorist would love to have a way to get a suitcase with a bomb onto an airplane on which they are not a passenger. Is you book A to B to C, your luggage is (probably) on that plane from A to B to C. But if you get off at B, you've achieved your objective.

Many (all?) airlines check their manifests before a flight and if there's a missing passenger they pull that passenger's luggage from the plane. You can imagine that this takes a fair amount of time and effort, causing delays that not only inconvenience all of the passengers, but can have ripple effects across parts of the entire system. So IF that was the basis for the suit, I would be much more receptive to it.

People that intend to leave the plane at B instead of C carry their luggage on (I've done this trick before), not check it so that's a unlikely basis for the suit.

 

Sorry, you lost me. I suspect you are being pedantic.
..
Tossing in a non sequitur fails to clear things up.

That's exactly what this 'hidden city' case is. Nonsense.

 

I've seen this stuff before and it always leaves me scratching my head. They want to charge MORE to take someone from A to B than to take them from A to B to C?

I can fully understand the reasoning that I would charge someone the SAME to do either route, on the premise that there isn't enough demand for just B to C for me to fill that seat if I sell a ticket to someone from just A to B. So if someone wants to just go to B, they have to effectively buy the ticket all the way to C because otherwise I could simply sell the full route ticket to someone else.

But to charge MORE?

If I were the court, I wouldn't have much sympathy for the airline. I would say that they sold the right to use a seat on the flight from A to B to C to someone and the person exercised that right to put themselves in the seat from A to B and to fill it with air from B to C.

Now, there actually IS a legitimate security concern involved here. Suicide bombers aside (separate concern), a terrorist would love to have a way to get a suitcase with a bomb onto an airplane on which they are not a passenger. Is you book A to B to C, your luggage is (probably) on that plane from A to B to C. But if you get off at B, you've achieved your objective.

Many (all?) airlines check their manifests before a flight and if there's a missing passenger they pull that passenger's luggage from the plane. You can imagine that this takes a fair amount of time and effort, causing delays that not only inconvenience all of the passengers, but can have ripple effects across parts of the entire system. So IF that was the basis for the suit, I would be much more receptive to it.

Back before security started getting clamped down, your airline ticket didn't have a name on it. One of my neighbors would swap kids with their cousins every summer and since they were gone for the entire summer the round-trip cost was a light higher than a round-trip cost over a weekend. So they would by three round-trip tickets at the beginning of summer and send one group of kids one way and, after a week, the other group of kids would use the return trip tickets to go the other way. Then they would do the same thing at the end of the summer. The end result was not only a substantial savings, but the parents at each end got both a week with no kids and a week with all of the cousins together.

Regardless of anything you said above, if you willingly enter into a contract that says you will be charged X more if you do Y, and then you do Y, you don't think you should be responsible to pay the agreed upon X?

What a bunch of scofflaws we have around here!

 

People that intend to leave the plane at B instead of C carry their luggage on (I've done this trick before), not check it so that's a unlikely basis for the suit.

I agree. And the article probably would have mentioned something about it if it had been. I'm talking in general terms.

But it would not be unreasonable for the airline to have a policy of penalties associated with not taking a ticketed flight based on this concern on at least two points. First, the fewer people that do this intentionally to get a cheaper fare (and it's the airline's fault for setting up such a situation in the first place), the more attention that can be focused on the remaining situations which have a higher likelihood of being actual threats. Second, even if the person didn't check any luggage, there is still a delay associated with ascertaining (at a time when the aircraft is supposed to be pushing back) that the missing passenger didn't check any luggage (though you would think that that part could be sufficiently streamlined so as to impose only a minimal and tolerable delay).

Now, having said all that and even though I do shake my head at the rationale for setting up these crazy pricing situations, I must also admit that I have limited sympathy for someone that intentionally tries to game the system and then gets caught doing so. What it really would come down to for me is what the contract actually says, with a eye to also determining what the passenger reasonably should have been expected to know when they purchased the ticket. Also, the more that it appeared to me that the passenger was trying to game the system, the willing I would be to enforce the fine print of the contract that they did, after all, agree to.

If you want to game the system, then you damn well should read the fine print.

 

Regardless of anything you said above, if you willingly enter into a contract that says you will be charged X more if you do Y, and then you do Y, you don't think you should be responsible to pay the agreed upon X?

What a bunch of scofflaws we have around here!

IS that what the contract stated? I didn't see anything in that article that indicated that (maybe I simply missed it).

IF that was very clearly communicated to the passenger as part of purchasing THAT ticket, then I have no problem enforcing that clause.

But if, instead, it is a generic legalistic phrase buried in the fine print on a website whose link is printed on the acceptance page, I'm a lot less receptive.

 

IS that what the contract stated? I didn't see anything in that article that indicated that (maybe I simply missed it).

IF that was very clearly communicated to the passenger as part of purchasing THAT ticket, then I have no problem enforcing that clause.

But if, instead, it is a generic legalistic phrase buried in the fine print on a website whose link is printed on the acceptance page, I'm a lot less receptive.

Unfortunately, none of us have enough information wrt the immediate case, so I don't know how the pricing/restrictions were communicated.

But it is not like these are unknown tactics. I assert the customer willing entered into a contract he had no intention of honoring. This, in my book, is fraud.

 

Now, having said all that and even though I do shake my head at the rationale for setting up these crazy pricing situations, I must also admit that I have limited sympathy for someone that intentionally tries to game the system and then gets caught doing so. What it really would come down to for me is what the contract actually says, with a eye to also determining what the passenger reasonably should have been expected to know when they purchased the ticket. Also, the more that it appeared to me that the passenger was trying to game the system, the willing I would be to enforce the fine print of the contract that they did, after all, agree to.

If you want to game the system, then you damn well should read the fine print.

It depends on the airline. SW rules specifically ALLOWED hidden city ticketing until a few years ago. Now the rules have been revised to be SILENT about hidden city ticketing. They don't mind people telling them that seat will be empty.

I have no problem with an airline zeroing out the miles of a person caught doing this or dropping them from a fly plan but I don't see how civil legal penalties could apply.

 

Unfortunately, none of us have enough information wrt the immediate case, so I don't know how the pricing/restrictions were communicated.

But it is not like these are unknown tactics. I assert the customer willing entered into a contract he had no intention of honoring. This, in my book, is fraud.

Here's a very similar situation. I'm curious what your take on it is.

Back when Advanced Circuits was a very young company, their pricing was on a printed sheet and was very coarse. I plotted out the total cost as a function of number of boards ordered and discovered that there were points where if you ordered more boards you actually paid a lower total price than you did with slightly fewer boards. So there were times that I ordered the larger amount when I, in fact, only wanted the smaller quantity.

Did I commit fraud by ordering the larger number and throwing the excess away in order to get the lower cost?

Now change that scenario slightly.

Back when I was traveling a lot, I would often check the total fares for different routes, different times of the day, different days of the week, different lengths of stay, and different departing and arriving airports. I noticed very quickly that stays that spanned a weekend were usually considerably cheaper than ones that didn't because the former are more likely to be personal trips while the latter are more likely to be business trips. So, if I'm going on a business trip but I book a flight such that I stay over the weekend and save enough to pay for the added lodging cost, and I committing fraud? Keep in mind, although I happened to (re)discover this on my own, it turns out it is a well known tactic.

Now change that scenario slightly.

In booking a round trip flight from A to C with a layover in B I get a certain price. When I explore an option that would have me get off at B on the way back so that I can go do something else, I see that it would actually cost me more to do that. Is it that unreasonable for me to decide to just go ahead and book the original round trip ticket and simply not use the final leg? Why am I now suddenly committing fraud?

 

Back when Advanced Circuits was a very young company, their pricing was on a printed sheet and was very coarse. I plotted out the total cost as a function of number of boards ordered and discovered that there were points where if you ordered more boards you actually paid a lower total price than you did with slightly fewer boards. So there were times that I ordered the larger amount when I, in fact, only wanted the smaller quantity.

Did I commit fraud by ordering the larger number and throwing the excess away in order to get the lower cost?

Absolutely not. I did the same thing. Accepting a quoted price is not fraud.

Back when I was traveling a lot, I would often check the total fares for different routes, different times of the day, different days of the week, different lengths of stay, and different departing and arriving airports. I noticed very quickly that stays that spanned a weekend were usually considerably cheaper than ones that didn't because the former are more likely to be personal trips while the latter are more likely to be business trips. So, if I'm going on a business trip but I book a flight such that I stay over the weekend and save enough to pay for the added lodging cost, and I committing fraud?

Nope. You purchased a ticket that was quoted to an offered destination at an offered price.

In booking a round trip flight from A to C with a layover in B I get a certain price. When I explore an option that would have me get off at B on the way back so that I can go do something else, I see that it would actually cost me more to do that. Is it that unreasonable for me to decide to just go ahead and book the original round trip ticket and simply not use the final leg? Why am I now suddenly committing fraud?

The fraud is when you willingly misrepresent your intentions in order to acquire something at a lower price than was offered you and the terms indicate that such an action was prohibited under the agreement.

I don't know why you guys are having a hard time with this -- it is not that difficult.

Do what you want. Remember: character is what you do when no one is looking. I choose to abide by both the spirit and letter of my agreements -- both personally and professionally. It's one of the reasons why I have a pretty damn good reputation in the circles in which I travel.

I should also say it drives my wife nuts: she thinks I am a goody-two-shoes to a fault.

Edit: I once found a hundred dollar bill on the beach. I swear I asked everyone nearby -- and for the next hour or so -- if they lost "anything". In the end, I gave it to my wife. I couldn't bring myself to spend something that I didn't earn.

 

The fraud is when you willingly misrepresent your intentions in order to acquire something at a lower price than was offered you and the terms indicate that such an action was prohibited under the agreement.

And just where are these terms communicated?

I just went out to Travelocity and picked a flight that from DEN to CLT that had a layover at JFK.

I saw absolutely NOTHING telling me that I couldn't get off at JFK and not use the final leg ticket. And I was LOOKING for it.

Why would a reasonable person believe that they are committing a fraud by purchasing that ticket and not boarding for the final leg?

This is the only thing I found:

• Tickets are non-refundable 24 hours after booking and non transferable. A fee of $200.00 per ticket is charged for itinerary changes. Name changes are not allowed.

Now, if not taking the last leg is to be considered an "itinerary change" and subject to the $200 fee, then that fee would also have to be applied if I missed the flight entirely, and we know that that is not what is meant by that clause.

 

And just where are these terms communicated?

I just went out to Travelocity and picked a flight that from DEN to CLT that had a layover at JFK.

I saw absolutely NOTHING telling me that I couldn't get off at JFK and not use the final leg ticket. And I was LOOKING for it.

Why would a reasonable person believe that they are committing a fraud by purchasing that ticket and not boarding for the final leg?

This is the only thing I found:

• Tickets are non-refundable 24 hours after booking and non transferable. A fee of $200.00 per ticket is charged for itinerary changes. Name changes are not allowed.

Now, if not taking the last leg is to be considered an "itinerary change" and subject to the $200 fee, then that fee would also have to be applied if I missed the flight entirely, and we know that that is not what is meant by that clause.

You are asking me to address specifics to which I have no direct knowledge (i.e. the website on which you picked a flight).

It is, I believe, a very safe assumption that a description of what you are purchasing and the terms of the purchase are printed somewhere -- most likely in a place that should be easy to see, find, or discover. If not, how the hell do you know what you are buying?

If you cannot find a prohibition by reading any proffered material, then I'd say there is no problem with you using the "hidden city" tactic in this specific case.

 

@WBahn, I happen to be traveling in a few weeks -- on Spirit Airlines. The Contract of Carriage is linked to on the website and in my confirmation email, and is highly visible:

https://www.spirit.com/Content/Documents/en-US/Contract_of_Carriage.pdf

In this instance, I see no prohibition of a hidden city tactic. IANAL, but I'd say it's ok in this case (unless I am missing something).

 

@WBahn, I happen to be traveling in a few weeks -- on Spirit Airlines. The Contract of Carriage is linked to on the website and in my confirmation email, and is highly visible:

https://www.spirit.com/Content/Documents/en-US/Contract_of_Carriage.pdf

In this instance, I see no prohibition of a hidden city tactic. IANAL, but I'd say it's ok in this case (unless I am missing something).

And did you read and understand that entire 52 page document before you purchased your ticket?

What would you do if the aircraft you are supposed to fly on goes down for maintenance, is replaced by a smaller aircraft, you are denied boarding, and Spirit refuses to provide any denied boarding compensation?

Would you
a) Proceed to purchase a new ticket on another flight on Spirit.
b) Accept the situation, but never fly with Spirit again.
c) Demand such compensation, possibly to the point of taking legal action.
d) Something else (and, if so, what?).

Please answer without going and looking at the Contract of Carriage document, since you've already agreed to it and therefore presumably know what you agreed to and are content to accept it regardless of whether you do or not.

 

And did you read and understand that entire 52 page document before you purchased your ticket?

What would you do if the aircraft you are supposed to fly on goes down for maintenance, is replaced by a smaller aircraft, you are denied boarding, and Spirit refuses to provide any denied boarding compensation?

Would you
a) Proceed to purchase a new ticket on another flight on Spirit.
b) Accept the situation, but never fly with Spirit again.
c) Demand such compensation, possibly to the point of taking legal action.
d) Something else (and, if so, what?).

Please answer without going and looking at the Contract of Carriage document, since you've already agreed to it and therefore presumably know what you agreed to and are content to accept it regardless of whether you do or not.

I would do whatever is necessary to get wherever I'm going and deal with the situation once I'm comfortably back in my office.

In fact, I think I'll let my secretary deal with it. I've got more important things to do (like argue hypotheticals with you and @nsaspook).

 

I would do whatever is necessary to get wherever I'm going and deal with the situation once I'm comfortably back in my office.

In fact, I think I'll let my secretary deal with it. I've got more important things to do (like argue hypotheticals with you and @nsaspook).

Translation: "I didn't read the terms I agreed to and I don't want to admit that I probably would not be willing to abide by them when things didn't go my way, so I will just dodge the question by dismissing it as hypothetical, even though it is about the actual contract I entered into and even though I was more than willing to assert that the passenger in the story intended to committed fraud and violated the contract they agreed to even though I had just got done admitting that I didn't know how that contract had been worded or conveyed."

What's so hypothetical about asking you if you actually read the 52 page Contract of Carriage you agreed to before you purchased your tickets?

What's so hypothetical asking whether or not you are actually willing to abide by the 52 page Contract of Carriage you agreed to?

 

And just where are these terms communicated?

I just went out to Travelocity and picked a flight that from DEN to CLT that had a layover at JFK.

I saw absolutely NOTHING telling me that I couldn't get off at JFK and not use the final leg ticket. And I was LOOKING for it.

Why would a reasonable person believe that they are committing a fraud by purchasing that ticket and not boarding for the final leg?

This is the only thing I found:

• Tickets are non-refundable 24 hours after booking and non transferable. A fee of $200.00 per ticket is charged for itinerary changes. Name changes are not allowed.

Now, if not taking the last leg is to be considered an "itinerary change" and subject to the $200 fee, then that fee would also have to be applied if I missed the flight entirely, and we know that that is not what is meant by that clause.

What if I get to a "hidden city" and change my mind on going to my final destination? I can't see how the airlines is going to be able to prove an intent of fraud. I hope judges throw these cases right out of court. Airlines need to simply offer fair ticketing across the board and not worry about suing anyone.