
United Airlines Threatens to Engage Collections for Passengers Who Skip Segments - matan_a
https://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com/2018/10/14/united-airlines-threatens-to-trash-the-credit-of-passengers-who-skip-purchased-flights/
======
Someone1234
I doubt UA would follow through considering it is illegal to submit known
false debts.

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.

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.

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.

~~~
otterley
Attorney here! (Not providing legal advice, though.)

The elements of common law civil fraud are as follows:

1\. Somebody intentionally misrepresents a material fact in order to obtain
action or forbearance by another person ("I am traveling to ILM from SFO" but
in fact is going to IAD);

2\. The other person relies upon the misrepresentation (United prices the fare
as though the passenger were going to ILM instead of IAD); and

3\. The other person suffers injury as a result of the act or forbearance
taken in reliance upon the misrepresentation (United gets less fare).

Note that profit is _not_ an element of fraud, although here, one could argue
that the potential fraudster did profit in terms of the difference in fare.

So United has a fair argument that, given the facts at hand, intentionally
misrepresenting one's travel plans in order to obtain a better fare probably
constitutes fraud.

~~~
dragonwriter
Purchasing a good or service with multiple components is not, in and of
itself, a representation to the seller of intent to use all the components.

Now, there could be something United has inserted in the purchase flow of all
multileg tickets which assures that the purchaser makes a representation of
intent to use every leg, though I've never seen anything like that when
purchasing tickets (and a contract of adhesion that United writes that most
purchasers will not read, while it may succeed as a contract, probably won't
be seen as such a representation for fraud purposes, AFAICT.)

~~~
otterley
> Purchasing a good or service with multiple components is not, in and of
> itself, a representation to the seller of intent to use all the components.

Do you have a legal citation for this? I'm unaware of any law that supports
this assertion.

In any event, the representation in question is "I want to fly from city A to
city B." It's pretty reasonable for an airline to conclude that when a
passenger makes this request, that is in fact their intent, not to fly to city
C.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Do you have a legal citation for this?

As far as I am aware, no one has actually attempted to make a fraud claim on
the grounds that mere purchase (and/or the statement of intent to purchase) a
composite good or service was a representation by the buyer to the seller of
intent to _use_ every portion of the good or service so sold and had the case
survive to a published decision on that question.

But, you know, if you can find a case _supporting_ your claim that this intent
would clearly be inferred from such an aggregate purchase, I'd love to hear
it.

~~~
foton1981
Damn. If this becomes legal precedent will I be forced to read every page of
books I buy?

~~~
brewdad
And you'd damn well use both items of your Buy One, Get One Free offer. No
sharing. No only using half of the second item.

------
ben1040
Sometimes I go to a fast food restaurant and discover that while I don't
_want_ fries, it's cheaper to buy the whole combo meal than it is to just buy
a burger and drink a la carte.

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.

But I'd agree they're still free to refuse me service in the future on grounds
of wasting food.

~~~
mynameisvlad
Technically, the equivalent is telling them to "keep the fries" since airlines
can then re-sell your ticket or offer it to standby customers.

~~~
drak0n1c
Not really - the vast majority of people who engage in this behavior do not
notify the airline that they aren't showing up. The pool of standbys for the
average flight is typically tiny or non-existent, and it's practically
impossible to find a buyer for a ticket within the 15 minutes that airlines
might be allowed to invalidate a paid customer's reservation and resell it.

Wasted seats on flights is a much bigger environmental problem than wasted
fries.

~~~
FireBeyond
They do however, have a pretty sturdy belief, that despite being paid for it,
you won't be showing up for the return leg (in fact, they tell you that you
will be forfeiting that return leg), so they can resell it.

In fact, they also threaten the right to cancel your entire return trip, not
just the segment in question.

------
mynameisvlad
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.

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.

~~~
swiley
I disagree, abuse of the credit reporting system will make it useless which is
good thing because in it's current implementation it really shouldn't be
trusted.

------
StavrosK
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.

~~~
nneonneo
Nah, this isn't a legal debt that they can forward to a collection agency, as
pointed out in the article. They can't legally ding your credit for this
(you've paid all your actual outstanding obligations to them), and if they do,
I imagine the counterclaims could be significant (reputational damage,
monetary losses due to higher interest rates or ineligible loans, etc.).

Now, if this were the "social credit" system of a certain country, well, then
maybe they really could blackmail you (because you violated a "social order"
by playing ticketing games...).

~~~
394549
> Nah, this isn't a legal debt that they can forward to a collection agency,
> as pointed out in the article.

My understanding is that many collection agencies aren't very scrupulous about
they debts they try to collect. Many of them are false, already paid, or
lacking necessary documentation.

~~~
nneonneo
What United is threatening to do is forward a _clearly uncollectable_ debt to
a collection agency. This is pretty much fraud at its finest - they _know_
it's not supposed to be collectable. It doesn't matter if the collection
agency comes after you - United is on the hook for having forwarded that debt
in the first place.

Yes, in an ideal world, collection agencies would properly verify the debts
they collect on, but they definitely can't be arsed to do that voluntarily
without gov't regulation saying so (and this administration is unlikely to
provide said regulation).

------
ChuckMcM
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.

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.

[1] Updated 9/27/18 with section 6.J
--[https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/contract-of-
carriage.ht...](https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/contract-of-
carriage.html)

~~~
otterley
Attorney here! (Not providing legal advice, though.)

I agree that the Contract of Carriage is probably not the strongest basis by
which United can demand recompense for abandoning a segment. Instead, I think
they have a better chance of prevailing on a common-law fraud theory; see my
explanation above.

~~~
scrumper
Lay person here.

Fraud is a criminal matter isn't it? Can United directly sue the passenger in
civil court, or must they file a complaint with law enforcement and let a
prosecutor handle it?

~~~
otterley
There’s civil fraud and criminal fraud, just like there’s wrongful death
(civil) and murder (criminal). The difference is that there’s no imprisonment
or other societal penalties for being liable under civil law - only money is
involved.

~~~
scrumper
Thanks for that - appreciate the response.

------
chuckgreenman
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.

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.

------
leelin
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.

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.

~~~
jakebasile
But they have plausible deniability since the customer indicated they were
taking the last leg of the flight. The possible tax issues should be on the
customer here, right?

------
moonka
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.

~~~
kazinator
There is no debt, though. You can't charge people extra for _not_ showing up
at a flight. A non-flying passenger demonstrably makes a resource available:
they can sell the seat to someone else. Even if they don't, it's less weight:
less fuel burned.

The idea that the passenger should have paid more to get off at that
intermediate airport is purely a fabricated entitlement.

If they underlying hypothesis behind this entitlement is that "all people
should pay the same for the same flight", it is pure hypocrisy, because the
airline industry is responsible for, and profits from the whole situation that
people in adjacent seats may have paid wildly different prices.

If they want people not to game the system, they have to remove the game from
the system. But that game largely benefits them, so they don't. You can't have
it both ways: create a game-like system, and _not_ have people some people
play it some of the time.

~~~
ekimekim
> There is no debt, though.

No-one's disputing that. The parent post is supposing that because taking this
to court and proving that United violated the law is expensive (in both money
and more importantly effort), a large enough percentage of people will not do
it.

It's yet another example of the mere involvement of the legal system being
used as a deterrent against individuals, regardless of who's in the right.

------
matthewmacleod
Warning: general rant about the cost of flights.

I am genuinely entirely fucking sick of the awful experience of booking air
travel. The thought of doing it fills me with dread now.

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”.

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.

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.

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?

~~~
flubert
>Literally nobody gains from this.

Small consolation, but we can think of airline shenanigans like this as just
another hassle that makes flying less convenient / enjoyable, and so people
will take fewer flights. Air travel (especially intercontinental flights) are
a large fraction of a western individuals contribution to global warming. So
the earth thanks you.

[https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=air%20travel%20climate%20chang...](https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=air%20travel%20climate%20change%20impact)

------
refurb
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.

I had no idea the lay out what is acceptable luggage including trophy antlers:

 _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._

If you go on hajj, you can bring back 10 L (!) of ZAMZAM water _free of
charge_ :

 _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._

[1][https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/contract-of-
carriage.ht...](https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/contract-of-
carriage.html)

------
maxxxxx
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.

I honestly thought they would be happy to be able to give our seats to someone
else.

------
deckar01
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.

------
parliament32
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.

~~~
pjc50
The airlines are losing money by having passengers circumvent the price
discrimination.

~~~
mynameisvlad
As already pointed out, the airlines lose no actual money, but you are right
in that they lose the theoretical difference between the discriminated price
and the one they paid. That's not a legal debt, though.

~~~
FireBeyond
Precisely. "Potential revenue" is not a dishonored debt.

------
kazinator
Passengers who save hundreds of dollars should get a credit boost for their
demonstration of financial savvy.

I'd sooner give a loan to that person than some reckless spender.

~~~
recursive
Credit isn't a measure of financial savvy. It's a measure of likelihood to
repay debts. It may be financially savvy to strategically default, putting the
two in conflict.

~~~
FireBeyond
Precisely. In many ways it is better to steadily use a card (while being
mindful of utilization ratios) and pay it than it is to carry a zero balance.

The credit system might have been initially about debt repayment, but there
are several measures in store regarding "how valuable / revenue-generating is
a customer".

And at times, these two principles may be in harmony, and at others, not so
much.

------
mLuby
I'll accept that deal, as long as I can sue the airline when they overbook and
can't give me a seat. No takers? Okay then…

------
Navarr
United, look, there's an easy way to eat your cake and have it too.

"Flight completion discounts"

------
z2
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."

------
mnm1
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.

------
tinus_hn
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.

------
trelliscoded
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?

~~~
jki275
The flights are nearly always separate planes, and even if they're not they do
count heads on the plane and if you walk up, hand in your boarding pass, and
then walk away they're going to note that down because now they have to go
into the computer and verify whether you have bags onboard that they have to
offload because you aren't taking the flight.

There's no scenario where they don't know exactly who is sitting in what seat
for every seat on every plane when it takes off, it's all just data in the
computer they can reference.

~~~
brewdad
>>There's no scenario where they don't know exactly who is sitting in what
seat for every seat on every plane when it takes off, it's all just data in
the computer they can reference.

I would amend that slightly. They know exactly how many people have boarded
the plane and presumably who they are. People move seats to allow families to
sit together or trade a window for an aisle on many flights. The airlines
aren't modifying their seat assignments after you walk down the jetway.

~~~
jki275
Actually they track that now. The flight attendants are absolutely brutal
about enforcing and knowing exactly who sits in what seat to the point that if
you get up and move without asking they will come up to you and tell you to go
back to your seat. I'm sure people do occasionally get away with moving
without being noticed, but that's not the norm anymore.

------
qwerty456127
Why does this even exist? Why won't they just sell A-to-B tickets always
cheaper than A-to-B-to-C?

~~~
tempestn
The article covers this. The short answer though is price discrimination.
Airlines want to sell tickets for the most total money they can. There is more
demand for A-to-B tickets than for A-to-C tickets, so they are able to charge
more. As long as selling A-to-C tickets is marginally profitable though, they
will do that as well, even though the price is lower, and regardless of the
fact that the most efficient way for them to move people from A-to-C is
through B.

Basically airlines will charge what the market will bear; their costs on a
given route don't really factor into it, except in as much as they won't
generally fly routes that aren't profitable.

------
naveen99
since no one posted the posterchild for this: skiplagged.com

