
When is a ‘travel hack’ unethical? - dribel
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/travel/when-is-a-travel-hack-unethical/2015/11/19/694b455a-88a0-11e5-be8b-1ae2e4f50f76_story.html?h
======
JoeAltmaier
I disagree with everything in this article. The assumption is that Americans
should be scalped for airline tickets because, they're American and rich and
deserve it. To take cheap tickets away from people in poorer countries by
paying in Rupees or whatever is 'unethical'.

Well, airlines are a for-profit business. They don't choose their rates out of
some public-service motivation. They charge what they think they can get away
with. To re-cast that as some charity program that Americans shouldn't
participate in, is pure fantasy.

Get the cheapest ticket you can, from whatever carrier you can find it from,
with a clear conscience. Its business.

~~~
hsod
I have no opinion on this particular case, but I strongly disagree with the
broader point you're making (which seems to be that commerce exists outside of
the realm of ethics and that 'anything goes').

If a shopkeeper is distracted, you should not be able to steal candy bars with
a clear conscience, _even if you believe the price of those candy bars to be
unethical_.

Dealing with unethical people does not relieve you of your duty to behave
unethically. And commerce is just another facet of social interaction.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
That was not anything like the direction we were going with this discussion. I
call Red Herring.

Paying the posted price for merchandise is always fair in Business. Some PC
fool comes along with "it was posted below the other price, low down for
people in wheelchairs to see. You are stealing from the unfortunate!" and I
_will_ call out the idiot.

------
jegutman
LOL, is this "native advertising" and is it for the airlines or the companies
helping you buy cheap tickets?

Airlines are in my experience among the least ethically run businesses:

* They will cancel a flight at the last minute stranding passengers because it was "undersold".

* They will delay flights for reasons that have no accountability to consumers.

* They pass on 100% of the risk of flights being on time to consumers.

* They give gate attendants authority to claim your bag is "too large" for the overhead bin even when it fits just fine. They can even claim the overhead bins are full when they are not full.

* Airlines will try to make every seat on a plane "economy-plus" (when you have already purchased a ticket, but they haven't given you a seat assignment yet) when they are overbooked and the bump the passengers that don't pay.

On the contrary I challenge airlines to find one example where they act
ethically even when their incentives are not to and the law would allow them
to act otherwise.

~~~
dmalvarado
To your last point, I have suspected this for a while. The mere fact that you
care where you're seated is a signal that you're willing to pay for the
change.

Airlines are going the way of ISPs. Monopolies that just don't care how
annoyed they make you.

~~~
jegutman
Well, unlike ISPs they don't really make any money. They have many unnecessary
regulatory burdens as well. I will say some of the regulation they face is
from their actions. Industries that find it incapable to do the right thing in
the absence of regulation are often the ones that end up the most heavily
regulated and it doesn't really solve the problem either.

As for the seat. It's not about caring about your seat, because the seats on
the flight that sticks out in my mind were pretty much indistinguishable. It
was a 2x2 plane and there were like dozens of "empty" seats to choose from
even though the flight was over-sold by one person. I refused to pay and then
ended up being the one getting bumped (although in this case it worked out in
my favor since I got bumped to the next morning and got paid 4x my fare). They
do not make it obvious when you're purchasing that you do not have a seat
either, they just "skip" that stage and don't give you one. Very misleading.

------
mikeash
Let's compromise. I promise to be totally clear, transparent, and
straightforward in my ticket purchases as long as the airlines are totally
clear, transparent, and straightforward in their ticket pricing.

Any takers? ...No?

~~~
venomsnake
I will take it - the airline charges the maximum their datamining of your
information tells them you are able to tolerate.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Which is basically how free market is supposed to work, right? ;).

~~~
venomsnake
Air travel is not a free market - the capital requirements are insane, the
cost of fuel is often subsidized by the government (you cannot tax or excise
it IIRC), you have a lot of regulations and so on ...

~~~
tomp
Regulations are a part of a free market. They provide transparency and ensure
that everyone is playing by the same rules.

~~~
ZenoArrow
> "Regulations are a part of a free market."

Are you sure? I've never heard another free market capitalist argue that
government regulations are an important part of how their ideal market works.
Can you point out any free market economists that have argued for government
regulation?

~~~
tomp
That's because those free market capitalists are (at best) hypocrites or (at
worst) stupid. Obviously capitalism relies on regulation - of property rights,
IP rights, contract laws, bans on fraud and insider trading (although opinions
are mixed on that last one), ...

~~~
ZenoArrow
Free market capitalists argue that what we have now is not a free market. IP
rights wouldn't exist in a free market system, for example.

It's probably best to find another term to describe the market you see
working, as 'free market' is what free market capitalists argue for. I don't
know what a better term would be, but I'm sure that economists would've
thought of one.

~~~
tomp
But what _would_ exist in this ideal "free" market? IMO, without contract law
and courts that enforce it and persecute fraud, you can't have a functional
market (free or unfree). Also, without some laws that monopolize violence, the
market would be much more, well, violent (you might think of that as "free",
but I don't think that kind of freedom is beneficial to the society) - we can
see that in numerous places on Earth right now, where there is no effective
"government" and you have multiple factions fighting for power - it rarely
encourages trade and entrepreneurship.

~~~
ZenoArrow
I'm not advocating for free market economics, I'm only passing on information
about what it means. The Wikipedia page is a fairly decent introduction:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market)

------
sophacles
I'm not sure why it would be ethical for a company to charge different for
"location of purchaser's computer", but unethical of me to say "I am coming
from a computer in a different location", particularly if I do it via legal
means.

Would it also be unethical of me to call a (to use an example discussed in the
article) Chilean travel agent to arrange the cheaper ticket for me? In that
case, there would still be the implication that my location when purchasing is
in Chile.

What if it's me having my Chilean business partner, or the travel pool in my
company's Santiago office do the booking, since that is where I'll be
traveling from on that leg?

------
rubbingalcohol
I tried, I really tried, but I failed to be persuaded by an article shaming
consumers for acting unethically towards shamelessly amoral corporations.
Treat people the way you want to be treated, I suppose.

------
Ao7bei3s
As long as airlines set prices in an unethical way (e.g. increase price the
longer you look at an offer), there is no discussion to be had about the
behavior of the buyers.

(Funny, so similar to the ad company / adblocking situation.)

------
cheriot
Henry Flagler kept a quote in his office, "Do unto others as they would do
unto you _and do it first_."

The airlines do everything legal to charge more and I do everything legal to
pay less. The airline has an army of lawyers, lobbyists, and consultants and I
have a VPN.

"Getting a good deal should comply with local laws and the travel company’s
code of business conduct." Since when did an airline have the moral authority
to declare a code of conduct for anyone but itself? Where did they find this
lady?

------
grecy
When is it unethical for Facebook to pay less tax than the average working
person?

When is it unethical for BP to say they're sick of cleaning up their oil
spills and they're going to stop doing it?

When is it unethical for the bankers and mortgage lenders to do what they did
in 2008?

When companies interact with us, they appear to have no ethical obligations of
any kind, so it's amusing to think we're somehow bound to be ethical towards
them.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Because you're making a general point - since when one's unethical behaviour
justifies you to retaliate in kind? Two wrongs doesn't make a right, etc.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Agreed, mostly. Consider though: the company _cannot_ claim the playing field
operates on ethics, when they don't play by those rules. Its reasonable then
to claim "Caging a good price by lawyering the rules is fair play".

------
TeMPOraL
Looking at the reactions of people to this topic, I come to believe there are
two general approaches to life. Some people try to look at the whole game and
want everyone to win, so they play by the rules. In terms of prisoner's
dilemma, they choose to cooperate. Others notice that the market economy is
designed around people being selfish, so they use it to justify defecting -
minding only their own short-term interest.

As for ethics of this topic, I think the quoted government response about one
such case is spot on - this is people acting in bad faith. Whether or not you
think it's fine to act in bad faith depends on to which group you subscribe -
defectors, or cooperators.

\--

EDIT: The article would make a much stronger point if it focused on the
problem of "hidden city" tickets, where people choosing to reduce their travel
costs are not just haggling over price, but breaking a deal _and_ wasting
airline's fuel.

\--

EDIT2: Took a shower, thought about it some more.

My initial paragraph isn't about airlines really, it's an observation made
after seeing a stream of comments arguing for _general_ selfishness.

As for problems with _some_ of the travel "hacks", I have issues with two of
those in particular. "Hidden city" flying is one, and using golden-card-
carrying third party to buy you tickets is the second. Both of them introduce
waste - the more people do that, the more often a plane flies with seats
empty, wasting fuel that could otherwise provide utility by carrying other
passengers. And speaking of other passengers, this is another thing to
consider - if you use a travel "hack" that leaves an airplane with an empty
seat, you're taking away the seat from another traveler, who could have used
it. Or, given the discriminatory pricing, who could have paid less for it. So
by using those kinds of tricks, people are not only hurting the airline,
they're also hurting each other.

~~~
mantasm
I wouldn't segregate the general approaches to life in that sense.

Providing different prices to different groups of people does not result in
"everyone winning". It's a classical example of market segmentation, price
based on the average ability to pay of someone who holds the currency. It
entirely benefits the airliner, and their profits, to be able to do so.

The "hidden city" tickets? A cheaper ticket to go from A->B->C than A->B is a
deadweight loss in the market (assuming competitive markets). Prices are not
reflecting costs, and airlines again are segmenting based on ability to pay.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I understand, and in general, I hate market segmentation. But I'm willing to
excuse airlines for now, because... without it we wouldn't be flying.

You're right - the prices are not reflecting the costs. A typical traveler
pays nowhere near the price they would if there was no segmentation. An
average tourist ticket multiplied by number of passengers is barely enough to
fuel a jet. And you have to pay the pilots, the airplane crew, the ground crew
and still have enough to keep the lights on at the airport. Airlines are in a
shitty position, and while probably some of it its their own fault, I'm not
that sure if being hard on them is helping anyone.

------
rdtsc
> But it also violates the airline’s fare rules, can get your travel agent in
> trouble and could lead to higher fares for everyone.

From a particular traveler point of view. Airlines are pretty few, and are
consolidating, so in about 2 years you can find yourself banned from all 5-6
of them and have to take the train or drive. Has this ever happened I wonder?
Can this happen? Airlines building private no-fly-lists and just refusing to
do business with some people. Is that allowed legally.

Insurance companies do it:

[https://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs26-CLUE.htm](https://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs26-CLUE.htm)

Why can't airlines? I imagine travelers who do it, would get pretty vocal
online, so maybe some airline will respond publicly and say "we don't care,
come to us?"...

------
codingdave
I don't buy the argument that it is unethical to find clever ways to gain
services for a lower price. If actual harm is caused to an individual, then
ethics come into play - but corporations are not people. "Harming" them
doesn't cause me any angst. Even if I did concede that corporations deserve
the same ethical treatment as actual people, they control their own tools,
methods, and processes. If they created mechanisms that harm their own
business, then it is their responsibility to close those loopholes, not mine
as a consumer to opt out of using them.

------
executive
The author must be trolling.

I always get the cheapest price and do not care about the other nonsense.

------
philjohn
Virgin Atlantic have a great service where, upon booking an economy ticket,
you can then bid for an upgrade. The person who bids highest, wins.

It's such a simple concept, but fantastic in that a higher priced seat that
might have gone unsold, instead goes for what someone perceives its value to
them to be.

~~~
FireBeyond
That really is.

"Hey, I can fly JFK to Heathrow for $800. But I'd be willing to pay $1100 for
business class."

You win, great. You lose, no loss.

------
6stringmerc
Considering how often major US airlines have sought to dump their pension
obligations toward employees in deference to management types and investors,
making the rich richer and the working class poorer, I don't think they
deserve any portrayal as bastions of the ethichal highground.

------
emergentcypher
Really? This is capitalism and a free market economy. They sold the tickets,
it's their own damn problem. If they don't like it, they should fix their
ticketing systems.

If anybody needs to be shamed, it's the airlines themselves for arbitrary
price discrimination.

~~~
TeMPOraL
The article is about ethics. Capitalism is orthogonal to ethics. There are
things that are allowed under law and market economy that are unethical, or
just plain douchy.

------
maxxxxx
Companies "hack" their customers all the time but somehow it's unethical for
customers to do the reverse? It seems to some people the "free market" means
corporations can do whatever they want but not vice versa.

------
toast0
Paying in another currency isn't unethical; the airline is expressing a strong
desire to avoid exchange expenses and risk by dealing in their home currency.
I understand the FTC position that it's not an offering directed at US
consumers, however.

Sometimes there may also be regional differences in assessed fees and when
they are displayed (maybe the Chilean price shown at ticket selection includes
a different checked bag allowance, or does not show any airport fees that
would be shown at time of payment)

------
kaizendad
I am absolutely not clear how changing one's IP is different from any other
form of currency arbitrage - which is what this transaction is, and also what
explains the cost difference between currencies from the airline's point of
view - their native currency is easiest for them to transact in, and they pay
additional costs to transact in other currencies.

In fact, the airline probably appreciates being paid in its native currency.
Airlines from countries with currencies that aren't always easily convertible,
such as airlines from the developing world, probably have to keep substantial
reserves in currencies their customers tend to use, to ensure that they can
always carry out transactions in that currency. If you buy your ticket in the
native currency, then you've not required them to dig into that reserve, which
is a win for them.

Conversely, this is probably not a win for the original questioner, because
they probably paid a fee for currency conversion to their bank, which was
probably larger than that paid by the airline, because the airline has more
market leverage with which to set pricing contracts for currency conversion.

------
SuperGent
If it costs the airlines nothing extra, why am I being charged more for a seat
based on where I am at the time of booking?

------
dionidium
Everybody in this thread is talking about the ethics of this in terms of our
obligation to the airlines. But what about your obligation to yourself?

I'm not saying I wouldn't do this -- I probably would -- but deception in
general makes me uncomfortable, and whether you think this practice is
justified or not, it's clearly based on concealing intentions. That sort of
thing should at least make you pause.

As a side note, I've noticed that people seem to get confused about this, in
general. A cheating spouse will come up with all sorts of reasons that their
behavior was justified, without ever addressing the core offense: they weren't
honest about it.

------
tosseraccount
Washington Post must be getting some expensive airline travel advertising
accounts.

------
zeveb
> For instance, although Klaeysen holds a PhD, she won’t book a flight with
> the “doctor” title, because it implies she’s a physician, which may afford
> her preferential treatment.

Anyone who thinks that 'doctor' is reserved for physicians deserves whatever
his mistake costs him.

As for the broader ethical issues: if one party wishes to charge differing
rates according to certain attributes, then it's a-okay by me if the other
party wishes to signal different attributes. What's sauce for the goose is
sauce for the gander.

------
trjordan
It's easy to think that all travel hacks are ethical if you think price
segmentation is unethical.

I'm not convinced that's true. I don't feel pricing has to be a continuous
distribution that feels "fair" to be ethical. Gaps in pricing are allowed. If
customers feel differently, a transparently priced airline should be able to
eat everybody's lunch. That hasn't happened, which makes me think there's
value to consumers to segment aggressively.

------
eveningcoffee
This is another example how you should hide all the possible information about
yourself to not being singled out and exploited.

------
irascible
So... Travel agencies have been ripping me off for my entire life due to the
fact that I'm American... effectively making me pay double what some other
world citizens pay.. and I'm supposed to feel GUILTY about it?

This should be the biggest class action suit ever.

------
livingparadox
Its not unethical to turn a company's unethical behavior on themselves.

------
ddoolin
Which airline company or group do you think sponsored this article?

------
Morty_89
I think everyone has mentioned it but fuck airlines, the shit they pull on a
regular basis means they are void from any form of sympathy, especially from a
consumer.

------
tosseraccount
What happened to the +/\- 3 days search thing?

Airlines have gotten really bad about ticket booking and market sector
discrimination.

------
ahoka
Steam regions, anyone?

------
commaander
Of course it's ethical...It's unethical by airlines trying to trick the user,
in my opinion

