You might want to read more carefully when you book a flight. Expedia, for example, includes the following on itâ(TM)s booking page:
By selecting to complete this booking I acknowledge that I have read and accept the above Rules & Restrictions, Terms of Use
The Terms of Use are linked to a page that includes, amongst many other T&Cs:
If they link to another site, it is invalid.
Terms of usage are only valid if they are in plain sight... and not if it is a 30 pages document elsewhere.
While I agree many bury them, you have agreed to the terms. Expedia’s notice is visible when you scroll down to go to pay so it is in plain sight, for example, and is pretty explicit in your acknowledgement that you have read them and accepted them, even if you actually do not do that. You’ve still entered into a valid contract and are bound by its terms. Just because you didn’t read it before you agreed to it doesn’t mean it is not binding.
My point is simple, when you buy an airline ticket, you agree to their terms in the contract of carriage. Most people are unaware of what they are agreeing to, but that is really their fault primarily even though I place some blame on companies for making the T&Cs convoluted. In the case of the Lufthansa flyer, what he did is a pretty savvy traveler move, so I think he knew he was doing something the airline’s contract of carriage forbid. His rookie mistake was booking another Lufthansa flight on the same day to another city; and I’d almost bet he did so when he booked the first ticket giving Lufthansa even more information to track what he did. He should have used a separate airline and Lufthansa probably would not have caught him and if they did he could cook up some reasonable emergency reason he had to get off there.
The software version of your argument is the GPL is not enforceable unless the source code lists the entire GPL in a manner that forces you to read it before you can look at any of the code, if it doesn’t you’re free to use the code without complying with the GPL since it was not clearly visible before you took the code. Or, if a third party (equivalent to a booking code) gives you source code without making the GPL clearly visible you have no obligation to follow the GPL.
Simple changes in building codes for new and retrofit construction, along with incentives to do so could yield massive decreases in energy CONSUMPTION.
Simple? Maybe for you. For property owners, it's an unfunded mandate, basically modern day slavery.
Which is why I think they way to do that is offer incentives, rather than mandate improvements, to reduce consumption. If a property owner doesn’t want to participate then they don’t get any of the incentives. Building owners get to weigh the incentives plus reduced energy costs vs. retrofit costs and decide what they want to do.
Iâ(TM)m guessing you are just deliberatelybeing dense. The destails ate therewhen you sign in or buy,you just chose to ignore them and then think because you didnâ(TM)t bother to read to what you agreed somehow you arenâ(TM)t bound by them. Life doesnâ(TM)t work that way.
The one who is super dense is you... take a random booking site and click till the point you pay: there is no terms of services of the airline involved shown to you.
You might want to read more carefully when you book a flight. Expedia, for example, includes the following on it’s booking page:
By selecting to complete this booking I acknowledge that I have read and accept the above Rules & Restrictions, Terms of Use
The Terms of Use are linked to a page that includes, amongst many other T&Cs:
Additional terms and conditions will apply to your reservation and purchase of travel—related goods and services that you select. Please read these additional terms and conditions carefully. In particular, if you have purchased an airfare, please ensure you read the full terms and conditions of carriage issued by the travel supplier, which can be found on the supplier’s website. You agree to abide by the terms and conditions of purchase imposed by any supplier with whom you elect to deal, including, but not limited to, payment of all amounts when due and compliance with the supplier's rules and restrictions regarding availability and use of fares, products, or services.
You also agree to many other things, including that Expedia may book 2 one way tickets instead of a round trip, and if one flight is changed by the airline you are still liable for any rebooking fees you may have to pay on the other flight; since the are separate bookings and thus, unlike a round trip, the airline may not allow you to make a change without fees when a change on one impacts both.
He agreed not to do hidden cities in the contract of carriage.
No he did not. How the funk should he even know about "hidden cities"?
There is no "contract". You sign into a web site, chose flight, pay, get a PDF, print the PDF and that is your ticket. Or you only need your passport... there no where any mentioning of anything resulting in a contract, TOS or anything equivalent. Perhaps you should fly once, then you knew that.
My last 10 flights I had "no ticket", I showed my passport to the airline and got a boarding pass, thats it.
I’m guessing you are just deliberatelybeing dense. The destails ate therewhen you sign in or buy,you just chose to ignore them and then think because you didn’t bother to read to what you agreed somehow you aren’t bound by them. Life doesn’t work that way.
I've looked up flights to Bermuda from Baltimore that uses the exact same flight from Philly as if I left from Philly, but by leaving out of Baltimore with that layover I would save $150.
WAS does the same thing BWI is often cheaper than DCA and IAD but considered a Washington airport. My guess is the competition on routes out of BWI and that it takes a lot longer to get to DC are factors.
Sometimes it just comes down to folks seeing "direct" or "non-stop" and are willing to pay more for that "perk"
Except a direct flight is generally not non-stop or the same plane; just the same flight number. IIRC.
The contract of carriage prohibits hidden cities and lets the airline cancel a return, for example.
The leg the guy skipped was the final leg of his return trip. What will they cancel?
In his case nothing, their recourse is to collect the fare difference. They can cancel returns if you do it on an outbound leg, as happened to you.
Long short: I got the flight, caught up with the rest of my reservation. I spent a week as planned, and then tried to check in for my return. "What return?" They had cancelled my return because I missed the first leg (not the last leg) of my outbound flight.
To their credit, the agent on the phone realized how stupid this situation was and got me back on my original flights home. But it still happened.
What that means is not to do this kind of skipping with anything but the last leg of your trip. Which is what the guy being sued did. He let them put another pax in his empty seat, at full price, and now they're suing because they were somehow damaged.
That's not the point. He violated the contract. You can argue that the airline was not harmed, but in their viewpoint he violated the contract and thus owes them money. As for putting another passenger in that seat, the counter is they do not know it is available until a few hours or possibly less before the flight, and thus tah chance of a revenue generating pax is slim. Had he not taken that seat they may have been able to sell it. I get that suing is stupid, and I think more to scare others into not doing it than really winning, and the contract of carriage questionable, but until a court decides to invalidate those provisions an 2019-02-13he decision stands on appeal it still is a contract and both parties are bound by it.
I once needed to be in Europe twice within a three week period for two different clients. As I booked my travel, I noticed that I could book Europe->North America fares a lot cheaper than North America -> Europe, and also that if I stayed at least 1 weekend, the trip was also much cheaper. So what I did was book the bookends of the two trips on one fare (round trip NA->EU->NA) then booked a second trip (EU->NA->EU) in the middle so I could come home.
It all went off pretty well when I flew it, and I saved a significant chunk of my employer's money with the trick. A couple of months later, though, I got a nastygram from the Airline chastising me for violating the fare rules. Given that I was a 100k frequent flyer at the time, I replied back, CC'ing the appropriate people in the frequent flyer program that I didn't appreciate the tone of their letter, and that had I known it would have been a problem, i would have hapily either stayed in Europe for the 5 days, or booked it on another airline, thereby denying them the revenue of the additional flight.
I later got an apology, and a token amount of miles to "make things right"
The good old back to backs. I worked for a company that probably bought a 100 tickets a week and sent teams out for 2 week visits with a trip back over the weekend. We used one carrier, who decided to tell us we couldn't do that. Our travel agent said fine, and started booking the weekend return on another airline. After a few months the airline came and asked why we were spending half as much as before and when we explained they said, OK, go ahead and book back to backs.
Airlines charge you for food, for blankets for baggage (believe it or not, they never used to). Like banks, which now earn more through fees than interest or investments with your money, Airlines are basing more and more of their revenue on fees.
They always charged for that, it was just built into the fare. Pre-regulation their fares were set by the government based on distance and covered all costs and a profit. With deregulation and price competition airlines unbundled to offer cheap fares and now charge extra for stuff that used to be in the base price. I like that because I don't have to pay for stuff I don't need, like a checked bag.
Also, what performance did the passenger fail to perform? He paid money in exchange for a seat on an airplane. Doesn't sound like he wanted a refund or anything, he paid his money, then chose not to avail himself of the service.
The carrier's argument is they offer a fare for a specific end to end route and if you do not take all the legs you did not live up to the contractual terms s specified in their terms and conditions; and thus they are allowed to charge you what the fare would be for the route you took. I think it is silly to sue a passenger over that but the passenger did agree to the terms and conditions.
It comes down to some routes are more competitive and thus fares vary and a fare won't be less simply because the plane makes a stop in a city. An airline may not offer a direct flight but still competes with other airlines on the route, thus the wide variance in fares and the existence of hidden cities.
Here are Lufthansa's terms and conditions. I see nothing about the passenger incurring a service charge if they fail to board. Perhaps I've overlooked something but a quick reading seems to reveal no such terms.
Here it is:
If you have chosen a tariff that requires observance of a fixed ticket sequence, please note: if carriage is not used on all individual legs or not used in the sequence specified on the ticket with otherwise unchanged travel data, we will recalculate the airfare according to your altered routing. The airfare will thereby be determined in accordance with the fare you would have had to pay for your actual routing in your price group on the day of your booking. This fare may be higher or lower than the fare you originally paid.
If the price group you originally booked was not available for the altered routing on the day of the booking, the cheapest available former price group for your altered routing will be taken as the basis for the recalculation.
As I understand it an air ticket is a contract you purchase from the airline that they will transport you between two locations on a certain set of flights. You have not promised that you will take the flights you have merely purchased the right to take those flights. If you decide at any point not to take a flight then, while you forfeit the cost of the ticket, there is nothing they can do. If not then this would mean that, in addition to forcing you to buy another ticket, the airline could sue any passenger who failed to turn up for even the start of a flight e.g. due to traffic delays etc. Good luck to any airline that starts doing that!
The contract of carriage prohibits hidden cities and lets the airline cancel a return, for example. Here is one from Alaskan Airlines:
Fares apply for travel only between the points for which they are published. Tickets may not be
purchased and used at fare(s) from an initial departure point on the Ticket which is before the
Passenger's actual point of origin of travel or to a more distant point(s) than the Passenger's actual
destination being traveled, even when the purchase and use of such Tickets would produce a lower
fare. This practice is known as “Hidden Cities Ticketing” or “Beyond Point Ticketing” and is prohibited
by Alaska. Note: For this instance, co-terminals are considered to be the same point.
I do agree that suing is stupid, but the airline can prohibit the practice, in theory at least. I've done it when the savings were significant, but only on a one way ticket, and I go to the gate and tell the agent my meeting got cancelled, moved or whatever and they will cancel the next leg.
It's a form of "gaming the system" that can cost someone else money. When the Sacagawea $1 coin first came out, people could use their credit card to order direct from the U.S. Mint. Some people figured out that they could accumulate points on their credit card by purchasing the coins, depositing the coins at the bank, and paying off the balance on their credit card. Do that enough times you could get a free vacation to Hawaii. That practice was soon put to an end by the U.S. Mint, as that was not how they wanted the coins to be circulated in the economy. The only time I see those coins is when I get change from a government vending machine.
The real issue was the mint would ship for free, so you could buy $10K or more of coins, get them shipped for free, deposit in your account, pay your credit card so no interest charge, lather rinse repeat.
Airlines do everything in their power to cheat the customer. Just look at the overbooking practices.
Overbooking, at least on the majors, is way overblown. I fly a lot and can rarely see a true overbooking scenario where not everyone could get on the plane. Airlines have gotten real good about estimating demand and filling planes. The main problem I have seen is when weather causes cancellations it ripples throughout the system and all of a sudden you have more people than seats.
Customers have almost no recourse.
This guy didn't "cheat the system" he bought a flight and didn't take it. Are you honestly suggesting that he is morally obligated to consume the seat he purchased? Do you also think that if you don't finish your meal the restaurant can sue you?
He agreed not to do hidden cities in the contract of carriage. That thing, like EOLs, that no one read. I'm not saying they should do that but that's how they wrote the contract, or at least had when I last got board on a long flight and read one..
Airlines used to fight back to backs as well and would cancel segments if they caught you doing it. Of course, all you had to do was fly a different airline mid week and could take advantage of the old weekend stays discounts.
They aren’t pricing errors. An airline prices based on the competition on a route, so if it costs x to go from A to C with a stop they may still price to compete with a nonstop flight on another carrier. That fare may be cheaper than a flight to the intermediate stop if their is a lot less competition on that route.
It's not just public schools, but also hospitals. Having a measles carrier in a public school would be terrible. Having that same carrier enter a hospital would be catastrophic.
Good point. Perhaps they should be required to wear a medic alert bracelet so they can be quarantined as a safeguard.
... then they should pay for the public health costs that arise because of their decision. It is a welfare of the community issue. Laws are often made to protect the community from the bad decisions of individuals.
Exactly. Non vacinators should pay for increased risk they self select, unless there is a real medical reason not to. They also should not be allowed to send kids to public schools where they endanger kids who can’t be vacinated for valid reasons. They are entitled to be stupid but not endanger others.
If it stops it from playing, then you get a few seconds of silence, which can also be annoying. Do they tell the stream the ad is over, a tactic that should be easy to detect given the sender knows the how long the ad should play? The most annoying thing i found was it insisted on playing ads for jobs, colleges, etc., for a town I have never been in and is hundreds of miles away form where I live; I guess my cellular provider gave them bad location data based on where they connected me to the internet.
As a software engineer I am disinclined to put my life in the hands of other software engineers if I can avoid it.
While i agree, that is thepoint of slamming on breaks and then rapidly accelerating. Ideally the Tesla sees the sudden change in velocity and distance and brakes, then senses the opening distance and accelerates, jolting the driver awake. It’s the modern version of the brake trick for tailgaters.
Get in front of him, lift your foot off the gas pedal, and slow down to the minimum speed for the highway. Distance control will slow him and alert him to wake up, no? AND make sure you don't videotape the whole thing and post it to FB.
Or get infront, slow done a bit then slam on brakes and hit the accelerator. That should jolt the driver awake.
YouTube didn't reach out and fix the issue until it gained a lot of attention and bad press. Even then, they did nothing toprevent it from happening again.
What happens to the next person who gets an extortion attempt like this and doesn't get a lot of press attention?
It would seem outnumbered could easily fix the problem. Send youtube the extortion message, send a fuck you to the scammer, when the scumbag sends a third strike YouTube ignores it and wipes the first two off. Once it becomes unprofitable the scammers wil move on.
Slashdot Mirror
Apology for what? Did I accidentally insult you?
No, just my weird sense of humor.
You might want to read more carefully when you book a flight. Expedia, for example, includes the following on itâ(TM)s booking page:
By selecting to complete this booking I acknowledge that I have read and accept the above Rules & Restrictions, Terms of Use
The Terms of Use are linked to a page that includes, amongst many other T&Cs: If they link to another site, it is invalid.
Terms of usage are only valid if they are in plain sight ... and not if it is a 30 pages document elsewhere.
While I agree many bury them, you have agreed to the terms. Expedia’s notice is visible when you scroll down to go to pay so it is in plain sight, for example, and is pretty explicit in your acknowledgement that you have read them and accepted them, even if you actually do not do that. You’ve still entered into a valid contract and are bound by its terms. Just because you didn’t read it before you agreed to it doesn’t mean it is not binding.
My point is simple, when you buy an airline ticket, you agree to their terms in the contract of carriage. Most people are unaware of what they are agreeing to, but that is really their fault primarily even though I place some blame on companies for making the T&Cs convoluted. In the case of the Lufthansa flyer, what he did is a pretty savvy traveler move, so I think he knew he was doing something the airline’s contract of carriage forbid. His rookie mistake was booking another Lufthansa flight on the same day to another city; and I’d almost bet he did so when he booked the first ticket giving Lufthansa even more information to track what he did. He should have used a separate airline and Lufthansa probably would not have caught him and if they did he could cook up some reasonable emergency reason he had to get off there.
The software version of your argument is the GPL is not enforceable unless the source code lists the entire GPL in a manner that forces you to read it before you can look at any of the code, if it doesn’t you’re free to use the code without complying with the GPL since it was not clearly visible before you took the code. Or, if a third party (equivalent to a booking code) gives you source code without making the GPL clearly visible you have no obligation to follow the GPL.
Simple changes in building codes for new and retrofit construction, along with incentives to do so could yield massive decreases in energy CONSUMPTION.
Simple? Maybe for you. For property owners, it's an unfunded mandate, basically modern day slavery.
Which is why I think they way to do that is offer incentives, rather than mandate improvements, to reduce consumption. If a property owner doesn’t want to participate then they don’t get any of the incentives. Building owners get to weigh the incentives plus reduced energy costs vs. retrofit costs and decide what they want to do.
Iâ(TM)m guessing you are just deliberatelybeing dense. The destails ate therewhen you sign in or buy,you just chose to ignore them and then think because you didnâ(TM)t bother to read to what you agreed somehow you arenâ(TM)t bound by them. Life doesnâ(TM)t work that way. The one who is super dense is you ... take a random booking site and click till the point you pay: there is no terms of services of the airline involved shown to you.
You might want to read more carefully when you book a flight. Expedia, for example, includes the following on it’s booking page:
By selecting to complete this booking I acknowledge that I have read and accept the above Rules & Restrictions, Terms of Use
The Terms of Use are linked to a page that includes, amongst many other T&Cs:
Additional terms and conditions will apply to your reservation and purchase of travel—related goods and services that you select. Please read these additional terms and conditions carefully. In particular, if you have purchased an airfare, please ensure you read the full terms and conditions of carriage issued by the travel supplier, which can be found on the supplier’s website. You agree to abide by the terms and conditions of purchase imposed by any supplier with whom you elect to deal, including, but not limited to, payment of all amounts when due and compliance with the supplier's rules and restrictions regarding availability and use of fares, products, or services.
You also agree to many other things, including that Expedia may book 2 one way tickets instead of a round trip, and if one flight is changed by the airline you are still liable for any rebooking fees you may have to pay on the other flight; since the are separate bookings and thus, unlike a round trip, the airline may not allow you to make a change without fees when a change on one impacts both.
I accept your apology and you’re welcome
He agreed not to do hidden cities in the contract of carriage.
No he did not. How the funk should he even know about "hidden cities"?
There is no "contract". You sign into a web site, chose flight, pay, get a PDF, print the PDF and that is your ticket. Or you only need your passport ... there no where any mentioning of anything resulting in a contract, TOS or anything equivalent. Perhaps you should fly once, then you knew that.
My last 10 flights I had "no ticket", I showed my passport to the airline and got a boarding pass, thats it.
I’m guessing you are just deliberatelybeing dense. The destails ate therewhen you sign in or buy,you just chose to ignore them and then think because you didn’t bother to read to what you agreed somehow you aren’t bound by them. Life doesn’t work that way.
This would only be "valid" if you actually have a physical ticket and the text is printed on that ticket or on the backside.
When I buy a ticket via an online booking service, which is not the airline itself, I never see such a message or text, hence I never agreed on it.
Actually you do. It’tspart of the T&C when you book. You just don’t bother, like most people, to read or undaerdtand the.
They also price by terms.
I've looked up flights to Bermuda from Baltimore that uses the exact same flight from Philly as if I left from Philly, but by leaving out of Baltimore with that layover I would save $150.
WAS does the same thing BWI is often cheaper than DCA and IAD but considered a Washington airport. My guess is the competition on routes out of BWI and that it takes a lot longer to get to DC are factors.
Sometimes it just comes down to folks seeing "direct" or "non-stop" and are willing to pay more for that "perk"
Except a direct flight is generally not non-stop or the same plane; just the same flight number. IIRC.
The contract of carriage prohibits hidden cities and lets the airline cancel a return, for example.
The leg the guy skipped was the final leg of his return trip. What will they cancel?
In his case nothing, their recourse is to collect the fare difference. They can cancel returns if you do it on an outbound leg, as happened to you.
Long short: I got the flight, caught up with the rest of my reservation. I spent a week as planned, and then tried to check in for my return. "What return?" They had cancelled my return because I missed the first leg (not the last leg) of my outbound flight.
To their credit, the agent on the phone realized how stupid this situation was and got me back on my original flights home. But it still happened.
What that means is not to do this kind of skipping with anything but the last leg of your trip. Which is what the guy being sued did. He let them put another pax in his empty seat, at full price, and now they're suing because they were somehow damaged.
That's not the point. He violated the contract. You can argue that the airline was not harmed, but in their viewpoint he violated the contract and thus owes them money. As for putting another passenger in that seat, the counter is they do not know it is available until a few hours or possibly less before the flight, and thus tah chance of a revenue generating pax is slim. Had he not taken that seat they may have been able to sell it. I get that suing is stupid, and I think more to scare others into not doing it than really winning, and the contract of carriage questionable, but until a court decides to invalidate those provisions an 2019-02-13he decision stands on appeal it still is a contract and both parties are bound by it.
IIRC, they had an FU fare code for when a competitor posted a trally low gare and they matched it. Braniff, the home of the great pickle.
Sure, but what are they going to sue him for? Specific performance? The negative price difference between the direct route and the layover route?
Exactly. The route he took was more expensive which why he used a hidden city fare so they want what the direct to that city cost in total.
I once needed to be in Europe twice within a three week period for two different clients. As I booked my travel, I noticed that I could book Europe->North America fares a lot cheaper than North America -> Europe, and also that if I stayed at least 1 weekend, the trip was also much cheaper. So what I did was book the bookends of the two trips on one fare (round trip NA->EU->NA) then booked a second trip (EU->NA->EU) in the middle so I could come home.
It all went off pretty well when I flew it, and I saved a significant chunk of my employer's money with the trick. A couple of months later, though, I got a nastygram from the Airline chastising me for violating the fare rules. Given that I was a 100k frequent flyer at the time, I replied back, CC'ing the appropriate people in the frequent flyer program that I didn't appreciate the tone of their letter, and that had I known it would have been a problem, i would have hapily either stayed in Europe for the 5 days, or booked it on another airline, thereby denying them the revenue of the additional flight.
I later got an apology, and a token amount of miles to "make things right"
The good old back to backs. I worked for a company that probably bought a 100 tickets a week and sent teams out for 2 week visits with a trip back over the weekend. We used one carrier, who decided to tell us we couldn't do that. Our travel agent said fine, and started booking the weekend return on another airline. After a few months the airline came and asked why we were spending half as much as before and when we explained they said, OK, go ahead and book back to backs.
Airlines charge you for food, for blankets for baggage (believe it or not, they never used to). Like banks, which now earn more through fees than interest or investments with your money, Airlines are basing more and more of their revenue on fees.
They always charged for that, it was just built into the fare. Pre-regulation their fares were set by the government based on distance and covered all costs and a profit. With deregulation and price competition airlines unbundled to offer cheap fares and now charge extra for stuff that used to be in the base price. I like that because I don't have to pay for stuff I don't need, like a checked bag.
Also, what performance did the passenger fail to perform? He paid money in exchange for a seat on an airplane. Doesn't sound like he wanted a refund or anything, he paid his money, then chose not to avail himself of the service.
The carrier's argument is they offer a fare for a specific end to end route and if you do not take all the legs you did not live up to the contractual terms s specified in their terms and conditions; and thus they are allowed to charge you what the fare would be for the route you took. I think it is silly to sue a passenger over that but the passenger did agree to the terms and conditions.
It comes down to some routes are more competitive and thus fares vary and a fare won't be less simply because the plane makes a stop in a city. An airline may not offer a direct flight but still competes with other airlines on the route, thus the wide variance in fares and the existence of hidden cities.
It's part of most airlines terms and conditions.
Here are Lufthansa's terms and conditions. I see nothing about the passenger incurring a service charge if they fail to board. Perhaps I've overlooked something but a quick reading seems to reveal no such terms.
Here it is:
If you have chosen a tariff that requires observance of a fixed ticket sequence, please note: if carriage is not used on all individual legs or not used in the sequence specified on the ticket with otherwise unchanged travel data, we will recalculate the airfare according to your altered routing. The airfare will thereby be determined in accordance with the fare you would have had to pay for your actual routing in your price group on the day of your booking. This fare may be higher or lower than the fare you originally paid. If the price group you originally booked was not available for the altered routing on the day of the booking, the cheapest available former price group for your altered routing will be taken as the basis for the recalculation.
As I understand it an air ticket is a contract you purchase from the airline that they will transport you between two locations on a certain set of flights. You have not promised that you will take the flights you have merely purchased the right to take those flights. If you decide at any point not to take a flight then, while you forfeit the cost of the ticket, there is nothing they can do. If not then this would mean that, in addition to forcing you to buy another ticket, the airline could sue any passenger who failed to turn up for even the start of a flight e.g. due to traffic delays etc. Good luck to any airline that starts doing that!
The contract of carriage prohibits hidden cities and lets the airline cancel a return, for example. Here is one from Alaskan Airlines:
Fares apply for travel only between the points for which they are published. Tickets may not be purchased and used at fare(s) from an initial departure point on the Ticket which is before the Passenger's actual point of origin of travel or to a more distant point(s) than the Passenger's actual destination being traveled, even when the purchase and use of such Tickets would produce a lower fare. This practice is known as “Hidden Cities Ticketing” or “Beyond Point Ticketing” and is prohibited by Alaska. Note: For this instance, co-terminals are considered to be the same point.
I do agree that suing is stupid, but the airline can prohibit the practice, in theory at least. I've done it when the savings were significant, but only on a one way ticket, and I go to the gate and tell the agent my meeting got cancelled, moved or whatever and they will cancel the next leg.
It's a form of "gaming the system" that can cost someone else money. When the Sacagawea $1 coin first came out, people could use their credit card to order direct from the U.S. Mint. Some people figured out that they could accumulate points on their credit card by purchasing the coins, depositing the coins at the bank, and paying off the balance on their credit card. Do that enough times you could get a free vacation to Hawaii. That practice was soon put to an end by the U.S. Mint, as that was not how they wanted the coins to be circulated in the economy. The only time I see those coins is when I get change from a government vending machine.
The real issue was the mint would ship for free, so you could buy $10K or more of coins, get them shipped for free, deposit in your account, pay your credit card so no interest charge, lather rinse repeat.
Airlines do everything in their power to cheat the customer. Just look at the overbooking practices.
Overbooking, at least on the majors, is way overblown. I fly a lot and can rarely see a true overbooking scenario where not everyone could get on the plane. Airlines have gotten real good about estimating demand and filling planes. The main problem I have seen is when weather causes cancellations it ripples throughout the system and all of a sudden you have more people than seats.
Customers have almost no recourse.
This guy didn't "cheat the system" he bought a flight and didn't take it. Are you honestly suggesting that he is morally obligated to consume the seat he purchased? Do you also think that if you don't finish your meal the restaurant can sue you?
He agreed not to do hidden cities in the contract of carriage. That thing, like EOLs, that no one read. I'm not saying they should do that but that's how they wrote the contract, or at least had when I last got board on a long flight and read one..
Airlines used to fight back to backs as well and would cancel segments if they caught you doing it. Of course, all you had to do was fly a different airline mid week and could take advantage of the old weekend stays discounts.
They aren’t pricing errors. An airline prices based on the competition on a route, so if it costs x to go from A to C with a stop they may still price to compete with a nonstop flight on another carrier. That fare may be cheaper than a flight to the intermediate stop if their is a lot less competition on that route.
It's not just public schools, but also hospitals. Having a measles carrier in a public school would be terrible. Having that same carrier enter a hospital would be catastrophic.
Good point. Perhaps they should be required to wear a medic alert bracelet so they can be quarantined as a safeguard.
... then they should pay for the public health costs that arise because of their decision. It is a welfare of the community issue. Laws are often made to protect the community from the bad decisions of individuals.
Exactly. Non vacinators should pay for increased risk they self select, unless there is a real medical reason not to. They also should not be allowed to send kids to public schools where they endanger kids who can’t be vacinated for valid reasons. They are entitled to be stupid but not endanger others.
If it stops it from playing, then you get a few seconds of silence, which can also be annoying. Do they tell the stream the ad is over, a tactic that should be easy to detect given the sender knows the how long the ad should play? The most annoying thing i found was it insisted on playing ads for jobs, colleges, etc., for a town I have never been in and is hundreds of miles away form where I live; I guess my cellular provider gave them bad location data based on where they connected me to the internet.
I agree with you, but unfortunately 99% of people choose ad supported service and then try to block ads instead of paying.
Which shows you how much they actually value the service if they aren't willing to pay to get an ad free stream.
Weâ(TM)ve got a Kojak with a Kodak...
As a software engineer I am disinclined to put my life in the hands of other software engineers if I can avoid it.
While i agree, that is thepoint of slamming on breaks and then rapidly accelerating. Ideally the Tesla sees the sudden change in velocity and distance and brakes, then senses the opening distance and accelerates, jolting the driver awake. It’s the modern version of the brake trick for tailgaters.
Get in front of him, lift your foot off the gas pedal, and slow down to the minimum speed for the highway. Distance control will slow him and alert him to wake up, no? AND make sure you don't videotape the whole thing and post it to FB.
Or get infront, slow done a bit then slam on brakes and hit the accelerator. That should jolt the driver awake.
YouTube didn't reach out and fix the issue until it gained a lot of attention and bad press. Even then, they did nothing toprevent it from happening again.
What happens to the next person who gets an extortion attempt like this and doesn't get a lot of press attention?
It would seem outnumbered could easily fix the problem. Send youtube the extortion message, send a fuck you to the scammer, when the scumbag sends a third strike YouTube ignores it and wipes the first two off. Once it becomes unprofitable the scammers wil move on.