7
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
7 points (88.9% liked)
Frugal
5031 readers
1 users here now
Discuss how to save money.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Riight. I'm a frequent flyer and this is the first time I've ever heard of this trick! LOL
How can they legally do that? If someone wants to stay at their layaway city, it's no business of the airline. The ticket was paid for, and they save on fuel not having to fly someone to another destination. Win-win!
The main argument against skiplagging is that each ticket is a contract to get someone from point A to point B, and any points in between are at the discretion of the carrier. It's quite common for airlines to have to reroute you through different cities if your flights have issues. So there is no guarantee at all you will actually fly through the connecting city.
But that's a contractual issue, between you and the airline, and as long as the kid had a valid boarding pass for that airport there was no reason to detain him. Sounds like he was super anxious and the security agent thought that made him suspicious.
Yes, the contract might say that, but it's not a legal obligation (the report says it's totally legal).
It sounds like the airline wants to keep people hostage until they get to point B, and not allow free human beings to choose when they'd actually like to end their trip.
I think this is a strange contractual agreement, especially if we're not talking about a babysitting service.
Probably the only thing that the airlines have on this specific case is the fact that the teen is a minor, so they do have a responsibility to make sure that he does get to his ticket destination.
That would be the risk of skip lagging, and the carrier has no responsibility over ensuring that it works in your favor. LOL
The father of this teen said that they use skip lagging all the time, but didn't realize that it is 'frowned upon" by the airline.
I agree on all points, except the notion that the contractual obligation is in any way weird. I travel all the time for work, and expect to get rerouted if there are issues making my connection. I think it's a natural expectation on the part of the airline to expect passengers to finish itineraries. There's nothing illegal about it, but if you make a habit of it they may decline to sell you tickets in the future.
OTOH, I've also been in the position where, due to the airline's ineptitude, I elected to ditch a short delayed flight and make my own way home. When this happens, it's essential that you tell the airline. They will be much more understanding when it happens due to their unplanned schedule changes. (And it gives them a chance to sell the seat again. While this seems greedy, if there are severe delays then formally giving up the seat might just let someone else flying on standby make it home that day).
I'm assuming the airline gets paid the full amount for point A to B. If that's not the case, and they do end up losing money (i.e. due to a refund), then I can completely understand their perspective.
I agree that it's an expectation that someone would want to complete a trip that they paid for, but not an obligation. The only obligation in this contract is that the airline take the passenger to the destination they paid for safely and efficiently. For the passenger, provided they are behaved, there are no obligations to even be on the flight!
The airline should have no legal authority or right to detain someone who they suspect is skiplagging, but I agree that declining the sale of future tickets is entirely within their right. You break their policy (not the law), and they decide on how to follow up. That's the risk of skip lagging, but the airline in this case even forced the kid to buy another ticket!
You go above and beyond your obligations to the airline! But I respect that you're honest with them when it happens.
I think we're in violent agreement. If the airline doesn't like the skiplagger, the place to deal with it is when they buy their next ticket, not when they are boarding.
I also misread the article, and thought it was TSA detaining the kid, but it was actually the gate agent. That is all sorts of wrong, and I sincerely doubt it's SOP for gate agents to detain unaccompanied minors like that.