United Airlines and Orbitz is suing a 22 year old for taking advantage of a loop hole

[oldshadow]

I don

 

[SherdogGoat]

Why is Orbitz involved?

Apparently they are partners

"Recently, United Airlines and its ticket-selling partner Orbitz.com filed a lawsuit aimed at shutting Skiplagged down."

 

[SherdogGoat]

 

[The Clinch]

UA and their buttbuddy Orbitz can eat dicks.

Already didn't like UA and would try to avoid using them. Now I will make it a point to.

 

[uWot]

I think the issue is that now they have an empty spot on a plane (because the person didn't board) and it's very difficult if not impossible to fill that spot at the last second.

So it's not a loss of 50 dollars, but of an entire ticket they could have sold to someone for full price.

 

[jmac98]

I think the issue is that now they have an empty spot on a plane (because he didn't board) and it's very difficult if not impossible to fill that spot at the last second.

So it's not a loss of 50 dollars, but of an entire ticket they could have sold to someone for full price.

It's not their ticket to re-sell nor do they have an empty seat. They already sold it. Whether there's a butt in the seat is irrelevant. The ticket is sold.

 

[method115]

It's not their ticket to re-sell nor do they have an empty seat. They already sold it. Whether there's a butt in the seat is irrelevant. The ticket is sold.

Agreed this is a ridiculous lawsuit but since these are giant corporations involved they will most likely win.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

Something similar happened to my company. They ended up having to honor a bunch of shady customers. United and Orbitz are barking up the wrong tree, this is a suit they will never win.

 

[uWot]

It's not their ticket to re-sell nor do they have an empty seat. They already sold it. Whether there's a butt in the seat is irrelevant. The ticket is sold.

Instead of buying a ticket from A->B (more expensive) he decided to buy a ticket from A->B->C, but didn't board the plane at C (less expensive). They could have sold that seat to someone who needed to go to B->C and pay more.

Depending on where you're going, the seat prices are different which is why he did this. They could have gotten someone to pay more for that seat, and that's why they're upset. I agree it doesn't matter if he used it or not - in fact I think it's smart for him to have done this. But from a business standpoint, they're just upset because someone else could have bought a more expensive ticket, but him taking up that spot didn't allow them to sell a more expensive ticket.

 

[Mcmoon]

Don't airlines routinely overbook flights on purpose because they expect people to miss flights?

 

[jmac98]

Agreed this is a ridiculous lawsuit but since these are giant corporations involved they will most likely win.

Don't these things usually settle out of court? IE - the airline will quietly pay this fellow off for his website and his future silence? Sure they can drag it through the mud, maybe win the battle.. but they'll lose the war in terms of the negative PR it will cause them. The people who truly matter, the paying customers, will nearly 100% side with the fellow doing them the favour, and boycott this airline.

Who wins then?

 

[method115]

Don't these things usually settle out of court? IE - the airline will quietly pay this fellow off for his website and his future silence? Sure they can drag it through the mud, maybe win the battle.. but they'll lose the war in terms of the negative PR it will cause them. The people who truly matter, the paying customers, will nearly 100% side with the fellow doing them the favour, and boycott this airline.

Who wins then?

You might be right I have no knowledge about how things like this work. I just assumed the big corporation would have the money to win the battle.

Also if they just pay him off wont other website just be able to do the same thing? It'll turn into a system where they just have to constantly pay people off. That's why I assumed they would want to win so they could make sure no other websites pop up.

 

[Fatt Hughes]

isn't there grounds for a counter suit? Considering there's no direct violation of any user agreement.

 

[The Clinch]

Time to start up a similar website to stick it to these cans.

 

[jmac98]

You might be right I have no knowledge about how things like this work. I just assumed the big corporation would have the money to win the battle.

Also if they just pay him off wont other website just be able to do the same thing? It'll turn into a system where they just have to constantly pay people off. That's why I assumed they would want to win so they could make sure no other websites pop up.

I have no idea if I'm right lol. Just thinking out loud in consideration to your equally relevant thoughts.

To expand, I would gather they would pay him off for his site since it's his that has developed the following, then work to fix their own loophole on the immediate internally. By doing this, they draw much less attention to said loophole versus the national coverage they'll get by going through the courts, which could be utilized immensely throughout this entire ordeal by consumers, causing them to lose much more money than if they simply quietly shut down the site in silence and fixed their own shortcomings.

 

[RollSonnenRoll]

Don't airlines routinely overbook flights on purpose because they expect people to miss flights?

Yep, flew a couple weeks ago and they wouldn't let one guy on the plane because it was full even though he had a ticket. Can't imagine how pissed I would be.

I tried the website and maybe it works for some destinations more than others because when I was comparing prices for my next flight it wasn't really any cheaper to do this.

 

[2DUM2TAP]

It's not their ticket to re-sell nor do they have an empty seat. They already sold it. Whether there's a butt in the seat is irrelevant. The ticket is sold.

Also airlines constantly oversell planes, that's why they have people on standby or who get bumped.

That should totally be illegal. How can you sell 270 tickets to a plane you know only holds 260 people.

 

[method115]

I have no idea if I'm right lol. Just thinking out loud in consideration to your equally relevant thoughts.

To expand, I would gather they would pay him off for his site since it's his that has developed the following, then work to fix their own loophole on the immediate internally. By doing this, they draw much less attention to said loophole versus the national coverage they'll get by going through the courts, which could be utilized immensely throughout this entire ordeal by consumers, causing them to lose much more money than if they simply quietly shut down the site in silence and fixed their own shortcomings.

This makes sense. Didn't think about them just going ahead and fixing it. I just assumed they had a reason for doing it but maybe there is none.

 

[AgeofEmpires2**]

"Capitalism should only work when WE take all the profits! Quick, someone bailout all the airlines again so we can make up for $50 on a fucking flight here and there. Get someone in government to make this type of service illegal- unless we do it of course."

 

[kurtwpg]

I've been tempted to use hidden city before, but haven't yet. Canadian airlines seem a little more lax about it.