BA Back to Back tickets

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 00:35:40 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <icud10t0q9g31ooperhe904bmb2kr91t8k@>, Malcolm Weir
><malc@gelt.org> writes
>>If you *knowingly* limit
>>the information provided so as to obtain advantageous terms that would
>>NOT have been offered had all the information been provided, then
>>deception is present.
>
>An interesting proposition when airline booking sites *never* have
>anywhere for you to "declare" any interwoven trips.

Who said anything about "declaring" them?

You are simply being pigheaded and insisting that your view of What
Should Be must be implemented!

There are plenty of tickets that booking sites won't let you enter.
This doesn't mean anything apart from that you can't book them through
that web site!

Still, all booking sites permit the use of the obvious construction:
if you want to go A-B-A-B-A you enter A-B-A and A-B-A.

Malc.

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:17:26 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <en6g10lgopin2iutonhlrad8ui43vsnggu@>, Malcolm Weir
><malc@gelt.org> writes
>>>An interesting proposition when airline booking sites *never* have
>>>anywhere for you to "declare" any interwoven trips.
>>
>>Who said anything about "declaring" them?
>
>Actually, you did. For example, in your recent email:
>
> >>Ah, the old standby "but they never asked, therefore the fact
> that I didn't offer the information isn't relevant"
>
>>There are plenty of tickets that booking sites won't let you enter.
>>This doesn't mean anything apart from that you can't book them through
>>that web site!
>
>And your point is?

That your attempt to make something of the point that "airline booking
sites *never* have anywhere for you to "declare" any interwoven trips"
is utterly and totally irrelevant.

>>Still, all booking sites permit the use of the obvious construction:
>>if you want to go A-B-A-B-A you enter A-B-A and A-B-A.
>
>I don't think ba.com lets you book a ticket that goes A-B-A and then
>A-B-A, such that it remembers the existence of the first in order to
>calculate a customised fare for the second.

Indeed. It lets you book two journeys, with two tickets, both of
which are A-B-A. However, you can call them and I'm sure they'd be
happy to sell you such a thing (standard OW fare A-B, standard OW fare
B-A, standard OW fare A-B, standard OW fare B-A).

Whether or not it's possible to do such a thing using a website has
absolutely nothing to do with anything, and it's your persistent
mistaken belief that what you can do through the website is evidence
of anything except what you can do through the website!

Malc.

In message <46ig10logpn15ak1t8ql8ac3ib141qgacl@>, Malcolm Weir
<malc@gelt.org> writes
>On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:12:50 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>>There are several ways in which the ticket can be
>>"unsatisfactory". It can be altered, forged, counterfeit, acquired
>>illegally, stolen, torn, spoilt (to mention but a few reasons in section
>>7(23-31) of the conditions of carriage.
>
>And obtained using deceptive practices,

It doesn't actually mention that.

>Note that the question of whether or not the practice *is* deceptive
>is not one I've directly addressed. What I have addressed that your
>claim that "they can only watch" and that this clause doesn't apply
>are incorrect...

You've never satisfactorily explained what you expect to happen if a
traveller's plans change. It's one thing to book back-to-back tickets at
the same time, and perhaps another to end up with back-to-back tickets
because you've decided you can't be imprisoned at your destination.

>you have tried to claim that "the journey" is a single leg,
>whereas since you don't pay for the tickets as single legs, but rather
>round trip travel, that is clear evidence that "the journey" is *all*
>the travel detailed on the ticket, not just the flight or sequence of
>flights that you may be taking on one direction.

The difficulty here is that I suspect you are anticipating that the
airline will deny boarding on the second "half" of the ticket. If they
let you travel on the first "half" they have agreed that you've paid for
the journeys on the ticket - otherwise they'd have denied boarding on
the first "half".

>>I posted the dictionary definition: "The act of travelling from one
>>place to another". A-B is one place to another. A-B-A is one place to
>>the same place (via another).
>
>Yet the ticket is for a journey from A to B to A.

Yes, because it's a ticket for two journeys.

>why, again, does that clause refer to the JOURNEY (singular) and
>not the TICKET?

Because if you've not paid [for the ticket], you've not paid for
*either* of the two journeys involved. They can stop you, whichever of
the two journeys this comes to their attention on.

>But as a matter of fact, if your "definition" is correct, the ticket
>would be for FOUR "journeys", not two,

No, because a journey can several "legs" (sectors). But all in one
"direction".

>So in your scenario above the airline is quite
>entitled to deny you boarding if you spend a couple of days in NY
>before (trying to) continue to DC -- despite your claim that "the
>journey" has been paid for...

Not at all, the ticket will describe the journey as two legs one
immediately after the other. No option to change the timing. No layover
in NY permitted.

>>perhaps you've not used the ba.com website recently? It asks you
>>all about the journey you want to make outbound, and if you are buying a
>>return it them asks you about the return journey.
>
>Yes, indeed. Yet the system doesn't generate a ticket for each leg,
>does it?

It generates a coupon. (And a ticket is no more or less than a
collection of coupons).

>>If BA want it to mean that, then they can add it to the page of
>>definitions.
>
>THEY DON'T HAVE TO! IT IS COMMON PARLANCE!

Not according to the dictionary.

>The fact that a rail ticket machine will sell you a child's ticket
>doesn't mean that you may use it.

They ask you if you are a child. Airline sites don't ask you if you have
other journeys booked with them.
--
Roland Perry

In message <a2kg10t8d7bjasnlu7btvv97f8k2chjqkv@>, Malcolm Weir
<malc@gelt.org> writes
>That your attempt to make something of the point that "airline booking
>sites *never* have anywhere for you to "declare" any interwoven trips"
>is utterly and totally irrelevant.

So how is one to book such trips, given that the tools provided by the
airline don't recognise them?

--
Roland Perry

In message <49kg105cg531amvioapsqn5ndie43si9f7@>, Malcolm Weir
<malc@gelt.org> writes
>Or perhaps you'd like to JUSTIFY that "the difference *is* obvious to
>everyone"?

It seems to me that if you

(a) Book a ticket that's A-B-A (day return), plus b-a-b (day return, a
few days later); and then use just the A-B and b-a sectors.... and throw
away the B-A and a-b sectors.

that this is fundamentally different to:

(b) Book a ticket that's A-B-A, plus another that's b-a-b, and use all
these sectors, but in the order A-B, b-a-b, B-A.

In particular, and the only point several people are making at you: (a)
involves using half the number of booked sectors, and (b) involves using
all of them.
--
Roland Perry

OMG - This is even more boring than the BA Breakfast :-)

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 00:43:47 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <a2kg10t8d7bjasnlu7btvv97f8k2chjqkv@>, Malcolm Weir
><malc@gelt.org> writes
>>That your attempt to make something of the point that "airline booking
>>sites *never* have anywhere for you to "declare" any interwoven trips"
>>is utterly and totally irrelevant.
>
>So how is one to book such trips, given that the tools provided by the
>airline don't recognise them?

Call the airline.

Same way you book ALL tickets that cannot be booked through the
website!

Malc.

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 00:50:27 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <49kg105cg531amvioapsqn5ndie43si9f7@>, Malcolm Weir
><malc@gelt.org> writes
>>Or perhaps you'd like to JUSTIFY that "the difference *is* obvious to
>>everyone"?
>
>It seems to me that if you
>
>(a) Book a ticket that's A-B-A (day return), plus b-a-b (day return, a
>few days later); and then use just the A-B and b-a sectors.... and throw
>away the B-A and a-b sectors.
>
>that this is fundamentally different to:
>
>(b) Book a ticket that's A-B-A, plus another that's b-a-b, and use all
>these sectors, but in the order A-B, b-a-b, B-A.
>
>In particular, and the only point several people are making at you: (a)
>involves using half the number of booked sectors, and (b) involves using
>all of them.

And the reason why they are not different is that in both cases you
are setting out to mislead the other party (the airline) about what
you really want to do.

In both cases you are deliberately distorting your plans in order to
obtain a financial advantage.

Your problem is that you refuse to acknowledge that just because you
CAN do something it doesn't make it RIGHT to do something.

Happily, the law disagrees.

You lose.

Have a nice day.

Malc.

In message <35sg1097ko66s60ntvju6o18c3pils283j@>, Malcolm Weir
<malc@gelt.org> writes
>And the reason why they are not different is that in both cases you
>are setting out to mislead the other party (the airline) about what
>you really want to do.

I can't see how booking two tickets with the same airline is in any way
"misleading" them. If their reservation system noted the fact that you
were doing something they disapproved of (I've never suggested lying
about your name, or using multiple CC or passport numbers), then that
would be a "fair cop".
--
Roland Perry

In message <s2qg10p3t55fnlliod2to60jcckp6m0nac@>, Malcolm Weir
<malc@gelt.org> writes
>You're refusing to admit that if you want to travel A-B-A and the
>A-B-A and book that as A-B-A and B-A-B you are deliberately
>constructing something that looks totally different from the travel
>you really want to take...

What you've never answered is whether it changes anything if the A-B-A
and B-A-B trips are booked with different carriers.
--
Roland Perry