BA Back to Back tickets

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 02:58:35 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>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.

Why *SHOULD* is answer that?

It was never the issue in this thread!

I'd remind you that your claim was that they could only watch. That
claim is false.

Malc.

In message <knti10hlt3eden2sn4ao0mu6a3ih7a4aer@>, Malcolm Weir
<malc@gelt.org> writes
>"a journey" involves traveling from one
>place to another, where "another" may be the point of departure...

Yes, in the special case of circular journeys. All others are from home
to destination, or destination to home.
--
Roland Perry

In message <nrti105nf5hpntfgqhp48397j1iu863u3m@>, Malcolm Weir
<malc@gelt.org> writes

>You are deliberately withholding information about the journey (or
>trip, or travel) you want to make in order to obtain a financial
>advantage.

I'm not sure that buying tickets at their list price, but taking
advantage of offers, is an *inadmissible* financial advantage.

And there's no with-holding of information if the you tell the supplier
everything he asks.

>> 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".
>
>Ah. So your rather strange position is that everything absolutely
>above board unless you use (say) a different credit card?

What I'm saying is that if you use the same CC (etc) then you have
supplied the airline with all the details of all the trips, because they
have a trivial means to correlate them. At which point, when you are
about to conclude the purchase of the second ticket, the supplier could
say "Oh, this ticket isn't available in conjunction with the one you
already have". If that was the way things happened *and* then you used
multiple personalities to book tickets, it would be wrongdoing.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 00:37:14 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <knti10hlt3eden2sn4ao0mu6a3ih7a4aer@>, Malcolm Weir
><malc@gelt.org> writes
>>"a journey" involves traveling from one
>>place to another, where "another" may be the point of departure...
>
>Yes, in the special case of circular journeys. All others are from home
>to destination, or destination to home.

So if you stop along the way, that creates two journeys?

Don't be fatuous!

A journey can be from home to petrol station to distant relative to
wherever you want to go.

There are no "special cases" around circular journeys in the way you
are trying to claim, since from home to destination and back *is* no
different from a "circular journey".

Otherwise, please cite from your magic dictionary the definition of a
circular journey. Is London to Edinburgh via the A1 and back via the
M6 a circular journey?

Malc.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 00:43:30 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <nrti105nf5hpntfgqhp48397j1iu863u3m@>, Malcolm Weir
><malc@gelt.org> writes
>
>>You are deliberately withholding information about the journey (or
>>trip, or travel) you want to make in order to obtain a financial
>>advantage.
>
>I'm not sure that buying tickets at their list price, but taking
>advantage of offers, is an *inadmissible* financial advantage.

*Sigh* Who determines the fare? Is it (a) you, or (b) the airline?

The fact that you can obtain a fare using (say) the website in no way
implies that the fare is correct.

>And there's no with-holding of information if the you tell the supplier
>everything he asks.

Nonsense. That is just false.

If you *know* information that you posses would change the situation,
you are withholding it even if no-one asks. There's even a phrase for
the generic practice: lying by omission!

Specific case in point: if you are selling a house, and you know there
to be dry rot, but the surveyor misses it, you are on dodgy grounds if
you don't bring it to the buyers attention. Of course, the surveyor
is on *much* dodgier grounds, and if you don't know that the surveyor
missed it you are totally in the clear, but if you know about the rot,
you know the surveyor missed it, and you keep quiet, the buyer would
have *some* recourse against you (although frankly they'd probably not
bother and just go after the surveyor).

>>> 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".
>>
>>Ah. So your rather strange position is that everything absolutely
>>above board unless you use (say) a different credit card?
>
>What I'm saying is that if you use the same CC (etc) then you have
>supplied the airline with all the details of all the trips, because they
>have a trivial means to correlate them. At which point, when you are
>about to conclude the purchase of the second ticket, the supplier could
>say "Oh, this ticket isn't available in conjunction with the one you
>already have". If that was the way things happened *and* then you used
>multiple personalities to book tickets, it would be wrongdoing.

In other words, if the you provide *clues* that you may be breaking
the rules, but don't actually ask, then that's OK?

How strange. And dishonest.

Malc.

In message <4kml10hdjgdpf6hqp1t1bp1of1nq2bkhck@>, Malcolm Weir
<malc@gelt.org> writes
>There are no "special cases" around circular journeys in the way you
>are trying to claim

Although (as Lansbury has brought to my attention) United think that
"circular" tickets are sufficiently different that they have a whole
section in the T&C about them.
--
Roland Perry

In message <9qml109kkmha7oh6vt9ubmd7sad9h17lql@>, Malcolm Weir
<malc@gelt.org> writes

>*Sigh* Who determines the fare? Is it (a) you, or (b) the airline?

The airline, based on me telling them what they ask about.

>Specific case in point: if you are selling a house, and you know there
>to be dry rot, but the surveyor misses it, you are on dodgy grounds if
>you don't bring it to the buyers attention.

There are situations (like Insurance) where you are asked questions
along the lines of: "Is there anything else relevant you need to tell
us". House buying is one of them. Airline ticketing isn't.

But as you seem to think (unless I've misunderstood) that doing
back-to-backs using two airlines isn't wrong, I fail to see why that's
not cheating two airlines instead of one.
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:40:28 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <4kml10hdjgdpf6hqp1t1bp1of1nq2bkhck@>, Malcolm Weir
><malc@gelt.org> writes
>>There are no "special cases" around circular journeys in the way you
>>are trying to claim
>
>Although (as Lansbury has brought to my attention) United think that
>"circular" tickets are sufficiently different that they have a whole
>section in the T&C about them.

And?

Note the difference between "ticket" and "journey". Recall that the
whole point is that there *is* a difference, and that the ticket is
for A JOURNEY (singular).

Malc.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:44:13 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <9qml109kkmha7oh6vt9ubmd7sad9h17lql@>, Malcolm Weir
><malc@gelt.org> writes
>
>>*Sigh* Who determines the fare? Is it (a) you, or (b) the airline?
>
>The airline, based on me telling them what they ask about.

Now, now, Roland. The answer is the airline.

Not the airline based on what you choose to tell them.

>>Specific case in point: if you are selling a house, and you know there
>>to be dry rot, but the surveyor misses it, you are on dodgy grounds if
>>you don't bring it to the buyers attention.
>
>There are situations (like Insurance) where you are asked questions
>along the lines of: "Is there anything else relevant you need to tell
>us". House buying is one of them. Airline ticketing isn't.

Really? Based on what bizarre logic?

You are trying to argue that fraud can only occur if the defrauded
party asks a question and gets a false answer. That is nonsense...

>But as you seem to think (unless I've misunderstood) that doing
>back-to-backs using two airlines isn't wrong, I fail to see why that's
>not cheating two airlines instead of one.

Obviously. You fail to see that setting out to evade the conditions
of contract is wrong.

Malc.

In message <351m109g9iu02vf14inhkqt8bmcqm2v0o9@>, Malcolm Weir
<malc@gelt.org> writes
>>Although (as Lansbury has brought to my attention) United think that
>>"circular" tickets are sufficiently different that they have a whole
>>section in the T&C about them.
>
>And?
>
>Note the difference between "ticket" and "journey". Recall that the
>whole point is that there *is* a difference, and that the ticket is
>for A JOURNEY (singular).

Actually, United call it a Circular *trip*. And I agree that in this one
special case it can be a single journey. Just as A-B [a standard one-way
ticket] is also a single journey. But standard returns [A-B-A] are two
journeys.
--
Roland Perry