As I mentioned, airlines have plenty of policies to deal with reserved but unused seats, but you've still intentionally taken away a finite resource because you wanted to save a couple bucks.
the ticket on the second leg had been paid for
> but you've still intentionally taken away a finite resource because you wanted to save a couple bucks.
it's really going to blow your mind when you realise airlines do the reverse all the time
they call it "overbooking"
knowingly selling the same seat twice? sounds like "low level fraud" by your definition
It’s not considered fraud though
When the consumer does something to save money you call it "fraud". When the airline does it, it's okay because "policies"? Putting aside the asinine "contract" for a second, how is one morally correct, while the other isn't?
This is a moot point because they never promised exclusive access in the first place.
>Putting aside the asinine "contract" for a second, how is one morally correct, while the other isn't?
This just moves the goalposts to an area where anything goes. You could argue that skiplagging is morally correct, because your morals are "corporations are scum, consumers are always in the right", or take a hardcore deontological view that any sort of lying/misrepresentation is morally wrong.
That's the implied deal when they sell you the ticket. It's the public perception. Only in the fine print does it says otherwise. Hence, that's why people are so outraged when it happens to them.
I'd also argue that the corporation's contract with the consumer is not fair because there is a gross imbalance of power. Airlines (as a group) can put almost anything they want and the consumer has no recourse (except meek consumer protection laws).
Anyways, I just found it interesting that you jumped at the opportunity to vociferously call what the consumer did "fraud" but what the airlines do (ie double booking) as normal business.
While it's correct in a legal sense, I don't think that's a very interesting discussion. The contract is the contract, sure. But the big picture deserves examination also.
>This just moves the goalposts to an area where anything goes.
No, we were discussing a very specific situation. Don't do that.
But you've strawmanned this. Do you go to the gym, put your towel down on the leg press machine, and then go to the juice bar for a drink? Because that's what we're discussing here: taking away a finite resource so that others can't use it.
People with unused gym memberships who don't show up haven't promised anything. They didn't make an appointment with a personal trainer, they don't have machines reserved, there's no implicit contract to exchange limited resources for a membership fee. Your membership fee gives you access to these resources, not a guarantee of their usage. If you go to the gym and every treadmill is in use, then you don't get a treadmill for now. You just wait for a treadmill.