[jamesaguilar]

Reasonable . . . hrm. Hard to say. The surface area of duties and rights associated with an airline ticket in particular and airline travel in general are so vast that some level of clickwrap is unavoidable, not to mention the various laws that cover the industry.

Comparatively, the duties and rights regarding a physical good like a sandwich are fairly simple -- it behaves like most simple physical goods. You buy it, then you can do what you want with it. Airline tickets are unlike this in a variety of ways. Hidden city routing being prohibited would not, I feel, be qualitatively different than many of these other restrictions.

[sjwright]

I buy a sandwich; I can eat all of it or some of it.

I buy airplane seats; I can sit in both seats or just one. If they don't like which seats I chose to sit in or not, they shouldn't have sold the ticket to me in the first place.

[jowiar]

They're not really "selling you tickets" on specific flights. They're selling you the service of hauling you from from your starting point to your destination - possibly on the route planned, or possibly on other routes. This includes such things as sending you on another airline, or on a train, or putting you up in a hotel room.

I think the airlines would be willing to ignore a handful of people skipping out on a leg here or there. Pricing is obviously a major issue, but I think even moreso than that, if this were to become a common/well accepted way of buying tickets, there are serious issues in case of cancellations/delays/missed connections that, while fine in the hands of those who know they're subjecting themselves to the risk of being stranded, would lead to a bunch of "I bought a ticket to Chicago and United is going to leave me in Nantucket unless I buy a second ticket" news stories in case of a snowstorm.

[sjwright]

> They're not really "selling you tickets" on specific flights.

They really are.

Coca-cola are marketing a refreshing tasty sparkling beverage, but what they're actually selling is carbonated water with sugar and acid. If I use it to clean my driveway, that's my prerogative, and Coca-cola don't get to retroactively charge me more because driveway cleaning chemicals are a more profitable market.

[SilasX]

Funny that you bring that up, because that's actually happened! (Almost.) It's why alcohol-for-drinking is more expensive than alcohol-for-cleaning.

The government wanted to tax people it they drink it but not if they just clean with it. But then people (well, alcoholics mainly) realized they could buy the untaxed one "for cleaning" but then turn around and drink it. Can't have that!

End result: denatured alcohol, which (given taxes) is cheaper than the drinking kind because they "yuck it up" to the point that you can't drink it.

I just hope they don't do the analogous thing here, which would be like "poison you and hold the antidote at the ticket's final location" :-O

[jamesaguilar]

The problem with analogies is that just because you can make two things sound similar does not mean they are.

The statement you made about airline tickets is normative, not descriptive. I'm curious about how things actually are, not how people on HN want them to be.