,
6 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ An airline is suing a passenger who had a connecting flight for skipping the last leg of his trip. fortune.com/2019/02/12/luf…
2/ For reasons that aren't entirely clear to me, it is sometimes cheaper to fly from an origin city, through a hub, to a destination, than it is to fly exclusively from an origin city to the hub.
3/ The airline is suing for the difference in price between a ticket from the origin city to the hub (which is more expensive), and a ticket from the origin city, through the hub, to the destination (which is the cheaper ticket the passenger bought)
4/ The passenger bought the ticket to be able to take an airplane ride. Yet the airline claims that, under the terms and conditions the passenger affirmatively promised that it would use all segments of the ticket.
5/ Thus, the very consideration for which the passenger bargained and which the passenger should have the right to use, or not use, as he/she wishes, is simultaneously being treated as the subject of a covenant to the airline.
6/ I call this "reverse consideration": the benefit for which the passenger is attempting to bargain is simultaneously a detriment to that passenger. By seeking to obtain a ticket, the passenger simultaneously becomes legally obligated to use it, according to the airline theory
