WaxWorks
|
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Scalia and Airline Pricing
I've finally finished reading Scalia's ridiculously one-sided opinion denying the motion for recusal in the Cheney Energy Task Force case -- the opinion is a classic example of a brief that simply ignores the bad facts. I've got two observations.
One, Scalia gives examples of other Justices socializing with Presidents, without recusal, such as Justice White and President Kennedy and Justice Jackson and President Roosevelt. However, Scalia never mentions that the current rule about recusal post-dates all of his examples, making them irrelevant to his argument.
Second, Scalia notes that, although he flew on Air Force II down to New Orleans, he and his son Eugene had to get their own transportation back to Washington. As a result, they bought round trip plane tickets back to DC, because they were the cheapest available, and thus, Scalia argues, the cost to him was the same as if he hadn't flown on Air Force II. Besides ignoring, or minimizing the obvious benefits of flying on Air Force II with Vice-President, Scalia may have admitted that he commited promissory fraud by misrepresenting his intentions to the airline.
As this article notes:
Justice Scalia and his family probably saved a bundle by misrepresenting their intentions.
In the topsy-turvy world of airline pricing, a round-trip ticket is often cheaper ? even much cheaper ? than a one-way fare. On US Airways, for example, a round-trip ticket between Washington and New Orleans could have been bought yesterday for as little as $198, while the cheapest unrestricted one-way fare was $638.
Justice Scalia did not say how much he paid for his round-trip ticket, but it seems fair to assume that he bought what is known as a "throw-away ticket" ? something the airlines expressly prohibit. US Airways, for example, does not allow the "use of round-trip excursion fares for one-way travel," and reserves the right to refuse to board those who try to use them and to charge them the difference between the round-trip and one-way fare.
Granted, this is a crazy condition. A newspaper doesn't charge buyers more when they throw away everything but the sports section. They might want to ? and their advertisers might agree ? but they don't. Airlines, however, charge more for a one-way ticket because they know that some business travelers need the flexibility to buy such tickets, and are willing to pay more for it.
Of course, maybe Justice Scalia plans to use the return half of his ticket later. If he does not, however, he in essence has admitted to buying a ticket under false pretenses. He made a promise without any intention of fulfilling it. Justice Scalia is no doubt familiar with the legal term for such an act: it's called promissory fraud.
The airlines' policy may be annoying, inconvenient and customer-unfriendly. But they can legally insist that their passengers abide by it. And certainly a strict believer in the rule of law like Justice Scalia would agree. Then again, if a case about the airlines' pricing practices ever reaches the Supreme Court, maybe Justice Scalia should recuse himself.
Comments:
Post a Comment
