Boycott HIS/#1 Travel !!!!!!

[daver 0]

i am not sure i don't "do" math so well, but i am going to suggest the data accumulated for driving statistics is much greater and thus provides a far more accurate representation than the accumulated data of the travel habbits of foriegn residents living in japan.

[damian 0]

I would guess the same as you.

[r45 4]

I have a few times asked my Japanese friend to call and ask for the same etc - and we got the same price.

[snobee 0]

Interesting thoughts representing overse views.

 

However I didn't seem to catch a clear answer to Davers matter of fact point that it is illegal according to Japanese Air Law, Article 105, Paragraph 2.

 

Opinions, bends, fairness, economics, business, rationality etc don't cut it. If the law was vague & non-specific so be it, but it isn't.

 

If that speed camera did flash today as I suspect, when travelling on the tollway @ 110km/h when the posted speed was 70, then I'll just have to suck it. No fine weather, low traffic, wife's appendicitis argument will succeed. It's the law. Pigheaded, stubborn, illogical - yes.

 

And as a number of posters have pointed out - who are the losers????

Having paid for a service - a return ticket - and then on declination of satisfying all that I'm entitled to, thereby creating "elbow room" for the company, who has lost?

Sure we've heard the packages of alloted seats allocated at rock bottom prices to be used srictly in adherence with blah blah blah.

The Basics - a service is on offer. If I UNDERUTILIZE that service so be it.

I often rent vehicles overseas. Only once can I recall that I've used my allowed free mileage. At a general 300kms / day, I'm often pushed to use half. Do I get a refund?

So don't discriminate.

 

Wipe out all bottom line tickets.

 

Who the hell are they deciding on the "potentiality of underutilizing" based on the language spoken.

My Japanese friend working/based in Australia last year bought a 4 day Gold Coast package for himself, wife & 2 kids for a ridiculously low price, knowing full well that they wouldn't be returning. They enjoyed the relaxing 3 days in a resort hotel before beginning work the next week.

Did any persons of the air service industry ask him if he had the interests of the company at heart and would be dutifully returning with the other 300+ passengers on the said day?

 

The reasonings of economic rationalism from the economic rationalists in an economically irrational world often conflict with the "niggly" utterances of the minority troublemakers.

 

Stick it to 'em I say.

[damian 0]

>>However I didn't seem to catch a clear answer to Davers matter of fact point that it is illegal

 

>>according to Japanese Air Law, Article 105, Paragraph 2.

 

If it against the law then the law will deal with it justly. But the fact that something is against the law does not make me instantly dislike the actions and motivations of an offending party. In a strange way, there are instances where you can’t use the Law to support your own moral objection to corporate behaviour, or societies behavior in general. Pot smoking is against the law, but I dont dislike those that smoke it.

 

Further, so many consumer protection Laws are inconsistently applied across markets and products. In the event that they (consumer protection Laws) are applied to a product/market it is always to protect the punters from a system that most of us believe is the best in the world.

 

The upshot is that Daver and others that object to the behaviour of this agent should step away from the case and object to the philosophy. Free Market Capitalism is designed perfectly for the Haves to f uck the Have-Nots, and that’s on a good day. On a bad day, the Haves form vacuums of ‘free’ in their given market and the Have-Nots suffer a double penetration. HIS are only doing what is logical and rational in such a capitalist market. The fact that there is a law to stop them is evidence enough that they are rationally expected by the Legislature to attempt such behaviour.

 

 

Legislature: “and to partner Democracy we have written Laws that give you Property Rights and Capitalism! A Free Market will determine price and distribution of income for all!”

 

People: “yaaaaay, cheers, doumo! We love Freedom!!”

 

Legislature: “those that have what others have-not may make money!!”

 

People: “cooool, who wants to buy my house?”

 

Legislature: “and for those haves that become too clever and rationally do exactly what the Laws of Property Rights and Capitalism promote, we will have Laws to stop them and protect the have-nots”

 

Haves: “booo!”

 

Have-Nots: “yeah! That will show those Have bastards who attempt more than is ‘fair’. Who wants to buy my car?”

 

Legislature: “…and you will all pay tax on your income…”

 

People: “WTF?!”

 

Really Rich People: “I will only pay tax if you write Laws to make me pay tax. After all, tax-minimisation is a rational objective in this Capitalist Free Market with Property Rights”.

 

… and so it goes on, How Green Was My Cactus…

 

 

Anyway, enough silliness. You never hear anyone in North Korea complaining about their lot in life nor the price of airline tickets. Never. They must be very content. Proves my point really.

[damian 0]

Just in case you thought it couldn't get any more off topic....

 

legislators: Reality sucks for these People. They simply can't handle it and our rule will collapse if The People implode. We need to distract them from realty. Lets give them a drug that temporarily removes them from Reality. The society we have created will not operate without it. Allow it under the pretence of civilised adult society

 

The Legislature: "You are permitted to consume a drink called Alcohol. Alcohol will come in a variety of flavours so long as they are pre-registered and approved by the Legislature. You can enjoy Alcohol with food and whilst socialising with your colony peers. Those that have Alcohol may sell it to those that do not"

 

The People:"Three pints thanks guv! Say, I found a weed growing in my garden and smoked it. It works just like Alcohol but better. The best part is its free and can be grown along side your tomato bushes"

 

legislators: The People really do need a drug, no matter how much we tax Alcohol, they keep buying it! It is totally irrational. And on top of that, they keep taking all sorts of drugs that we don't tax and historically have not approved of. We must banish this practice, even if it involves weeds that grow naturally in nature. We will do this under the pretence of being guided by an enlightened moral compass. All non-Alcohol drugs are bad. People need us to tell them what is bad and what is good. They will not respect us if we do not

 

The Legislature:"All drugs are bad. Alcohol is good. It is against the Law to consume any drug. It is also against the Law for people under the age of 18 to consume Alcohol... but that is not meant to imply that Alcohol is a dangerous drug. Its just an adult thing"

 

A Mega-Have: "Excuse me Legislature, a Desperate-Have-Not attacked me with an empty bottle of Alcohol and took all my possessions. I have property rights, I want them protected!"

 

legislators: We had better stop that from happening, we must exercise authority and control to maintain a functioning society. We will do this under the pretence of care and protection. We will round up some Have-Nots and give them more power than they know how to handle and less money than everyone else.

 

The Legislature:"We would like to introduce to you the Police. Some of you will call them Pigs, others will use the c-word. They are here to protect and to serve. They will make sure that you do not take drugs and that you do not take property which is not yours"

 

The Mega-Haves: "I keep getting attacked with broken Alcohol bottles and robbed. I have the right to protect myself!"

 

The Legislature:"You all have the right to protect yourselves. You may all carry.... a gun!"

 

The Haves:"Jesus Christ! I just go attacked and robbed at gun point. Where the hell did that Have-Not nut case get a gun from?!"

 

The Legislature:"Worry not! This just proves that you really do have the right to protect yourself and strengthens our resolve to never remove that right. You may all go and buy another gun!!!

 

legislators: The People are cretins. The Have-Nots are selling all that they do have so that they can pay the Haves to supply a constant flow of reality tv, artificial food, coca-cola, porn, violent movies and video games depicting drugs, guns and theft of property. But they are oblivious to their reality and so a harmonic balance has been found. All we need to do is continue to fuel and lubricate the engine and our class will enjoy rule over the The People forever. Lets get to work.

 

The Legislature:"All those who do not live like us are bad! Especially those with lots of Oil. Those who do not like the way we live and who also have lots of Oil are very very bad! We will prove it to you and we will protect you from them (with the help of your 18 to 32 year old sons)"

[snobee 0]

Spud - An admirable bit of sculpting there.

 

And quite to the point in the savagery of a capitalist system. Eat or be eaten.

 

However, disregarding laws and the way of mammon, the question begging for a direct answer,

 

"Why does underutilizing a paid for service attract a penalty?" is still floating.

 

The flaw appears to be on the side of the companies, not the consumers.

 

And the problem is compounded when the companies rule is only a rule for some - you know the local goodies, who don't do bad stuff - heh, heh, heh.

 

And admist all this, I have used HIS solely for 6 years. When this subject was coyly put to our agent last week, she kind of embarrased like said to the effect "We would never treat you like that sir." Probably because we've bought about 100+ tickets through her for our private group tours.

 

Jeez, I must be one of the goodies.

[misorano 1]

Snobee:

Daver's matter of fact point is is not the black and white issue it appears to be. What legally constitutes "unfair" discrimination is a very fuzzy issue in Japan.

 

What people seem to be missing is that it was ANA who set the ticketing policy. It is them who charge HIS for the seat not used. For ANA to turn around and say this is not on, when it is their policy that has forced HIS into this decision is a bit rank if you ask me.

Ditto for the Ministry who must approve all airfares the airline sets. (Same section of the same law)

[misorano 1]

 Quote:

"Why does underutilizing a paid for service attract a penalty?"

The magic question!

I have no idea, but as per above, it is a question for ANA (and even the Ministry) not HIS.

[bushpig 0]

As I said before Miso, yes it is the doing of ANA to have the penalty in the first place, BUT HIS chose to handle it in this stupid discriminatory manner rather than passing the costs on to all customers fairly regardless of being japanese or foreign. So no, HIS is not faultless in this. They handled it stupidly. Yes, ANA is also to blame, but that doesn't excuse HIS.

[Ocean11 0]

Perhaps it has something to do with the public good implied by the idea of being able to go somewhere and come back at less than double the cost of going somewhere and making up your own sweet mind about whether or not you go back. People who want it both ways are jeopardizing the service for those that really need it. And cheap travel is not such a non-trivial thing that 'underutilizing the service' should be contemplated lightly.

[bushpig 0]

Fair enough, but I have never used a ticket like that, so why should I be discriminated against on the basis that I look like others who have?

[misorano 1]

BP:

I agree that HIS is not faultless. If HIS had thought this thing through, then they could have easily come up with a better solution (several of which have been proposed on this thread). But ANA and the ministry seem to be saying "nothing to do with us", which I think is crap.

HIS has basically come up with another version of the soapland argument mentality here ala "No Gaijin can come( )in here because all Gaijin have big Penis'"

Depending on your situation, this is either a offensive moral issue, or sound economic policy.

 

The only real answer is as snobee says, and do away with this type of ticket. Seems logical, but you know as well as I do, what may seem logical to many of us doesn't sit well with these 50-something mid level managers.

 

Everyone here pretty much agrees that the idea of getting penalized for not using a seat that you have already paid for is senseless. But it is one of the conditions on the fare. Just because it is stupid doesn't make it any less valid when it comes to the contract you enter into when you purchase the ticket. All HIS had to do was make this clear to the buyer when they purchased the ticket.

[bushpig 0]

That's pretty much all I wanted to hear you say Miso!

[2pints-mate 0]

Is HIS and No1 the same?

And,do other similar companies do this?

[indosnm 0]

HIS is the mother ship of No.1.

[2pints-mate 0]

I see, thanks. But do other companies not do this as well, not just No1?

[misorano 1]

I'm not sure, but HIS is about the only one the really specializes in discount air tickets. Most travel generate income other ways. The international discount air fares are about the only product that sells where the agent is free to add whatever they like as a mark up. Almost everything else is on a commission type basis (i.e. X% of the sale price) and included in the rate on the brochure.

[daver 0]

i use HIT travel because you can search their website for the airlines quoted prices.

[scouser 4]

When I have asked around in the past they all seemed to quote exactly the same price.

[frannyo 2]

Same here. Either they are all doing it or not with me.

[daver 0]

if the company is showing the airline's price online they must not being doing it.

[XilR8 0]

Isn't it actually cheaper for the airline if you don't use the return portion of your ticket?

 

They have the possibility of giving your seat to someone else. If they don't do that, they still use 1 less meal (which they'll probably save and serve to someone else later), plus the fact that you and your baggage are not on board will make the plane (negligibly, I know) lighter and thus save on fuel!

 

This penalty is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of!

[2pints-mate 0]

It does all sound very silly.

[Curt 1]

I never really understood the concept of reconfirming flights. Is it necessary? And if you don't reconfirm on some flights, do you get your seat snatched away from you if you don't turn up XX minutes before the flight or something?

 

Anyone able to shed light on that particular issue.