Sunrise - yeh yeh that's what i thought, out of somewhere like Niigata or Toyama.... haha aeroflot, i cancelled aeroflot flights into Moscow once and ended up taking ground transport along the most pot-holled road in the world. What was eastern Russia like back in 92? i'm so curious about this!!!!

bp:
What I'm saying is that HIS was in a bind. No doubt they were losing money on a certain type of ticket after being invoiced by the airline for no shows on the return flights. They must have had the figures etc that showed the the largest percentages of these were non Japanese.
Based on these figures they decided not to sell these tickets to Non Japanese.
They based this decision on economics, not on race. They were losing money on a certain demographic and chose a course of action to cut their loses.
I think their motivation for this was not racism but $$. That being said there were better ways of going about it that would not have left them open to this criticism.

Daver:
ANA may be saying to cease the practice, but they are the ones setting the conditions on tickets, and the one's invoicing HIS for the no shows.

If they tell the agent that they can sell a ticket, but they will be charged if the passenger fails to show up for the return flight (something the agent has no control over), how is the agent supposed to protect themself?

OK Here's another situation.

Our company refuses to accept credit card transactions from most of Africa.
Is this racist, or is OK because we've been burned several times in the past through credit card fraud?

well you have your reasons and rights to not provide a service to any one you choose. but that isn't the issue.
if you were charging more for the services to all africans then yes, racist.

Daver:
When an agent books a ticket they get data that looks like this:

C9 D6 I6 Y0 B0 M0 H4 Q9 K9 L9 U0 T0

What this is the the various fare categories on the plane. Basically the go from expensive to inexpensive from left to right. But as you move from left to right the conditions get stricter. For example the Y is the full fare economy class seat. With this you can change flights, dates etc right up to the time of booking and get a full refund if you cancel. Once you get to the K and L brackets you are looking at heavily discounted fares with strict conditions.
What HIS is doing is saying that they will not sell the cheapest (above T) tickets to Non Japanese. They will sell them the more expensive tickets with more flexibility (i.e. if they do not show up for the return flight then there is no penalty).
They would sell the same ticket to a Japanese at the same price.

This works in reverse also. Many of the hotels we deal with, in an effort to attract the foreign visitor, have a inbound FIT rate that is usually cheaper than the standard Japanese rate. What they are doing is valuing the non Japanese guest higher that the Japanese guest. The reason being that the odds are a person coming from overseas will stay several nights rather than the 1 night average for Japanese.

Is this racist or just good business sense?

well i will speak with my wallet and not use HIS or No 1 travel anymore. Thats what i will do.

OK Miso, your point is taken and understood. However, just because something is good business sense doesn't mean that that decision isn't at the same time discriminatory. I wouldn't call it a case of racism but a case of discrimination. As you yourself suggested, they should stipulate that extra charges will be born by the user if the return leg is not used, or increase fares across the board to cover their expected losses. Then their policy would cease to be discriminatory. Until then, and as long as they refuse to give me the same price as a Japanese customer then this is discrimination. As for your hotel example, that is discrimination too. If I were a Japanese wanting to stay more nights I'd be pissed if I knew that gaijin were getting cheaper fares because of the company wanting to maximise profits at the expense of fairness to the customers. It is discrimination regardless of the reasoning and who is benifitting (us or the Japanese). Reason and justify it all you want, but it is still discrimination.

Anyway, I will do like FT said and just not use them.

Are differential insurance premiums discriminatory? Based up behavioural characteristics leading to probability of loss, women pay lower car insurance premiums than men. Data and actuarial mathematics supports this business decision.

As for using another agent, I think all of them would suffer the same bind that Misorano described and have to cover the cost somehow. As a business traveller I was always moving around the world with a return booking from which I would use only one leg. It was simply cheaper to buy returns rather than one way, even when we knew that the return date and route was uncertain. The nice girl at work who arranged all the travel was once commented that the agent gets really pissy when we dodnt use the return leg. Now I know why. They didn't complain too much as our company account was worth big $$ to them. (The company I used to work for was BA's biggest single client).

Welcome to the free market and all the laws required to protect us from it.

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.

I would guess the same as you.

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

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.

>>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.

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)"

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.

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)

The magic question!

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

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.