Q&A: no show
no show
Question
Good morning. In the example the Rabbi gave about the donkey that collapsed at the way station, and you noted that it is correct to divide the loss between the lessor and the renter, there was a legal proceeding of an airline against a passenger: because of aggressive pricing, a flight to a destination with a lousy layover can be cheaper than a direct flight to the layover point. Passengers who “took advantage of” this pricing did not show up for the connecting flight, and were sued by the airline. I hope I explained myself clearly. Thank you for the fascinating lessons that were uploaded to YouTube.
Answer
Greetings.
I no longer remember the course of the discussion and what I said. But I do not see the connection between the cases. When a donkey collapses on the way, that is the fault of either the lessor or the renter (depending on what they knew in advance and what the renter did). In the end, there is no donkey. But regarding the airplane, this is a deliberate act by the passenger, and I do not see what claim he has in the matter. He undertook the obligation knowing everything (and it seems there are no laws of overcharging here, because the price is not fixed), and he did not meet his obligation. There is an airplane here at his disposal, and he did not use it.
Discussion on Answer
In your case, this is not sharing in the profit, since he agreed on the price in advance and deliberately acted against the agreement. As I wrote, a decision made for economic reasons is not equivalent to the death of the donkey, of blessed memory. If the airplane had broken down, that might perhaps have been similar (and that too should be divided).
Thank you. Is he required to share the profit with the carrier, just as you would expect them to share the losses? That was the essence of the carrier’s claim against the passenger: the passenger paid for the connecting flight and decided not to show up for economic reasons.