Occasionally I see offers in the newspapers, etc., for first class tickets to various places, which appear to be offers to sell FF coupons, so to speak. Are these legal? Are they ethical (not exactly the same as the first question)?

Illegal? Doubtful. Ethical (i.e allowed under the airline's terms and conditions?) Usually not, but it depends.

Remember the old line about offers that appear too good to be true.

No it is not ethical. The person who is selling the ticket is almost certainly violating the rules of the FF program. You would be supporting that unethical activity and that would not be ethical on your part.

If you have to ask if something is ethical then it probably isnt.

I didn't HAVE to ask. I was merely curious, and you've satisfied my curiousity the way I thought you would! Thx, all.

Who cares about real ethics?

But it that person is basically selling his miles for money, then that definitely violate the rules of the FF program. And <b>you</b> are at risk, because if the airline finds out, you won't be getting on the plane, and I bet you'll have a hard time finding this person again, let alone getting money back.

The reason I said &quot;it depends&quot; is because it does. Sometimes airlines will make discounted premium class tickets available to charities for re-sale at auctions, things like that. In those cases it's perfectly ethical. However, the majority of such offerings you see on places like ebay etc. are counter to the airlines' T&amp;Cs.

Since when are &quot;ethics&quot; defined in the terms and conditions of a corporation?

Buying airmiles or coupons may be in violation of T&amp;C, and there may be a risk that the airline denies transportation, but I would hardly call that a question of ethics.

Not to be semantic, but by purchasing the ticket you agree to certain terms and conditions. To violate those conditions is to violate that to which you agreed, which is to break a promise. Most people consider the breaking of promises to be unethical, at least when it is knowing (both the promising and the breaking). (There is a counterargument based on the concept of &quot;efficient breach,&quot; but that's probably beyond the scope of the question.)

Not to be semantic but I think you meant not to be <i>pedantic</i>.

No, no, I *was* being pedantic.