United and Orbitz Sue 22-Year-Old Programmer For Compiling Public Info

linuxwrangler writes: Aktarer Zaman, a young computer scientist, started a "side project" called Skiplagged to compile a relatively well-known method of finding inexpensive airfares. "The idea is that you buy an airline ticket that has a layover at your actual destination. Say you want to fly from New York to San Francisco — you actually book a flight from New York to Lake Tahoe with a layover in San Francisco and get off there, without bothering to take the last leg of the flight." But organizing fully public information into a user-friendly form has gotten him sued by United and Orbitz. They accuse his not-for-profit site of "unfair competition" and of promoting "strictly prohibited" travel.

Comments

Luggage?

[jbmartin6]

I guess this works with carry-on only. Or is there some way to get checked luggage at the layover?

Re:Luggage?

[PrimaryConsult]

Gate check your large bag, you'll get it back at the arriving gate.
Besides, the cost of checking a bag undoes most of the savings to be had with this method anyway.

I don't see this working with round trip tickets; many airlines cancel the rest of your itinerary with no refund if you no-show for a leg...

Re:Luggage?

[NatasRevol]

Often you can't gate check your large bags anymore. Depends on the airport & airline, but often they force you to measure at the counter & check it if it's too large.

Re:Luggage?

[CohibaVancouver]

Gate check your large bag, you'll get it back at the arriving gate.

This is incorrect - When you gate-check a bag it's "checked through to your final destination" - You pick it up on the baggage carousel.

The exception is regional-jet and turboprop flights where you "leave your bag in the jetway." In these situations your bag is returned to the jetway.

Re:Luggage?

[bhcompy]

Correct, you book multiple one way tickets. I do this all the time with certain carriers because you get bonuses for one way trips on miles

Re:Luggage?

[CohibaVancouver]

Which is why it's always been cheaper to fly one-way

Certainly not 'always' - As recently as a decade ago, a one way ticket might have cost double what a return ticket did.

Re:Luggage?

[azav]

Pay UPS to ship it, perhaps?

Re:Luggage?

[PrimaryConsult]

After some Googling it appears the term "gate check" is used to refer to both practices, checking through to final destination from the gate as well as "leaving the bag in the jetway". Locally we've called the latter a "gate check" because that option is available on pretty much all planes leaving our smallish airport, and uses less words than "leaving the bag in the jetway", but it appears that is a technically incorrect usage.

Re:Luggage?

[rjstanford]

I would like to fly Delta leaving my destination, but Southwest on my return. Can't do that with a round trip purchase, despite the availability of flights! Absolute bullshit!

How is that bullshit? You want to buy two different things from two totally different merchants!

That's like complaining that you want to get a Chipotle burrito for lunch and an In&Out burger for dinner and its bullshit that you can't do that with a single transaction.

Re:Luggage?

[Zmobie]

I work in the industry, and actually in most instances there is no difference in gate check bags. They simply send them down to the ground crew and it is loaded like any checked bag. It would be exceptionally costly to try and separate and sort bags that need to be "returned at the gate" so they don't bother and send them up the claim units at your final destination. The tags are just hand written (sometimes they slap a ten digit tag on them, but most of their host systems don't even support automatic sorting and tracking for gate checked bags) and read when the plane is unloaded.

Normally, if you gate check a bag they also don't charge you the baggage fee as the most common cause of gate check bags is the overhead bins filling up. This causes the airline to be better off with the customer service aspect and since they generally tell you carry-on bags don't cost they don't want to spring hidden fees on you (unless you fly a budget airline like spirit or frontier, spirit charges you even if you carry the bag onto the plane with you and the charges are HIGHER if it has to be checked at the gate...).

Re:Luggage?

[Zmobie]

Not exactly. This is something the airlines attempt to stop, as it is a way to circumvent bag fees (they don't generally charge you for a gate check), but especially since many places are moving towards self-service check in or you can check in online and never see an agent this is rare. TSA should be the ones stopping it, but this is not their primary concern (or even secondary, tertiary... etc.). It doesn't incur any cost to the security side and because of the historically bad communications and cooperation between the TSA and airline tenants there is very little quid pro quo going on. I have spoken to a lot of operations managers about this problem before, and watched many people taking obviously large suitcases through security with both TSA and the passenger being very aware that is not of the carry on size.

Re:Luggage?

[Rutulian]

You can, actually. You have to book your flights through a service ( ex. Orbitz, Kayak) instead of the airline itself, but there are ways to do exactly what the GP wants to do. I've done it.

Re:Luggage?

[cwatts]

This woman had her return leg cancelled for (almost) this reason!

http://kdvr.com/2014/10/30/spi...

spirit. yech.

cw

Re:Luggage?

[cyn1c77]

Gate check your large bag, you'll get it back at the arriving gate.

This is incorrect - When you gate-check a bag it's "checked through to your final destination" - You pick it up on the baggage carousel.

The exception is regional-jet and turboprop flights where you "leave your bag in the jetway." In these situations your bag is returned to the jetway.

Actually, the GP was correct. The passenger has the option of having the bag returned at the gate or at the final destination carousel.

(You've clearly never traveled with a child and their stroller!)

Re:Luggage?

[Anubis IV]

The exception is regional-jet and turboprop flights where you "leave your bag in the jetway." In these situations your bag is returned to the jetway.

That right there is exactly what everyone I know calls a "gate check", except that it isn't only regional and turboprop flights like the ones you're describing that offer it. For instance, both the United non-stop from Houston to D.C. I flew last month (Airbus A320) and the return flight from Norfolk to Houston (Embraer ERJ145) did it, even though there was a vast difference in the size of the planes. Meanwhile, what you've described as a "gate-check" is what I'd describe as simply "checking your bag", and can only be done at the departing terminal, rather than at the gate.

Maybe this is some sort of regional dialect issue, akin to "rubber" being used in two very different ways, depending on if you're talking to an American or a Brit? Seems like there are a lot of people arguing for both sides of these definitions.

Re:Luggage?

[Anubis IV]

Meanwhile, what you've described as a "gate-check" is what I'd describe as simply "checking your bag", and can only be done at the departing terminal, rather than at the gate.

Umm, if you can't do it at the gate, then it is not a gate check. A gate check is quite literal, as in checking your bag, at the gate, almost always because it won't fit on the plane.

I quite agree, and I'm not sure what I said that would have led you to believe otherwise. I was responding to the previous poster talking about checking a bag and needing to pick it up for the baggage carousel at his final destination, since I've never seen them do that at the gate, hence why I was pointing out that I wouldn't have referred to it as a gate check.

Re:Luggage?

[Zmobie]

Yea, the bags will not be given back but strollers and equipment that is needed to get around will be. The strollers and such are generally put in an easy to get area in the hold and all of that stuff is just given back all at once. Where as the gate check bags may be loaded with the normal check bags and there is no way in hell the ground crews are going to mess with sifting through 100 to 400 bags to figure out who wants a gate check bag back, that is why they invest all that money into baggage handling and baggage reconciliation systems.

Re:Luggage?

[Drathos]

My last few flights on Delta, they were gate checking bags though to your destination. There was no option to get it back at the next stop.

Frankly, I prefer this since it prevents the massive clusterfuck of people blocking the ramp waiting for their bag while everyone else is trying to get off the plane. A few years ago, you'd only see a dozen or so folks waiting, now it's half the plane since nobody wants to pay the the check bag fee. This wasn't helped by the idjits at the TSA checkpoint allowing bags that were obviously too large through as "carry ons." The security checkpoint should be making those people go back to the ticket counter and check their bags before letting them through.

Re:Luggage?

[AK Marc]

Strollers and wheelchairs are gate-checked, and (if you aren't flying internationally) returned at the landing gate. When traveling internationally, I couldn't get the stroller returned at the gate, which would have been nice with long layovers.

Re:Luggage?

[AK Marc]

Traveling Internationally with a stroller, it gets put in the regular hold, given back only at the final destination.

Re:Luggage?

[Zmobie]

Yea that is one of the only exceptions, you are correct. Like I put in another post, they store those separately and just bulk give them back, rather than having to sort them like an actual gate-check bag. International they can't simply because of custom regulations. Takes a lot just to get cleared to touch anything involving an international flight even if you are in the originating country...

Re:Luggage?

[toddestan]

This wasn't helped by the idjits at the TSA checkpoint allowing bags that were obviously too large through as "carry ons." The security checkpoint should be making those people go back to the ticket counter and check their bags before letting them through.

As much as I don't like the TSA, it's not really their job to be enforcing baggage policies for the airlines.

Re:Luggage?

[Drathos]

I realize it's not in their job description, but they chose to take over the only point that everyone has to go through. People can check in online and skip the ticket counter.

It's one thing for a bag that is slightly too big for the overhead on a smaller regional jet, but they're letting through the full sized bags that are blatantly oversized.

Cheaper

[wisnoskij]

Why would this ever be cheaper?

Re:Cheaper

[Mister Transistor]

I'm guessing that due to economies of scale, the more popular and longer routes are run more, so since there's more of them and more competition, they drive the prices down on them. The shorter in-between flights aren't as popular so they are more "Specialized" and cost more?

Re:Cheaper

[itzly]

Because airlines make more profit this way (assuming that not too many people know how to exploit it).

Re:Cheaper

[The Phantom Mensch]

Flights to resort locations are cheaper than major business destinations. Business travelers will pay more to fly since they're spending corporate money instead of their own while vacationers are stingy. Somehow this works even though that vacation resort requires a layover in a hub at a popular business destination.

I had a friend fly in to visit me once who found that fairs to Atlantic City were hundreds less than Newark.

Re:Cheaper

[petermgreen]

If an origin/destination pair has lots of competition the prices will be driven down to a level not much higher than the cost. If it has little to no competition the price will likely be set much higher.

Since there are often multiple routes between major locations there is likely to be more competition on the multi-hop journeys between major locations than on journeys to/from the more minor locations on the way.

Re:Cheaper

[pla]

Why would this ever be cheaper?

Because the price of (domestic) air travel has nothing to do with expenses or distance, and everything to do with marketing games.

First, how many people want to go from NY to LA or vice-versa every day? Getting as big of a slice of that pie as possible matters more than getting a few extra bucks for the ticket. How many people want to go from NY or LA to Detroit, however? Probably not anywhere near as many; But, if you fly Delta, you will pay less to stop in Detroit for a connector than you will for a direct flight. So... Just don't catch the connector. Simple as that!

You can verify this for yourself - Go to any of the major travel search sites and pick a random longish trip with one layover. Now compare the price of that longer trip against the cost of flying directly to the layover city - It will almost always cost significantly more.

If the airlines don't want people to find ways to game the system, they can make the problem vanish overnight - Stop making the system itself a game. Turn air travel into a "utility" model, with a sane, predictable pricing structure (something like $X per mile plus $Y per individual flight, plus any applicable passenger class upcharges). Instead, the entire industry would rather piss around with games and "loyalty" programs and such.

Re:Cheaper

[itzly]

they can make the problem vanish overnight - Stop making the system itself a game.

That wouldn't work, unless they all do it at the same time.

Re:Cheaper

[Headw1nd]

I'll take a crack at this, if someone is in the industry correct me.

Imagine two airline hubs, A and C. Between them is a smaller regional airport B.

Travel between the hubs (Let's use A to C for example) is cheap, relatively speaking, because of the constant demand. The airlines know their flights will always be full, so they can (and must) reduce their prices to a minimum. There is also demand for travel from A to B, and B to C, but it is not necessarily enough to fill a plane. Flying half empty planes is a huge expense, so in order to service this demand, the airline can allow a portion of its A to C traffic to route through B at a discounted rate. These travelers are flying essentially at cost for the airline. This is possible because the higher prices paid by the A to B and B to C travelers will make the profit. The problem comes in that if the A to B regional travelers try to hide in with the A to C crowd, the airline will have to raise the price of the B to C crowd even more if they want to continue flying the route. (They can't raise the A to C price as then nobody would accept the layover and would fly direct instead) Not to mention they are losing opportunities to transport people from B to C, if planes are leaving with seats occupied by phantom travelers.

Re:Cheaper

[cptdondo]

Because air line ticket pricing makes no sense. Literally. I fly a lot (as in somewhere around 100K miles a year) and ticket pricing is pretty absurd. A one-way ticket can sometimes cost 3x what a round trip does to the same destination. Flying from my home airport (a small regional destination) can sometimes lower the price of the ticket, even though I fly one extra leg and 100 miles to a major airport.

United is by far the worst of the price abusers; one reason I no longer fly United. The last time I needed to make a route change, they wanted to charge me $250 for the change, and $1200 for the "additional fare". I bought a one-way on American for $350. Of course, walking away from the second leg is "against ticket policy" so as a good drone I was supposed to cough up $1450 to United.

In my experience no other airline gouges its customers as badly as United when it comes to these sorts of policies, so it does not surprise me that they are on this lawsuit. They are also on the bottom of nearly every customer satisfaction survey; maybe the two are related? Anyone at United listening? Hello?

Re: Cheaper

[rickb928]

I can't ship a 40 lb bag from Arizona to Maine cheaper than checking it. Word.

Re:Cheaper

[pla]

That wouldn't work, unless they all do it at the same time.

If only we had some sort of, I dunno, Civil Aeronautics Board that could keep these insolvent assclowns in check.

Yes, fares have technically dropped since deregulation - The GAO found they went down a whopping 9%. Meanwhile, the overall experience of flying has gone from "fun" to "buy two seats if you don't like having 10x the risk of developing a DVT, and enjoy your complimentary three peanuts".

Re:Cheaper

[N1AK]

To give an example. British Airways were doing some aggressive promotions to get Scandinavian business for US flights last summer, which they route through their hub at Heathrow. I was able to get flights from Oslo to LA and back from Ontario to Copenhagen for ~$310 economy return. The same flights starting in London would have cost considerably more because they weren't discounting UK business at that time.

Re:Cheaper

[postbigbang]

And this guy is a hero, IMHO.

The effing games played by the monopolies need every modern legal arrow possible to surmount their bought-off fortresses.

Re:Cheaper

[itzly]

It's not guaranteed that the consumer will benefit from a predictable pricing structure. Without any flexibility to set the rates, fewer airlines will be able to play to game, and you'd end up with less competition in the end. Now, at least the average flyer on popular routes can benefit from low prices, subsidized by business travellers on shorter hops. And smart travellers can now play the game too.

Re:Cheaper

[AmiMoJo]

They problem with the utility model is that some of us rely on others paying more so our fares can be lower. Our costs would go up, we wouldn't fly, pushing fares up even more...

Re:Cheaper

[Carewolf]

It must be an American thing. In Europe you pay per leg of the travel and you can fly one way between all major airports for 50$.

Re:Cheaper

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the part that doesn't make sense to me:

The airlines know their flights will always be full, so they can (and must) reduce their prices to a minimum.

If the tickets are guaranteed to sell, why not sell them at the highest price they can?

Re:Cheaper

[Carewolf]

Or perhaps the airport taxes are lower for transit than source and destination
  In cheap flights most of the price goes to the airports

Re:Cheaper

[nedlohs]

Because, like any sane business, airlines price according to demand and not just costs.

Re:Cheaper

[nedlohs]

The idea isn't to buy a ticket to your destination that has layovers. The idea is to buy a ticket to an unpopular (and hence cheap) destination that happens to have a layover at where you want to go. And then you simply "miss" your connection.

Re:Cheaper

[LDAPMAN]

You have it backwards. The cheaper flight is A->C. The expensive flight is A->B. This is because there is MORE demand for A->B. It's kind of counter intuitive.

Re:Cheaper

[pla]

Is that before or after inflation?

Inflation-adjusted.


Because I'm pretty sure I couldn't get a flight from Chicago to LA on a day's notice in 1980 for the equivalent purchasing power of what it costs today.

Probably true - But you've compared one niche use case (and one drastically affected by improved technology, at that) against the market as a whole. Even accepting that business travel (and freight) makes up the vast majority of air traffic, most of it doesn't happen on a moment's notice.

Re:Cheaper

[king neckbeard]

The majority of most people in most fields are morons. An enormous bureaucracy does not insulate against that fact, and may often provide a large degree of protection. However, it may be that their moronic set of countless rules and factors makes prices essentially random white noise, and that random white noise is better than any coherent strategy, which would mean that their success is actually DUE to them being morons that make a decent RNG.

Re:Cheaper

[operagost]

Clearly, as there is more than one airline operating in the USA, the worst you could claim is that there is an oligopoly, not a monopoly.

Re:Cheaper

[Lumpy]

Here in the USA it's all about screwing the traveller. We have some of the dumbest laws and the most corrupt companies that are fully supported by our government.

Re:Cheaper

[postbigbang]

As an industry, a gaggle of monopolies, and true, oligopoly. Said differently: a couple of them have at least the facade of trying to be reasonable, and while admittedly planes stay in the air and land safely these days, that should have been a pre-requisite.

More than two million flight miles later, I won't fly on half the carriers in the USA, and British Airways is added to the list for multiple sins of mismanagement.

Re:Cheaper

[CohibaVancouver]

Here in the USA it's all about screwing the traveller.

If this was true, why are the airlines constantly teetering on the edge of bankruptcy with razor-thin margins? They should be rolling in cash, and they're not. Why? Because air travel is hugely competitive and a great deal for the flying public.

Re:Cheaper

[DarkOx]

That is how we got the F'ed up pricing structure in the first place, its legacy. There was a mortal fear among the pols that if certain parts of the country did not receive good airline service they would basically die.

A 737 on up can go from point-to-point pretty much anywhere in the lower 48. The airlines make their money two ways charging a premium for non-stops on popular routes like JFK->LAXetc, and second selling higher price tickets for things like JFK->DTW while at the same time filling most of that bird with JFK->DTW->{Someplace more popular} passengers.

I suspect if the airline industry had been left to develop without government intervention in the first place, routes to smaller destinations on the majors would never have been implemented.

Re:Cheaper

[mrchaotica]

What I want to know is why does anybody want to get on the plane sooner? I, for one, want to be the last person down the jetway -- waiting at the gate is more comfortable than waiting on the plane!

Now, I could certainly see paying extra to get off the plane sooner (but I suppose paying for an assigned seat closer to the front is a proxy for that).

Re:Cheaper

[just_a_monkey]

If this was true, why are the airlines constantly teetering on the edge of bankruptcy with razor-thin margins?

Maybe their core business is lobbying the government for handouts and subsidies, and they're actually really incompetent at running airlines?

Re:Cheaper

[Anonymous Coward]

I fly United exclusively and I noticed some problems with changing tickets as well. I had a round trip DCA-ORD that I bought for only $225. When I wanted to stay in Chicago an extra day, they wanted a $250 flight change fee. Instead of paying that, I bought a new one way ticket from ORD-DCA for $175 and just blew off my original return ticket. I called CS and explained this situation to them and they had no answer or reasonable explanation for how it was cheaper to just buy another ticket and blow off the other ticket. They asked that I cancel my original ticket and I refused just because. I even checked in on that original flight just to be a dick to reduce the changes they could make double off my seat.

United only charges $75 for a seat change if the change is for a flight within 24 hours of your original flight and you make the change less than 24 hours before the originally scheduled flight. Yes confusing. It is often $250 outside of that window.

Example. It is 9:00 AM Friday and your flight is scheduled for 3:00PM. It will cost you $75 to pick a new flight that leaves up until 9:00 AM the next morning. If you wait until noon to change, you can pick a flight up until 12:00 the next day for $75. If you want a flight at 4:00pm the next day? Too bad, $200.

To stay on topic. I've abandon the final leg on a few flights over the years. I had a very unique situation where I've had one way flights across the country from Seattle to Charleston SC and met my wife at the layover in Washington Dulles and drove the rest of the way to Charleston. At the time, it averaged about $200 less for a flight to Charleston than a flight direct to Washington Dulles. In the end I still had to drive and pay for gas but at least my wife did not have to drive the whole way to Charleston herself.

     

Re:Cheaper

[CohibaVancouver]

they're actually really incompetent at running airlines?

They're *all* incompetent? United? American? Virgin America? Delta? Southwest? JetBlue? Alaska? Spirit? Frontier? Hawaiian? Allegiant? Every single one of them, moving millions of people every week, they're all incompetent at running airlines?

Sorry, I don't buy it.

Re:Cheaper

[nabsltd]

Travel between the hubs (Let's use A to C for example) is cheap, relatively speaking, because of the constant demand. The airlines know their flights will always be full, so they can (and must) reduce their prices to a minimum.

This is counter-intuitive. If the flights are "always full" because of "constant demand", logic says the price can be raised.

Just like a restaurant with a one-month wait for reservations, the prices can be raised until the wait is as little as one day, but as long as the restaurant is still full every minute they are open, then raising prices will do nothing but increase profit. Likewise, as long as the same number of passengers fly per day between the two cities, then the airline would make more profit by raising prices.

Re:Cheaper

[swb]

Why wouldn't it work for a single carrier to do this, especially if they ended some of the fees and add-on charges the airlines used?

Re:Cheaper

[Freedom Bug]

You're right: the price of (domestic) air travel has nothing to do with expenses or distance. But that's because the cost has very little to do with variable expenses or distance.

The costs of airplane travel are pretty much fixed. It costs basically the same thing whether there is 1 passenger or the plane is full. Given turnover times, there's surprisingly little difference between shorter and longer domestic flights.

Re:Cheaper

[cbeaudry]

Part of the problem is unions.
The other part, is bad management.
The last, in my opinion, is holywood style accounting.

Re:Cheaper

[CohibaVancouver]

Why would this ever be cheaper?

Imagine you're flying from Portland to Orlando. The fare for that journey is determined by market forces (competition).

So United would fly you Portland -> Houston -> Orlando and American might fly you Portland -> Dallas -> Orlando.

However, the fares for Portland -> Houston and Portland -> Dallas might be different, because different market forces set those fares, e.g. there might be more business travellers on those routes, less competition etc.

Re:Cheaper

[mrchaotica]

Actually, the last time I flew, I went on a week-long vacation and shoved all my stuff into my under-seat bag. I was flying Spirit and I was too cheap to even pay for a carry-on...

Re:Cheaper

[cptdondo]

If you listen to the airlines, they have been losing money each and every year since 1947 or thereabouts. Yet they're still around, and their CEOs are making millions in bonuses and salaries. Something tells me that the airlines aren't quite telling the whole truth.

The bad airlines have died and rightfully so. But many of the others are making money, just whining about how hard it is to make money and provide decent service.

Re:Cheaper

[X0563511]

This might put things into perspective. I'm not terribly familiar with your population densities, but I'd wager a lot of your travel is in a relatively small area. This doesn't show Alaska and Hawaii either. Hawaii isn't size though but distance, so I doubt you need to see that - but Alaska is also huge.

Re:Cheaper

[X0563511]

Nobody wants to go to New Jersey, so they figure they can hike the price as the folks going there must have no choice.

(that was a joke)

Re:Cheaper

[geniice]

Compared to the european budget carries probably. Until the US opens up its market though we won't really know.

Re:Cheaper

[Talderas]

1st dibs on carry on luggage placement in overhead bins.
1st dibs on seats when there isn't assigned seating on the flight.

Re:Cheaper

[rock_climbing_guy]

Weird Al said, "I'll sue American Airlines because they sold me a ticket to New Jersey. I went there, and it sucked!"

Re:Cheaper

[Minwee]

Europe is fifteen times the size of Texas and larger than the entire USA. Let alone NY to SF, which is 20% farther than Lisbon to Helsinki or Reykjavik to Kiev

Fixed that for you. Would you care to explain how the distances involved translate into higher US air fares now?

Re:Cheaper

[squiggleslash]

Are all those airlines teetering on the edge of bankruptcy?

Re:Cheaper

[sheetsda]

Instead, the entire industry would rather piss around with games and "loyalty" programs and such.

For those that might not be aware, the purpose of those loyalty programs is so that business travelers have their corporate travel agency to get them flights on particular airlines every time they fly. The points belong to the individual, not the company. The employee collects the points which can be turned into free vacations and the airline charges the corporate account the difference.

Ironically though when you travel frequently for work the last thing you want to do is spend more time away from home.

-A former business traveller

Re:Cheaper

[Shortguy881]

Have you flown in Europe? If you have then you know the US airlines are way overpriced.

As for Razor thin margins, United made $379 million in profit in Q3.

The airline industry already has huge barriers to entry. Airplanes are really expensive, but in the US that is just part of the cost. We also have the exorbitant cost of government regulation that drives up ticket prices. Now I'm not saying all regulation is bad, just that the TSA is a huge waist of space. The combined IQ of all TSA agents almost makes a functional adult.

Because of these added barriers to entry, if all the airlines in the US suck, no other airline can come along and displace them. This has the added benefit that if one airline is in trouble, no new company can fill the void. Thus, we the tax payers have to bail them out or lose large travel areas.

Re:Cheaper

[currently_awake]

Just because the airlines claim to be broke doesn't mean they are. Football teams in the USA also claim they lose money all the time.

Re:Cheaper

[Zmobie]

Actually, airlines and airports have some of the most complicated business models you will ever see. And due to the fact that they are heavily government regulated, they do have to get fairly creative to make money sometimes. They definitely don't have near as small a profit margin as they want everyone to believe, but it is not some massive hand over fist money making business. It requires a lot of investment and upkeep capital to run them. Some of them bounce back and forth between making and losing money, but they are not completely crippled hardly ever.

Re:Cheaper

[MaWeiTao]

I guess you don't know much about business then. Yes, there are business travelers who have predictable schedules, but those are guys rare. In my experience flights are often booked only a couple of weeks before the trip, and that's if you're lucky. You might be aware that a particular project will require travel, but the exact timing of a meeting is often unknown up until the last moment.

Re:Cheaper

[Kierthos]

Because more than one airline is doing the A to C route. If airline company #1 is charging $200 for a trip from A to C, but company #2 is charging $180 for the same service, and the quality isn't that different, more people will go with company #2.

Company #1 then responds by lowering their price for the A to C route to $175. Or to $160. Whatever they can afford to set it to and still make a profit.

Re:Cheaper

[tompaulco]

Obviously, somebody has their hand in the till. There was a time when in present dollars, tickets were cheaper, fuel was about the same, pilots were paid about 5 times as much, meals on airlines were free, luggage was free and seats were roomy. As technology improved and economies of scale improved, margins should have gone up, then competition should have entered to absorb those margins and drive down prices. But that didn't happen because somebody else has absorbed the margin. I suspect that is the unions, C level executives and multiple layers of unnecessary management.

Re:Cheaper

[supernova87a]

No. The core problem of the airline industry in the US is that there are too many airlines serving each origin destination pair. Such that no airline is able to maintain a reliably profitable margin before others try to horn in and lower the price for fares.

In an industry where airplanes are very capital intensive and inflexible to acquire/get rid of, and there is very low cost to supplying additional seats to a market, any market participant will be tempted to make marginal costs by putting more availability out there. This depresses ticket prices (to the benefit of the public), but drives their industry into the ground.

Air travel is a great business for everyone except the airlines. If we want to have stable airlines, reasonable prices (which may not mean low prices), and quality service, the harsh truth is that the US will have to let a few airlines die, and not let new entrants take their place. You cannot have all of these things without doing that.

On the topic of this fare exploit, airlines have these rules so they can offer different prices to different markets. If their mechanisms for keeping people from exploiting these differences are disallowed or defeated, I think one predictable outcome is that fares rise for everyone instead.

Re:Cheaper

[jbohumil]

For me the reason to get on sooner is there is more chance of scoring overhead storage for my carry on near my seat, or even at all.

Re:Cheaper

[ShanghaiBill]

Just because the airlines claim to be broke doesn't mean they are. Football teams in the USA also claim they lose money all the time.

Football teams are privately owned, so they can say whatever they want about their profits. Most airlines are public companies, so it is a serious crime for them to misrepresent their financial situation.

Re:Cheaper

[Bob9113]

If this was true, why are the airlines constantly teetering on the edge of bankruptcy with razor-thin margins? They should be rolling in cash, and they're not.

It's a great question; from an economic standpoint, what does it mean when the price is distorted but the competitors are not highly profitable?

In a perfectly competitive and perfectly informed system, price approaches cost. If they can fly you through a hub for X dollars, they could fly you to that hub for something less than or equal to X. If that's not how the pricing comes out, the actual market is not closely approximating the theoretical free market. Therefore, the price is distorted, not natural.

So what is happening? Delve, don't say it is not happening because one of the red flags has not been raised.

Why? Because air travel is hugely competitive

The fact that there are multiple companies alone does not tell you whether there is sufficient competition. Only efficient pricing can indicate that, and we have already established that the pricing does not follow one of the most basic ideal free market laws.

and a great deal for the flying public.

On what are you basing this? The fact that lots of people consume a good alone does not indicate that it is efficiently priced. Lots of people consume lottery tickets, and they are wildly inefficiently priced as a direct result of a government monopoly (see Atlantic City for the effect of reduction of fiat monopolies in gambling). Back in the day in NYC and Boston, fire houses were for-profit operations. They would pull up in front of your house while it was burning down, and offer to put it out -- for a price. In context, it's a great deal that nearly every potential customer happily transacted, but it was not efficiently priced.

The price of airline travel not efficient. Given the laws of free market economics, that necessarily implies that we are not maximizing the productivity of this massive industry. It violates efficient pricing, but also does not seem to generate monopoly profits. What is the cause? Delve, or raise questions that further the exploration. Don't just try to shut down conversation because it doesn't match your preconceptions.

Being a fan of the free market means wanting to optimize our approximation of it, wanting to find every bug and tweak it, not dogmatic belief that we are already at the pinnacle.

Re:Cheaper

[cusco]

A lot of airlines would show a profit if the CEO and his flunkies didn't suck a quarter billion dollars a year out of them. Executive pay in the US is absolutely out of hand, and many, many companies are run in a manner that makes it obvious that their only function is to feed the execs' bank accounts.

Re:Cheaper

[unrtst]

Just because the airlines claim to be broke doesn't mean they are. Football teams in the USA also claim they lose money all the time.

THIS!
If you run a business and show loads of profit, you'll pay loads of taxes on said profit. In addition, especially in this case, users would be pissed and complaining that they were being overcharged.
Work the books so that you have a tight margin, and even run in the red a couple years at a time (at least), and you'll be better off as a company. In this case, they can also milk extra money from the government since we couldn't do without airlines.

All that said, it is an industry that is extremely expensive to maintain. Lots of room for failure, and even more room to lose money within the company (whether on purpose or not).

Anyone know someone that owns a small plane? The gas cost for a short-ish flight, split between the 2-4 passengers, can run more than a seat on a normal airline. That's not even counting the cost of the plain, maintenance, hanger fees, etc etc etc. It's pretty amazing we can fly for the prices we have now.

Re:Cheaper

[cusco]

I take it you never flew before deregulation, when there were a lot more airlines offering a lot more service with better seats and no additional fees. Ronnie Raygun has a lot to pay for down there in Hell, and the "government is the problem" meme is one of the big ones. Hope he's getting raped hourly with a porcupine.

Re:Cheaper

[PrimaryConsult]

There is a middle ground; the best class on a domestic airline is far from luxury, but better than cattle car.

Source: economy premium on ANA has the same legroom and amenities as domestic first class... *sigh*.

Re:Cheaper

[Lumpy]

I do, just look at the executives of all those airlines. They are all bumbling morons.
US airlines are ran by idiots and morons. It seems that outside the USA they can be profitable and not abuse the customer.

Re:Cheaper

[Lumpy]

You do lose money if you funnel as much of your profits away from the company to make sure your books show a loss.

Re:Cheaper

[Lumpy]

Exactly. If a CEO is making more than 6 figures, then the claims of not making money are 100% bullshit. In fact this litmus test works for any company that is claiming that they are hurting or not making money. Look at the Executives salaries. if you see anything above 6 figures for the top executives then this is 100% proof they are lying through their teeth.

If you see they had a 50% reduction in executive salaries from the previous year, then their claims have validity.

Re:Cheaper

[Lumpy]

100% correct. we have technology right now to have everyone walk down a very long tunnel in an orderly fashion, not needing to disrobe or get butt fingered. to detect any and all explosives or compounds and look for weapons. a single 100 foot long hallway will give them plenty of time for checks and rechecks of people 3 lanes wide. you can even walk in carrying your bag.

But then you will not SEE The security and experience the security. And that is the important part to the TSA and the government. you must experience the Theater. Feel the terror.

Re:Cheaper

[russotto]

If this was true, why are the airlines constantly teetering on the edge of bankruptcy with razor-thin margins?

If you can follow the money there's probably a Pulitzer in it for you. Or more likely some sort of accident.

Re:Cheaper

[xaxa]

Europe and the USA are similar in size (the Baltic and North seas have to be flown over). The EU has 500M people, all Europe has 750M, but the GP is a bit out anyway.

It's more like $100, especially if we make the comparison fairer by not sticking only to Western European cities or tourist destinations. Frankfurt to Athens at the end of March is $200 return, for example.

Non-EU places can be more, e.g. Minsk to Paris is $350-ish return.

The $50 flights are for flights between some of the key global airports (e.g. London to Frankfurt) or tourist destinations (e.g. EMA in England to Venice -- $70 return).

Re:Cheaper

[pla]

In my experience flights are often booked only a couple of weeks before the trip

"A couple of weeks" means a world of difference, as far as fares go, from "on a day's notice", the condition to which I replied.


the exact timing of a meeting is often unknown up until the last moment.

Ah, you don't mean business, you mean "business". Actually getting something productive done requires preparation. Schmoozing on the links, however? Suuure, fly first class with an hour's notice on the company dime, fuck those shareholders!

Re:Cheaper

[Technomancer]

Could it be like a movie business? Where a movie never posts a profit yet somehow everyone on the studio side is doing quite OK?
Maybe that is the business model? Take loans, run the airline, pay the loan installments, fuel costs, salaries and never make profit. Yet the stock grows and owners make money.

Re:Cheaper

[X0563511]

Huh?

Newark is the largest city (by population) in the U.S. state of New Jersey

Re:Cheaper

[Darinbob]

For a long time I actually thought business class was lower quality than standard seats. That's because I was naive and assumed businesses wanted to save money; so they'd put their workers on the cheapest seats possible and they'd have to accept it or lose their jobs. Then I was totally amazed to learn that business class was essentially first class, in quality and price, and that companies were throwing away their money to send workers to meetings they didn't need to go to.

Re:Cheaper

[mcvos]

Not entirely true. I've heard that the same thing has been true (and might still be) when travelling Brussels-Schiphol-USA. That is sometimes cheaper than simply Schiphol-USA, even on the same plane. Or maybe the EU has put a stop to this. It's certainly a sign of weird pricing shenanigans going on, and the EU is generally not a big fan of that.

Re:Cheaper

[mcvos]

Here in the USA it's all about screwing the traveller.

If this was true, why are the airlines constantly teetering on the edge of bankruptcy with razor-thin margins? They should be rolling in cash, and they're not. Why?

Because screwing the customer is actually not such a smart business plan as some business men seem to think. Screw your customers and they screw you right back.

Re:Cheaper

[spitzak]

My theory is that a competitor airline is needed.

AB airlines flys A->B, and also A->B->C. Without any other reason, an A->B->C ticket would cost more or equal to the A->B ticket.

But AC airlines flies A->C, and is charging a smaller price than AB airlines.

AB airlines decides to complete by lowering the price for A->B->C so that it is less or equal to AC airlines A->C price. But they are not competing on A->B so they keep the price higher for A->B.

Re:Cheaper

[canadian_right]

It is mainly a race to the bottom. Most travelers shop by price alone, disregarding quality. Airlines are forced to reduce fares as much as possible, which leads to minimal service, minimal margins, and a all the pricing games you can shake a stick at.

Re:Cheaper

[jrumney]

I'm guessing that due to economies of scale, the more popular and longer routes are run more, so since there's more of them and more competition, they drive the prices down on them. The shorter in-between flights aren't as popular so they are more "Specialized" and cost more?

From the article, it seems to be the opposite. A trunk route has high demand, so prices are set high. For a shorter flight on a less popular route, the airline might be having trouble filling the plane, so gives big discounts to attract more customers, including on multi-leg journeys that include that popular trunk route. It can also happen where an airline without a direct route between two points offers a better price on a two-leg flight to try to pull customers away from other airlines. I remember a few years ago reading an article about this happening in Europe, where the cheapest flights between London and Frankfurt were on Air France (via Paris) and KLM (via Amsterdam), and the price was cheaper than either leg of the flight if purchased alone.

Re:Cheaper

[Anubis IV]

You're correct that they're not all incompetent, so which is it: are they screwing travelers and lobbying government, or are they incompetent buffoons who don't know how to run their businesses?

I'd suggest it's a little of both. Take Southwest, for instance. It's the largest airline in the US in terms of passengers carried and it's doing perfectly well. Has been for years, even before it was the largest. Meanwhile, its competitors are, as an earlier poster put it, "teetering on the edge of bankruptcy". Despite the example it set, most of the other airlines have simply been doing a poor job of running their businesses and have failed to adopt better practices that have been put into place by their better-faring competitors. A prime example: not screwing the traveler was a key differentiator Southwest used to establish itself.

So yeah, a little of A and a little of B.

Re:Cheaper

[Cederic]

Clearly you've never come across Ryanair. To be less customer friendly airline they'd have to make you walk.

Oh wait - they've done that to me too. Didn't allow me to check in 20 minutes before the flight.

Re:Cheaper

[Carewolf]

Not entirely true. I've heard that the same thing has been true (and might still be) when travelling Brussels-Schiphol-USA. That is sometimes cheaper than simply Schiphol-USA, even on the same plane. Or maybe the EU has put a stop to this. It's certainly a sign of weird pricing shenanigans going on, and the EU is generally not a big fan of that.

I think that is because the direct lines get sold out first and most airlines have a structure where the tickets get more expensive as the plane is getting full. Therefore going over a larger hub like Schiphol/Amsterdam can save money especially if it is a short side-trip. If I order in the last minute, I also end up having to choose between 150€ for a direct connection or 80€ for a one stop over a larger hub. I have never seen any way prices to major hubs can be reduced the way this article is talking about. Though maybe people flying to or from Frankfurt or Vienna might want to chime in on that, I use them rarely, and if anywhere in Europe does something like that, it would be there.

Re:Cheaper

[dywolf]

the margins arent as razor thing as you believe.
and bankruptcy means soemthing totally different for big companies than it does you and me.

Re:Cheaper

[dywolf]

this.
the idea of "competition" in air travel is an illusion, in much the same way that competition in telcos is.
comcast can claim thee is comeptition because there's DirectTV and satellite in an area, but really that market is owned by Comcast.
Or Time Warner, or whomever it is in that area.

In the same way every large airport is dominated by a single company who uses it as a "hub".

Re:Cheaper

[dywolf]

Yes but you actually have regulations in Europe.
We de-regulated, which only benefits the companies. Benefits to the consumer are secondary, if they occur at all.
The idea that anything that benefits companies also benefits consumers is a popularly held (yet foolish) dogma in this country.

We make it as hard as possible for people to travel at will, and even to leave the country.
Like a crazy ex who gets defensive if you dont spend all your time and energy with him.
"Where you going? Why you want to go? Dont you like it here? You commie."

Re:Cheaper

[mcvos]

But the cheap option here is the direct connection over the hub. It's the longer flight with the layover on the very same hub, where you still end up in the same plane, that's mysteriously cheaper than the one directly from the hub. It's as if the Brussels-Schiphol part has negative value.

Re:Cheaper

[Cramer]

Correction: air travel is hugely expensive. From the price of the aircraft (~50mil) to the fuel it takes to move it around (thousands of gal) to the expense of required routine maintenance, plus the mountains of documentation of everything... If people had to maintain their car like a commercial aircraft, they'd give up their cars.

tfa says carry-on, one-way

[raymorris]

TFA says it works only for carry-on, and one-way tickets since you'd need to board a return flight at the destination you booked.

That really limits the utility for me; rarely do I fly somewhere and not want to get back home. If I was making a permanent move, I'd probably have luggage.

Re: tfa says carry-on, one-way

[omkhar]

So book 2 one ways: JFK-LAX-???, LAX-JFK-???.

You don't *have* to book that as a round trip, although if you book the return leg on the same airline you throw away ??? You might have your return leg cancelled.

Fwiw frequent fliers have known this for years. Search the forums at flyertalk.com

Re:tfa says carry-on, one-way

[jbmartin6]

I often book 2 one way trips instead of a round trip since the first airline often does not have a return flight at the time I want. I like to take the red eye flight back home so I will look for the one way trip back with the best (for me) departure time. Flying out at 11 PM gives me an effective extra day at my destination.

Re: tfa says carry-on, one-way

[operagost]

It would be great if the TSA was actually smart enough to flag items like that, and at least automatically pull those people aside for physical inspection of their carry-on. But they'd rather cavity-search babies and people in vegetative states.

Re: tfa says carry-on, one-way

[NatasRevol]

Don't forget Grandma's colostomy bags!

Re: tfa says carry-on, one-way

[oodaloop]

Why would the TSA give a fsck about people saving a few dollars on their trip? It's not an indicator of terrorism or some other physical threat to the plane.

Re: tfa says carry-on, one-way

[Dcnjoe60]

So book 2 one ways: JFK-LAX-???, LAX-JFK-???.

You don't *have* to book that as a round trip, although if you book the return leg on the same airline you throw away ??? You might have your return leg cancelled.

Fwiw frequent fliers have known this for years. Search the forums at flyertalk.com

That still won't work if you got off at Phoenix, you would need to somehow get to LAX for your return to JFK. Going JFK-LAX with a layover in Phoenix (or where ever) probably won't save you any money if the return flight is from the layover site. I regulary fly through Atlanta to get to Houston and my ticket is much cheaper than somebody going just from Atlanta to Houston.

As for the law suit, I'm curious as to the grounds? After all, this was all pubicly available information he used.

Re: tfa says carry-on, one-way

[bhcompy]

Nah, TSA isn't going to do anything about it. Rather, the airline will just blacklist you.

Re: tfa says carry-on, one-way

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, you people seem really dense about this. Of course tickets designed to get you from JFK to LAX and back won't work with Phoenix. If you wanted to do it with JFK->Phoenix, then you need two sets of one way tickets: JFK->Phoenix->elsewhere and Phoenix->JFK->somewhere else. Some airports might be difficult to find connections at, but even a lot of small places get used for small, local connections through some prop plane company affiliated with a larger airline.

And if you haven't checked before, then you might not notice how much cheaper a flight with a connection can sometimes be than a single leg of the same trip. In more than one place I've lived about an hour an half drive from a major airport (e.g. Atlanta and Chicago) and had to compare prices of flying out of a local, small airport versus taking a bus to the large airport for work related flights. I have found that flights to the local smaller airport were cheaper than a direct flight to the major airport, even though the flights to the local airport connected at the major airport to a puddle-jumper plane and used the exact same flight as the multi-leg itinerary. Sometimes it was almost half the price, probably because no one was looking for tickets to the small airport, but many wanted direct flights to the larger one.

Re: tfa says carry-on, one-way

[TheTerseOne]

Frequent fliers have known this for years - but don't do it if they want to keep their status and award miles.

However - for infrequent fliers - or fliers who don't care about status or award miles - this is the way to go.

Re: tfa says carry-on, one-way

[Jack9]

> you need two sets of one way tickets: JFK->Phoenix->elsewhere and Phoenix->JFK->somewhere else

You missed the opportunity where you can only save on half the trip and pay normally for the other half.

The idea is that even JFK->Phoenix->elsewhere and Phoenix->JFK , you still save money.

Re: tfa says carry-on, one-way

[rjstanford]

Yup. When my last company was a fledgling and we had more time than money, I was flying from Austin to Boston (through Dallas) and it saved several hundred dollars for my coworker to hop a SWA flight from Dallas to Austin and then join me on the AUS-DFW-BOS trip. Really stupid, and yes he simply got off the plane in Dallas on the way back.

Re: tfa says carry-on, one-way

[Anonymous Coward]

> you need two sets of one way tickets: JFK->Phoenix->elsewhere and Phoenix->JFK->somewhere else

You missed the opportunity where you can only save on half the trip and pay normally for the other half.

The idea is that even JFK->Phoenix->elsewhere and Phoenix->JFK , you still save money.

You can do two one way flights:

Leave: JFK -> Phoenix -> elsewhere
Return: Phoenix -> JFK -> elsewhere

It can cut the price by several hundred dollars over getting a non-stop round trip ticket.

Re: tfa says carry-on, one-way

[Drathos]

I don't know if this is still OK in the United States of Scaredy-cats, but I got on a flight at the first stop (Las Vegas, instead of my booked origin of Salt Lake City) of my booked route without issue when I was on my way home from vacation several years ago.

Re: tfa says carry-on, one-way

[AK Marc]

You buy a ticket from JFK to LAX (with a stop in PHX). You get off the first flight in PHX. You get on in PHX for the return. Long ago, they'd let you do that. Then they stopped letting you get on for leg-2 of a 2-leg trip. Then they stopped you taking a return trip when you didn't complete all the outbound legs. But now, you can still buy two one-way tickets. JFK to LAX (stop in PHX) and PHX to DC with a stop in JFK. In all cases flying only between PHX and JFK.

This article is about suing someone who assists in the last case.

It is not new.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Way back in 1994, the airlines had the practice of charging less for round trip tickets with a saturday night stay over. They also charged less for less popular destinations connecting through hubs. I got an interview call from a company that sent me two round trip tickets, Dallas-Fort Worth to Youngstown PA via Pittsburgh PA and another from Pittsburgh PA to Tulsa Oklahoma via Dallas-Fort Worth. The manager told me over phone, not to check in any baggage, and discard one leg of onward journey and the entire return journey for each of the tickets. They both had Saturday night stay over for the portion that was never intended to be used. One ticket in USAir and another in American.

It has always existed, and people and companies have always used it. All the airlines want to do is to make it more difficult to find it. If they really want to stop the practice, they could charge full fare for the popular segments and refund the money if the less popular options are actually exercised. They are not doing it that way. It is clear they want to accept it with a wink-and-a-nod to the savvy passengers and make the hurried and less informed passengers to pay a little more.

Re:It is not new.

[sh00z]

This is just about the most selfish, self-centered, obnoxious behavior I can imagine. I was a passenger on one of these flights in October. Our departure from SFO was delayed by 30 minutes because a "through" passenger was missing. Sure, *you* get a cheaper ticket, as the cost of inconveniencing the airline and 150 other people. This asshat shouldn't just be sued by the airlines; I'd be willing to join a class-action suit. If you want to try this crap, you better make sure it's not just a layover--that it's a plane change, and you *don't* check in for that last leg. Or, on return, that you only check in at the point where you actually plan to board.

Re:It is not new.

[ganjadude]

im sorry YOU were inconvenienced because I cant afford a 1 way ticket and work the system because they system is trying to work me....

Re:It is not new.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Yes, it is obnoxious and selfish. But the airlines are not saint either, they know far more about which flights are in demand, both from historical perspective and from actual booking data. They "optimize" and "maximize" by overbooking flights. They offer inducements for people to drop out, but if none do, they reserve the right to drop anyone. The airlines gouge money from less savvy passengers and passengers who try to be nice. They give deals to the most demanding obnoxious passengers. This arms race has gone so far deep, I am made to feel like a fool for playing by the rules. I keep looking at my "boarding zone 6" in my boarding pass, and people flout the queue flout the rules and do not get called by the airlines. Only when the airlines actually treat nice guys nice, they will get any sympathy from me. I am by nature too docile and will always be nice and follow the rules. But I will not join your class action law suit. The nasty passengers are exactly what the airlines deserve, it is their creation. We all suffer because of this fight between nasty passengers and nastier airlines.

Re:It is not new.

[ganjadude]

if the difference is not flying at all because i cant afford the additional few hundred bucks, so be it. Dont blame me for playing the game the airlines set up

Re:It is not new.

[operagost]

They held up a flight for a person who was late? As someone who once missed a flight by about two minutes, boy, would that be nice.

Re:It is not new.

[oodaloop]

No shit it's not new. No one says it was. This guy made the info more easily available using public info, and he's being sued over it. That's the story. And it's clearly the point of TFS. FFS, try reading.

Re:It is not new.

[parkinglot777]

Actually, regardless what wrong doing of airlines, it still does NOT give you the right to screw others who are involved in the flight, period. You may think that the airlines deserved what they do, but how about those who are in the flight? Do they deserve what you do to them? That's why it is selfish, and you should also apologize to other passengers. You should not justify your own behavior by thinking that A is bad and B happens to be tied to the situation, so screw both A and B. In the end, you are the only one who gets the benefit.

Re:It is not new.

[mrchaotica]

How is the airline's asinine policy his fault? The airline doesn't have to wait for somebody who's "late" (either accidentally or intentionally) getting back to the plane, you know.

Re:It is not new.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Incorrect ethics, I submit. The fault properly lies at the feet of the airlines. It's like blaming a hostage who ran away and so the hostage taker got mad and shot someone.

Re:It is not new.

[torkus]

Unlikely to be the same situation. FAA rules require you to be on the same flight as your baggage (unless the airline screws up and loses it on you.)

If they're holding a flight for someone, it's probably because they checked luggage and it's already been loaded on the plane. They can't leave without the person unless they remove the checked bag which is buried somewhere in the baggage hold.

Re:It is not new.

[zwarte piet]

Wouldn't work for return. They consider you as 'not showing up' and your ticket is cancelled without refund.

Re:It is not new.

[tlhIngan]

im sorry YOU were inconvenienced because I cant afford a 1 way ticket and work the system because they system is trying to work me....

Then when you check in, DON'T check in all the way. Don't put yourself on the passenger manifest of the flight you're not taking. Make some excuse like you're not sure if you'll have time to make the connection or something or you walk slowly.

In fact, missing through passengers in this day and age can easily get an airport shut down at the wrong times.

Perhaps you'll like it if you miss your holiday connection because someone else pulled the same trick? I'm sure you'll enjoy spending Thanksgiving or Christmas at an airport waiting for the next flight because your previous one was delayed from a missing passenger and you missed your connection. After all, what goes around, comes around - making travelling miserable for others mean they'll just make it miserable for you, too.

Re:It is not new.

[aaaaaaargh!]

If you buy a ticket there is no obligation to use it. It's called a free society.

Re:It is not new.

[rainmaestro]

Not true. If you miss a connecting flight, they can send your baggage on the original flight ahead to your destination and send you on a later flight. Similarly, sometimes you will make a narrow connection and your bags won't, and they'll go on a later flight. Bags can travel separately from a passenger even when the airline doesn't lose them. Happens all the time.

Re:It is not new.

[ganjadude]

i refuse to shop at wallmart, but try again

Re:It is not new.

[ganjadude]

oh i always make an excuse, and as far as i know ive never held up a flight (hell ive only done it 2 times) but the sad truth is if you want to charge me 500 bucks a ticket to go from A-B, or 200 a ticket to go from A-C, with a stop in B, im sure as hell going to take the second route, its only logical. Im not gonna spend more than I have to because of the airlines bullshit

Re:It is not new.

[Solandri]

There's actually a way to do this while complying with the airlines' rules. If you know you need to make two trips to the same destination, you simply book two cross-flights. The airlines let you book one year in advance. Say you need to make a two one-day trips from L.A. to NYC, one in February, one in November. You book two flights as such:

Flight 1 on airline A
LA -> NYC in February
NYC -> LA in November

Flight 2 on airline B
NYC -> LA in February
LA -> NYC in November

In February, you take the first leg of flight 1 and first leg of flight 2. In November you take the second legs. A variant on this uses a refundable fare - those let you change the dates of the second leg, in case you aren't sure when you're going to make the second trip. Lately though, most refundable fares have risen to more than 2x discount fares, making that strategy pointless. You can use nonrefundable fares and pay the ~$100 fee to change the second leg flight date, but usually $200 ends up being more than you save by booking a weekend stay.

These tricks work because airlines know companies don't have a choice when it comes to business travel - they must travel. So they can get away with charging business travelers a higher fare. Consequently the fares are set up in order to single out business travelers from regular travelers. The lower fares for a Saturday night stay and Tue-Wed-Thu travel are all a part of this. Business travelers hate staying the weekend (they'd rather be home with their family). And most businesses try to get the most bang for the buck from the trip by making it a Monday through Friday trip.

Re:It is not new.

[sh00z]

Not a person who was late--one who was booked all the way through, showed up for the first leg of the flight, and then deplaned at the layover without bothering to inform anyone that he wouldn't be back. Since there's no legitimate reason that such an individual couldn't make it back in time for the second leg, I'm sure the airline had to stop and make sure that (1) the individual wasn't having a coronary in a restroom or smoking lounge somewhere, and (2) that there was no terror threat due to the vanishing (unattended luggage in the cargo bay or cabin).

Re:It is not new.

[ganjadude]

i dont like walmarts business practices, you seem to think they are the only store offering good prices??? simply not true

Re:It is not new.

[drinkypoo]

In my area, they are the only ones offering low prices. Unfortunately, they are not good prices; they are selling cheap crap, and you can actually get the same cheap crap cheaper with shipping online. So even if I wanted to shop there, there would be little point. Also, their selection is for shit, like most stores they carry four or five of the same thing from different brands instead of having a selection of different products, so if you need anything the least bit unusual they will not have it.

Re:It is not new.

[ganjadude]

Exactly, For the most part i can get everything i want cheaper online. Necessities are bought from local shops which offer fair prices on better products.

Re:It is not new.

[toddestan]

The idea behind the rule is to prevent someone who wants to blow up a plane (without having to kill themselves) from checking a bag with a bomb in it, and then never getting on the plane. So if someone checks a bag and then doesn't board the plane, the plane won't fly until the baggage is removed. However, if someone happens to get separated from their luggage for reasons beyond their control, then the rule really doesn't apply and the plane can still fly.

Re:It is not new.

[Cramer]

I've had that conversation on Southwest. You aren't allowed off the plane (unless there's a real emergency) as you don't have a ticket/boarding pass for getting back on the plane. 'tho it's not like they'd stop you; if you get up and leave like everyone else, how do they know who's supposed to be staying? Of course, it does screw up their count, and can cause delays (esp. with an inexperienced crew.)

"Strictly Prohibited?"

[Anonymous Coward]

No, there is no such thing as "strictly prohibited" travel when it comes to airline tickets. They cannot compel you under threat of force to complete your travel under the contract of carriage. You have no such duty to the airline.

Re:"Strictly Prohibited?"

[Cramer]

True. But they can cancel your ticket(s) without refund, and add your name to their naughty list (i.e. blacklist you.) As with all things, read the contract to which you are agreeing when purchasing your ticket(s). Not that any airline would care to do so, but they do want to discourage the practice.

Streisand

[NotInHere]

Everybody playing streisand bingo can now yell "BINGO".

Re:Streisand

[wisnoskij]

Which very well might be what the Airlines are hoping for. If they can get loads of advertising and more passengers, with a modest "sale" they come out ahead.

What he's doing is Not illegal

[rmdingler]

Nonetheless, the 22 year old founder cannot weather the legal storm that the duo of billion dollar corporations can wage out of petty cash.

Re:What he's doing is Not illegal

[Richard_at_work]

If he's compiling the data from their websites, in violation of both the websites Terms of Service and the carriers Conditions of Carriage, then they have standing to sue, especially if they can prove torturous interference.

You think this is new? Its called "hidden city ticketing" and airlines have banned travellers before for doing it, as well as blocking previous websites attempting to do trip round ups.

Re:What he's doing is Not illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if Id trust legal advice from someone who doesn't know the distinction between "tortious" and "torturous."

Re:What he's doing is Not illegal

[retchdog]

tortious.

Re:What he's doing is Not illegal

[meta-monkey]

It is, however, within the rights and power of the airlines to refuse service to people who make use of this tactic. Book a flight with a layover and don't show up for the second leg? Get a warning email. Do it again? Business is no longer welcome here.

Don't get me wrong, I agree the airlines are playing a game anyway and I have no particular love for them (except Delta. I really like Delta). But it is their game, and the house always wins.

Re:What he's doing is Not illegal

[wonkey_monkey]

One swims and one lives on land. Duh.

Re:What he's doing is Not illegal

[jtwiegand]

It's still legal. The airlines are using civil thuggery to protect an obvious flaw in their business model, when the real solution is to just fix that particular problem.

I think proving tortious interference is impossible as well. The airline suffers no harm when a passenger doesn't show up for a flight (if anything this is a benefit), so why would a passenger not showing up for a leg of a flight be any different? Even if the ticket, terms, or anything in the relationship, constitutes an arrangement where tortious interference applies, proving that harm comes from the breach seems impossible.

Re:What he's doing is Not illegal

[Areyoukiddingme]

tortious.

The original spelling describes what the airlines do...

Re:What he's doing is Not illegal

[dywolf]

Lets test that.
Lets test the strength of TOS in regards to publicly available information.

If I plaster a bunch of information all over my website, information my customers need to use my services, do I really get to tell them how they can and cant use that information? Information that is also all over the internet, be it Orbitz, or Expedia, or Google, so its freely publicly available.

I say no.
It's akin to putting pictures on the side of my building, but demanding that no one write about what pictures are hung up in public view.

I'd wager that the only reason it ever stands up in court is because it never really gets tested, because they have more lawyers and money to throw at it than the person they go after.

how is this more expensive for the airline?

[omkhar]

If:

A to B to C costs $Z

How does discarding C cost the airline more? If the airline sees this kind of pricing is not economically feasible, just raise the price. Why are they (or we) obligated to support their loss leader model?

Re:how is this more expensive for the airline?

[N1AK]

We aren't. However airlines have made it a clear part of the terms we accept to fly with them not to intentionally do this, and have from time to time enforced them with people who do it extensively. We aren't obligated to support their model, but we aren't entitled to be immune to the consequences of breaching a contract either.

Airlines could surcharge for the actual journey

[grahammm]

One way round this issue, from the airlines point of view would be for them to charge the passenger for the actual flight taken - NY to SF in the case outlined - if both that flight would have been more expensive than the one booked and the passenger does not use the extra leg(s). I suspect most flights are booked with credit cards, so the airlines could do the same as hotels are just make an extra charge if the final legs are not used.

Re:Airlines could surcharge for the actual journey

[cptdondo]

As a frequent traveler, if an airline attempted to do this they would be sued, not just by me but by the millions of business people out there. I buy the ticket for a price. They can't come back and renegotiate the price after the fact.

Especially since the prices change on a day-to-day basis, and bear little to no relationship to actual cost.

Re:Airlines could surcharge for the actual journey

[mwvdlee]

He would use no more than what was purchased, so how would they be allowed to charge him more?

Would they be allowed to post-charge for the more expensive shorter flight too, if he somehow didn't make any part of the flight at all?

Re:Airlines could surcharge for the actual journey

[cptdondo]

I bought and paid for a journey. In the business world, schedules change a lot. I change my itinerary a lot. I fly with airlines that understand that; Alaska and American are good work with in this regard. United is not. If an airline tried to charge me more for providing me less - I paid for 3 flights and I used 2 - how does that work out? What price would they use for the surchage? The price on the day I bought the ticket? The current price? Some other totally made up price?

The problem is that airline pricing is not based on cost, it's based on time of day, marketing, and apparently pixie dust. The airline can't go back and retroactively charge me some arbitrary cost since they can't explain how they arrive at that cost.

You might have a point with "conditions of carriage" but it would be marketing suicide for an airline to try to attempt this.

Much better that they just provide a sane marketing model.

Re:Airlines could surcharge for the actual journey

[mrchaotica]

You broke the conditions of carriage and used a different product to the one you purchased

Bullshit. He missed the flight. The airline does not know, and is not entitled to know why -- it's none of their goddamn business. Maybe he missed it intentionally; maybe he was just sick in the bathroom. Either way, it is absurd for the airline to somehow contractually "compel" him to complete the flight.

Re:Airlines could surcharge for the actual journey

[grahammm]

There have been at least 2 well publicised cases of this in the UK, but on the railway not airlines. In the first, someone had a very cheap point-to-point fare and when they got off the train one stop to early they were charged as though they had no ticket. The second involved someone with an advance (ie allocated seat, specific train etc) ticket who got a lift to the stop after the origin shown on the ticket and again they had to pay full fare for the journey actually made.

Re:Airlines could surcharge for the actual journey

[PPH]

They will claim that they lost the opportunity to sell you a more expensive ticket. Of course, they might have to prove that you had the intent to bypass their fare structures. So you could just use the "I got sick in the airport bathroom" excuse and they would be hard pressed to prove you wrong. But the guy running the web site? Intent to assist a passenger with this information is easier to prove.

Re:Airlines could surcharge for the actual journey

[david_thornley]

The passenger isn't going to be legally obligated to fly somewhere, but the airline might have a legal basis to charge the passenger more. If the airline doesn't collect, it can always refuse to fly that passenger in the future.

In Soviet USA

[mamba69]

In Soviet USA you get sued for competing, rewarded for mono/duo-poly.

Re:In Soviet USA

[delt0r]

In many countries it is illegal to provide goods and services below cost. The reason is that this was often used by large corporations to create barriers of entry to smaller entities by undercutting production cost just to run them out of business. We still see this happening a lot in some industries.

Hadrly a new story

[jc42]

There's a fair amount of precedent for this sort of idiocy. One of the funniest example, which got a bit of news coverage at the time, was back in the 1970s. The US Defense Department funded a study by a couple of academics, and paid them several hundred thousand dollars to study what could be learned from public sources about US military deployment. After the study's report was submitted, it took only about 2 days for it to be classified as a US government "secret".

The press and the professional comedians had a good time mocking the US government for that one. But various people also pointed out that it wasn't the first time such idiocy had been enforced by law, in the US or in other countries. A long list of similar punishment for making publicly-available information public also appeared back then.

Maybe we can start a thread of other similar recent attempts to suppress public information. Do you know a good one in whatever country you live in?

Re:Hadrly a new story

[Anonymous Coward]

A widely known example is creating a phone book from information in other phone books. Courts have ruled that such uncreative data can not be protected by copyright.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural

Re:Hadrly a new story

[meta-monkey]

And today it's a lot easier to share these methods. His software for finding these deals can be wrapped up in a torrent. Make it a .onion site. People loooooove to fuck with the Man when the Man goes after a 22 year old. Particularly for doing something clever and helpful to the masses. The airlines just Streisanded themselves. Not that it matters much. This is only useful for one-way trips, without checked baggage. Such flights are far less common.

Also, I think it's funny that Orbitz is amongst the operations butthurt over this. I bet when they started scraping airfares and finding cheaper trips for people a shit-ton of (now non-existent) travel agents were pissed. "By making our public but difficult to compile information easily available you're ruining our profit margins!!" And Orbitz gave them the bird. Sweet, sweet...not irony. But the situation people who don't understand the meaning of the word "irony" describe with the word "irony." Comeuppance, maybe? Other-shoe-footedness?

Re:Hadrly a new story

[QQBoss]

Actually, it is funny, because Orbitz was started by the airlines themselves. They didn't need to scrape cheap airfares to lower prices as much as cut out the travel agents as middlemen:

Five airlines--United Airlines Inc., Delta Air Lines Inc., Continental Airlines Inc., Northwest Airlines Corp., and, later, AMR Corp. (American Airlines)--teamed to create a new online travel service. (American became an equity partner in March 2000; total start-up funding was around $100 million.) Together, the five founding partners controlled 90 percent of seats on domestic commercial flights. Existing computer reservations systems such as SABRE did not present competing fares in an unbiased way, said company officials.

What makes it even funnier to me is that American Airlines was one of the founding companies of Orbitz who was trying to lower prices from SABRE, which American Airlines started in 1960!!!

Re:Hadrly a new story

[meta-monkey]

TIL. Thanks!

Re:Hadrly a new story

[PRMan]

Especially if you use multiple sources instead of copying a single one.

Re:Hadrly a new story

[jc42]

Especially if you use multiple sources instead of copying a single one.

There's an old joke in academic circles, to the effect that stealing from one source is called "plagiarism", but stealing from multiple sources is called "research".

Re:Hadrly a new story

[jc42]

One of my favorite cases of such prohibitions was in a physics text for a physics course that I once took in college. One of the end-of-chapter exercises was of the form "Using the equations in this chapter, and tables X and Y at the end of the book, calculate the critical masses of the following isotopes ...". This has a reference to a footnote, which informed the reader that telling the answers to this question to an non-citizen was a felony under US federal law, punishable by N years in a federal prison. I've forgotten which textbook this was, unfortunately, or I'd include that info. I wonder if it's still in print?

Stop playing games with the courts ...

[MacTO]

I understand why the airlines price flights this way, and it benefits some consumers by reducing the cost of some flights. Yet the easily exploited flaw is a flaw of the business practice, not the consumer. If some consumers exploit it, there is no good reason to hold them accountable. It was the business' decision after all to use this practice, not the consumer's. If too many consumers exploit the practice, then the business should change the practice.

Put in other terms, using the courts to enforce the practice places too much control of a product or service that the consumer paid for into the hands of the vendor. Consumer's wouldn't be very happy if business told them they couldn't resell a product at a profit just because they bought it when there was a good sale, or if they couldn't split a meal because they bought the larger dish instead of two smaller ones. Why should they be happy about being told that they must use all of the tickets for a flight?

Re:Stop playing games with the courts ...

[Jaime2]

Consumer's wouldn't be very happy if business told them they couldn't resell a product at a profit just because they bought it when there was a good sale, or if they couldn't split a meal because they bought the larger dish instead of two smaller ones.

No, they aren't happy when video game publishers restrict resale of purchased games or when restaurants don't allow meal sharing. This is just another example of the business model that the RIAA pioneered - make your business model into law and let the government enforce it.

Re:Stop playing games with the courts ...

[Jaime2]

Are they going to seat someone else in the empty seat at your table?

Re:Stop playing games with the courts ...

[MacTO]

Oddly enough, some restaurants force customers to share meals. That is to say, customers can only order separate dishes and serve themselves according to their own tastes. Even more traditional American establishments will offer at least a few dishes in this fashion.

As for those that forbid it, I honestly don't see what their problem is as long as people don't bring in outside food. It is quite antisocial to suggest that people should not be able to accompany their friends in a restaurant just because they are sharing a dish.

Re:Stop playing games with the courts ...

[zentigger]

Put in other terms, using the courts to enforce the practice places too much control of a product or service that the consumer paid for into the hands of the vendor. Consumer's wouldn't be very happy if business told them they couldn't resell a product at a profit just because they bought it when there was a good sale...

That, in fact, is exactly the case with airline tickets already. They are non-transferrable. You cannot buy an airline ticket at a lower price and resell it later for a profit.

So called publicly available information is not necessarily freely available information. The insidious thing about the internet is the now ever present "terms of service." It has already been tested through the courts that terms of service are enforceable contracts, so by scraping information, there is a good chance that this application violates the terms of service of the website.

Airlines suck

[Charliemopps]

It was a few years ago... but when we adopted my youngest son, I had to get him a ticket to get back to the states after we completed the adoption in Africa. Our tickets were $3600 each round trip. The price was insane, but that was at the hight of gas prices and we were landing in the middle of no-where... and the flight back was literally on Christmas day. The perfect storm of airline gouging. Then I went to buy by kids 1 way ticket... $4500!!! He was flying back with us, on the same plane and it was almost $1000 more for his kids ticket. So I started taking up a collection from the family... the plane fair was going to be about 1/3rd of the total adoption and we hadn't planned on it being that insane. Then a relative of mine said the obvious... buy the kid a round trip ticket to... he'd just not be on the plane on the way there. I called the airline and sure enough that was a legitimate plan. How stupid is that?

Next time I'm taking a boat.

Re:Airlines suck

[amorsen]

Be VERY careful with that one. If you miss the outbound flight, you run the risk of having the return flight cancelled. Do it the other way around, and don't use the return flight.

Re:Airlines suck

[Charliemopps]

Thats what we did. Sorry if I gave the other impression. He had a round trip ticket from Ethiopia to the US and then back again. He never boarded the return flight. It was very sketchy though. I'd recommend talking to the airline before doing any of this. Our tickets still got screwed up every which way during the trip. Surprisingly the Ethiopian Airport was much more helpful than the US airlines. I suspect they valued their jobs more then the lazy uninterested staff I had to deal with in Chicago.

Re:Airlines suck

[Cederic]

Because there were no American kids to adopt?

Just go and live in fucking Ethiopia if you like the people that much.

Delays ?

[GavrocheLeGnou]

Isn't it going to create massive flight delays if used at large scale ?

Since you checked in your first flight they are going to wait for you on the second one, making multiple "last calls" hence delaying every other passengers in the plane isn't it ?

This is not going to make flying any more enjoyable ...

Re:Delays ?

[Hall]

No, they won't wait for you. Years ago, yeah, they might have given you some leeway. Today, airlines (well, most of them) simply don't care.

Re:Delays ?

[lamer01]

They have to find your bag and remove it from the airplane if you're not on it. So yes, that will cause delays and add cost.

Re:Delays ?

[Cramer]

I have, but our flight landed 10min late in a terminal 2 miles away.

Irrelevant

[Shoten]

Everyone's missing a significant point here: the airlines severely penalize anyone who travels in this fashion. Yes, there are insanities about their pricing models that make it possible to actually save money this way. But the first time you do it, you will get a nastygram from the airline...and if you continue to do it, they will actually ban you. Furthermore, if you're doing this on the first half of your trip, you'll find that your return flights have all been canceled; even worse, the airline will NOT be sympathetic to your plight when you call them up to try and get back home.

I wish I could remember the industry term for this practice, but suffice it to say that a database of flight options that allow you to do this is essentially useless anyways. Google it...type in "skipping the last leg of a flight" and see what you find.

Re:Irrelevant

[edawstwin]

Yes, there are insanities about their pricing models

I truly don't get this. How can you claim that a pricing model is insane when people freely pay that amount? The fare from A to B is directly related to demand for the route flown, and not for how many miles the journey is or how many stops the plane makes. It may not be ideal for the traveler, but there are many alternative methods of travel, so go another way if the price doesn't suit you. There are many things that I don't like about air travel, but weird/high pricing is not the fault of the airlines.

Re:Irrelevant

[AK Marc]

In a "free market" the price for everything should be cost-plus. If they are charging demand-based pricing, someone else should enter the market and undercut them.

They stop the practice

[aepervius]

Some airline have an "efraud" concept where for example if you try to take leg out of order, you are refused check in and even refund. Among others. Note that they are fully in their right, as you accept term and conditions, and among those conditions is that you will respect the fare conditions.

Re:They stop the practice

[Moof123]

I'm sure that about a dozen companies have rights to my first born based on all the EULA's I have clicked through. We need to end that crap.

"unfair competition"

[danknight48]

Because corporations working together, fixing pricing to rip off everyone and make extortionate profits is "fair"?
Nope, but it seems to be common practice these days.

Re:"unfair competition"

[Ken D]

airlines are allowed to have "yield maximization" algorithms, but customers are not allowed to have "cost minimization" algorithms... that would be unfair.

Let me make sure I have this

[JerryLove]

The airlines are not charging based on costs (since a flight *through* SF clearly costs more than one *to* SF but the ticket price is lower)
The airlines are not charging based on demand on the aircraft (since it's the same aircraft to SF whether you board another/stay on for a second leg or not).

Instead the airlines are charging arbitrary prices based on "what they can get away with" popularity matrixes... and they are upset that their customers are able to do similar manipulations back? Sucks to be them: Public data is public.

I am disappointed in Orbitz

[alispguru]

I can understand United doing legal crap like this.

Orbitz, however, is known for creative flight scheduling. I'm surprised skipping the last leg of a flight isn't an advanced option of Orbitz search.

Re:I am disappointed in Orbitz

[q4Fry]

Fun fact I discovered while reading this thread: United and 4 other airlines created Orbitz (and still own it).

Re:I am disappointed in Orbitz

[weav]

As covered in comments above, Orbitz is owned by a consortium of airlines. So they are just doing the bidding of their reptilian corporate overlords. Hi, Bob.

File A Fistful

[JimSadler]

Law suits don't mean much if the plaintiff loses. I doubt that many judges or juries will award a fee for such a complaint.

Re:File A Fistful

[weav]

The problem is the cost to defend it, for the 22-YO hacker.

OT: one-way

[_anomaly_]

Not really related to the skipping-a-leg-for-cheaper-airfare, but I booked one-ways for a trip to Jamaica (from the US).

Not for bonus points or miles, but because it was cheaper and provided more convenient flight times. We booked with Delta on the way down and US Air on the way back. It takes a little more work because you're shopping for plane tickets twice, but I'd bet in most cases, it's worth it.

Re:OT: one-way

[xaxa]

We booked with Delta on the way down and US Air on the way back. It takes a little more work because you're shopping for plane tickets twice, but I'd bet in most cases, it's worth it.

I booked a flight to Greece and a separate return from Albania. That flight back from Albania was cancelled a few days before. I was refunded, but I had to book another flight (with a different airline) quite close to the date, so it cost me ~£150 more than the original flight.

European regulations mean that if I'd booked it as a round trip (even if it's A to B, C to A) the airline would have to get me home at no extra expense, and compensate me if there's a significant delay.

Re:OT: one-way

[sconeu]

I did that once. One-way, no baggage, because it was cheaper and I had to book *two* return tickets (picking up a daughter from college). The flight out, I got flagged by the TSA, because I hit a profile: Single Male, no baggage, one way trip.

Couldn't check in online, had to go to the counter, where they tried to mess with my head by asking me to confirm that I was going to airport X when I was flying to airport Y.

Hey! Poster! Leave that kid alone!

[Petersko]

Leave that person their construct that allows them to believe as they like - you know, the cartoon-like image of big business lighting cigars with $100 bills while Uncle Sam pats them on the back. All of the companies must be incompetent. I mean, it couldn't be because running airlines in America is actually difficult, could it? Or that flights in America tend to be longer and therefore costlier?

No, no. Corporate greed must be it!

Re:Hey! Poster! Leave that kid alone!

[Maxo-Texas]

Business spent 3.24 Billion dollars in 2013 lobbying (and about that same inflation amount every year before that too for at least a decade).

They do this expecting to get a return on the money. Indeed, some prior studies have shown lobbying has a roughly 30:1 multiplier so that means they got about 100 billion dollars of "excess" profits in return for their 3.24 billion spent.

Lobbying often alters the rules so it is harder to enter an existing area to compete in it. Sort of like "removing the rungs of the ladder" after you have climbed up it.

The cost of an unrestricted, refundable ticket with free bags was $600 in 1975. The cost of a restricted, non-refundable ticket with narrower seats and less leg room and no bags is $508. (http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/blog/seat2B/2014/05/don-t-believe-the-airfare-spin-cost-to-travel-is.html?page=all). If you want a flight experience similar to 1975, the cost is well above $600.

Airline companies are making good profits...
http://ir.delta.com/files/earn...

Deltaâ(TM)s pre-tax income for the September 2014 quarter was $1.6 billion, excluding special items 1 , an increase of $431 million over the Sept ember 2013 quarter on a similar basi s. Deltaâ(TM)s net income for the September 2014 quarter was $1.0 billion, or $1.20 per
diluted share, and its operating margin was 15.8 percent, excluding special items

With a 24.75% profit margin, they are very profitable (XOM under 10% when oil was still high, SYY under 2%).

Re:Hey! Poster! Leave that kid alone!

[Archangel Michael]

This is where I usually would insert an overlay map of the USA vs Europe. Most people, especially Europeans, think that USA is the size of France or something, the fact is, France is smaller than Texas. Comparing smallish European countries and the myriad of travel options, doesn't really translate well to the USA.

Re:Hey! Poster! Leave that kid alone!

[Cramer]

demise of the hub system

No. Airlines still have "hubs", they just don't leave billions sitting idle and unused in a hangar (that also costs a small fortune.) If you think you can do better, there's nothing stopping you from pissing away your billions playing airline.

It's the future, things should have *improved*, not gotten worse...

You failed to factor in the increase in the number of lawyers. Airlines are simply avoiding the entire mess by taking ZERO chances with things going tits-up. In your "golden era", there were plenty of accidents due to flying in that kind of weather.

Can't eliminate carry-on

[Petersko]

It's how most people insure themselves in the short term in case the airline loses their main luggage.

Re:Can't eliminate carry-on

[Mister Transistor]

You're talking to one now. A long time ago, back in the 1980's, I went to San Mateo, and my luggage went to San Jose. That sucked - it took the airline about 3 days to track down, find my suitcase, and deliver it to my hotel. Luckily, I was staying 2 weeks, and I had (very little) extra cash to go buy a pair of underwear and socks, a toothbrush and a coat (it was a bit cold in the evenings at the time). I used to travel frequently back then for work, and this was the only time in hundreds of flights they ever got it wrong, but holy crap, what an inconvenience!

Re:Can't eliminate carry-on

[Mister Transistor]

No, people started doing that long before those days. Since the early 1980's, I would always avoid checked baggage so it would make the airport arrival much less of a hassle, not having to go to baggage claim and wait for the suitcase-go-round. Also, then I could go out the "Departures" level which was completely un-crowded when all the traffic was at the "Arrivals" area level, and jump into my prearranged ride. Unless I had a very large suitcase, for a trip of over a week, I would never check luggage. Plus, it avoided the "lost luggage" horror completely that way.

Of course, eventually that led to jerk-offs trying to bring their entire baggage as carry-on, even if they had 3-4 bags per person. This led to over-stuffed bins and extended boarding and leaving sessions, so after it got to a certain obnoxious level, the airlines started first limiting the size and number of carry-ons, then eventually charging for them.

Re:Can't eliminate carry-on

[MooseTick]

I only travel a couple of times a year, and its happened 3 times in the last 5 years. Twice was my luggage lost. Once was traveling to Rome. I got it back 2 days later The other time was returning home so it wasn't a big deal because I got it a few days later also. Then, once traveling to London my bag was eaten by the airport belt system and 3/4 of my clothes were destroyed. I had a shoe literally ripped in half. Also, several other items were melted due to heat buildup. I'm surprised it never caught fire. All that said, I'd never check a laptop, medicine, or anything of value I couldn't replace easily.

Re:They're biting the wrong person here...

[PPH]

There is no second leg user. The flight from New York to Lake Tahoe through San Francisco is cheaper than New York to San Francisco. So you just step off the plane in S.F. Your seat on the remaining leg goes empty.

Whose problem is this, anyway?

[spaceyhackerlady]

The airlines exploit their customers with stupidly complicated fare structures and somebody finds a way for customers to exploit the airlines. This is a problem?

You don't need computers or web sites for this. Some years ago I moved from B.C. to Ontario. The travel agent (yes, it was a few years ago...) sold me a round-trip ticket from Vancouver to Toronto at a fraction of the cost of a one-way ticket. I didn't use the return leg. Is Air Canada going to sue me?

...laura

Re:Whose problem is this, anyway?

[edawstwin]

Is Air Canada going to sue me?

No, but if you do that multiple times, they will likely ban you from flying with them.

Airlines need a new business model

[Moof123]

We are overdue for some regulation to bring sanity back to flying. Our family actively avoids flying due to the high annoyance level that has been created.

I would really like to see:
1) Per leg pricing. Let me (or an automated service) build my trip out of the Lego pieces to achieve the trip I want, with the layovers I want, for the price I want.

2) Uniformity of pricing data. Require all carriers to present prices with all taxes and fees included, no exceptions. 1 checked bag per passenger must be included in the ticket price to get rid of the overhead bid disaster that the checked bag fees have created. None of this fuel surcharge BS either.

3) Prices to be locked in and can only be lowered. Everyone gets a partial refund if the final price is lower than they paid. No more of this gouging folks who have a last minute emergency. You can get bereavement fairs, but caregivers are SOL if you have to fly out for someone's final days.

4) 3 sigma seat sizing. Being born tall should not doom you to have to pay extra to be comfortable while flying. Airlines have proven they will race to the bottom on amenities like leg room. They should be regulated more tightly so that we can all comfortably travel.

5) Automatic penalties for delays. My time is money, any arrival delays beyond the advertised time of arrival should get an automatic 10% per half hour refund up to 100%.

Re:Airlines need a new business model

[Nkwe]

While this is a nice list, are you prepared to to pay a lot more for every ticket in order to get the consistency that you want? Airline pricing is the way it is because it allows the airlines to make a mostly predictable profit under very thin margins. If the airlines are forced to adopt your list, they would still need to make a profit and would have to significantly increase ticket all prices to ensure their profit. This is because the current pricing model is vary dynamic (daily / hourly price changes) based on the expected number of passengers. You are suggesting the the pricing model no longer be dynamic. The airlines would not accept the risk of losing money and would have to increase the (proposed non-dynamic) prices.

Re:Airlines need a new business model

[jonwil]

The problem with #1 is that whilst airline A might fly from city A to city B via city C (because it has a hub in city C), airline B might have its hub in city B instead and might have a direct flight. So airline A has to price its flights to city B at similar prices to airline B to get passengers even though it actually costs them more than airline B.

#2 I agree with, having a uniform "this is the price you will pay" displayed based on the trip options you select and your location (to cover any taxes etc you need to pay) will make it easier to compare things. No more adding surcharges after you start the booking process.

As for checked baggage, the way to go is to have a strict size limit for carry-on baggage enforced at the gate (no more bringing massive suitcases as carry-on to avoid the checked baggage fees) where anything bigger than the size limit is required to be gate-checked (which needs to attract a fee higher than it would have cost if you had just checked it in the first place). Doing this will encourage people to pre-purchase checked baggage with their ticket but without penalizing those who genuinely CAN get away with just carry-on (carry-on that meets the size limit)

#5 wont work, a lot of the time the delays aren't due to things the airline can do anything about like weather. No way should the airline be required to compensate passengers for delays beyond their control.

Travelocity

[tepples]

What makes it even funnier to me is that American Airlines was one of the founding companies of Orbitz who was trying to lower prices from SABRE, which American Airlines started in 1960!!!

Sabre is still around, operating as "Travelocity" in North America and "Last Minute" in Europe. Travelocity used to be called Eaasy Sabre back when it was on CompuServe, GEnie, and old-skool AOL.

Re:Everyone involved in this

[desdinova 216]

I wouldn't shoot everyone with United, Leave the pilots, flight attendants and ground crews intact.

Gate check like a stroller

[mveloso]

When you gate check a stroller, you get the stroller at the next hop, not at your destination.

You can also gate-check your bag, and it gets dumped into the normal cargo hold and meets you at the final destination. That's not the one you want.

Be sure you do the right one.

Re:Gate check like a stroller

[AK Marc]

Not traveling internationally, but I've found that the case flying domestically.

Not true

[edawstwin]

They have to find your bag and remove it from the airplane if you're not on it. So yes, that will cause delays and add cost.

That's not true, or at least it isn't for some airlines. I missed a flight after checking my bag once due to an extraordinarily stupid airline employee and an unusually long security line, and my luggage went without me. To make matters worse, I was put on another airline's plane, and when I got to my destination, I had to wait four hours for my original airline's baggage office to re-open because they only operated two flights a day into/out of that airport, and didn't have full time staff. So delays and costs were involved, but certainly not for the airline.

Re:Not true

[Cramer]

It's an FAA requirement... if you aren't on the plane, your bags aren't to be on it either. Obviously, there are mistakes and failures to enforce it. Yes, it's merely more Security Theater(tm): (a) people most certainly will blow themselves up for their cause, and (b) aren't they supposed to be inspecting all this luggage?

(It's a bit stupid when you learn you can (or could) buy "air cargo" on commercial passenger craft. I once joked about flying an order from Bojangles to Oregon.)

Can be done tommorrow!

[edawstwin]

Here's an idea: Start your own airline with these features and see how long it lasts.

Re:Can be done tommorrow!

[azereal]

He isn't setting the parameters for one airline, he is setting the parameters to set up a efficient competitive market via regulation. As previous posters have argued there seems to be significant evidence that air travel is not currently an efficient competitive market.

Re:Can be done tommorrow!

[gnupun]

1) Per leg pricing.

Here's an idea: Start your own airline with these features and see how long it lasts.

Why won't it last? If airlines charge more for traveling less distance, then they must be making a profit on both the popular (short-but-expensive) and not-so-popular (long-but-cheap) routes. You don't go out of business if you're making a profit.

Re:Can be done tommorrow!

[edawstwin]

Just implementing this aspect would likely not result in airlines not making a profit, but they would make less of a profit than they currently do, and the point of a business is to make as much profit as possible. There's nothing wrong with charging as much as the market will bear. We all want cheap and plentiful non-stops to every point in the country, but that's just not realistic.

Re:Can be done tommorrow!

[edawstwin]

Those proposals would hardly make things more efficient. Certainly for the traveler, but (as another reply pointed out) ticket prices would skyrocket and the amount of work each airline has to do would similarly increase. The first part of #2 is already present on every airline's website - there are no hidden fees waiting for you at checkout, unless you count options like wi-fi and early boarding. But every single other proposal (especially #4) would be a nightmare for airlines to implement. If airline travel was the only way to get somewhere, then more regulation would make sense, but we can go by car, train, bus, or boat, so forcing airlines to change their product so drastically because most deem it inconvenient is just not reasonable.

Re:Can be done tommorrow!

[gnupun]

There's nothing wrong with charging as much as the market will bear.

Then what's wrong with consumers picking the cheapest available option? The airlines should have no right to sue this clever person.

Re:Can be done tommorrow!

[messymerry]

Yes, and these glorious benvolent corporations have devolved over the past 50 years into soulless beasts that will eat your soul for a nickel. I had a 16" oscillating fan that was built in the 60s that was still running just fine in the late 80s when I gave it away. Sure, you had to oil it a couple of times a year, but that was designed in. FUCK the 21st century corporations. They are even more evil than .gov. I DREAD having to contact any large corporation today.

Re:They're biting the wrong person here...

[neminem]

That's still against the rules. If you do that and you have a return flight, you're very likely to find your return flight canceled. If you do it often enough, you're likely to have all your frequent flier miles revoked, too. It's not *illegal*, but it *is* generally against airlines' rules, and they're completely within their rights to punish you for doing this.

It is completely back-assward that there's even a reason to do this, but that's the way it is.

Dear Orbitz and Uinted

[Ralph Spoilsport]

FUCK YOU.