what to do when airline warned me about numerous throw-away ticketing? ($95 vs $497)
#781
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,404
what rationale exactly?
That's the whole point - they haven't been able to come up with anything other than 'we don't think it's ethical' - but can't tell you why.
'we will charge passengers on connecting flights a reasonable price compared to gouging pax on individual segments' is not a reason.
That's the whole point - they haven't been able to come up with anything other than 'we don't think it's ethical' - but can't tell you why.
'we will charge passengers on connecting flights a reasonable price compared to gouging pax on individual segments' is not a reason.
#782
Join Date: Jan 2008
Programs: QFF WP
Posts: 379
Arbitrary rules fail them. A rule requiring me to fly with red underwear on or pay twice as much would be treated with the similar contempt it deserves.
The aircraft they use is irrelevant.
If a plane is flying from A to B to C, regardless of whether a passenger has bought a ticket from A to B, or A to C, then clearly the flight from A to B is a subset of the flight from A to C.
We know you can get off, it's just not what you've agreed to pay for!
It would be interesting to know how many of the "ethical warriors" in this thread would be happy to buy an obvious mistake fare (say, priced at $150 instead of $1500), then get all high and mighty if the airline cancelled their purchase after discovering the error. My guess is: most.
#783
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 21,621
You and I may not like it, but their rationale is that they want to charge whatever the market may bear for AAA-BBB even if that price is higher that what the market will bear for AAA-CCC (possibly via BBB). Since this is a free market (prices are no longer decreed by the Civil Aeronautics Board) the airlines have that pricing freedom.
If the government regulated prices, I would expect that the AAA-CCC price would increase but the AAA-BBB price would not decrease. It's ironic that hidden city users take advantage of the price benefits of deregulation while they decry the fact that the AAA-BBB price is so high relative to the hypercompetitive AAA-CCC pricing.
If the government regulated prices, I would expect that the AAA-CCC price would increase but the AAA-BBB price would not decrease. It's ironic that hidden city users take advantage of the price benefits of deregulation while they decry the fact that the AAA-BBB price is so high relative to the hypercompetitive AAA-CCC pricing.
#784
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Redwood City, CA USA (SFO/SJC)
Programs: 1K 2010, 1P in 2011, Plat for 2012,13,14,15 & 2016. Gold in 17 & 18, Plat since
Posts: 8,826
what rationale exactly?
That's the whole point - they haven't been able to come up with anything other than 'we don't think it's ethical' - but can't tell you why.
'we will charge passengers on connecting flights a reasonable price compared to gouging pax on individual segments' is not a reason.
That's the whole point - they haven't been able to come up with anything other than 'we don't think it's ethical' - but can't tell you why.
'we will charge passengers on connecting flights a reasonable price compared to gouging pax on individual segments' is not a reason.
If you can make the leap of faith such that seat cost isn't driving you mad, why are hidden city issues so tough to rationalize? From your perspective or the airlines?
It's an irrational system, from a passenger's perspective. From the airline's perspective, it works. The passengers aren't going to change anything, not as long as the business model is based upon profit and this structure is clearly profitable. Someday, you might see an alternative, an airline willing to buy you from somebody else by offering you a lower fare in some manner or other. But that's not today. Nothing is going to change for a while.
#785
Join Date: Jan 2008
Programs: QFF WP
Posts: 379
Pretty standard business practice, especially for big companies with comically opaque pricing structures and significant market power.
However, there is no fraud going on here. Certainly not in any sense that the typical punter would conceive it. The airline has all the vital information in the transaction to assess whether or not it is at fair value, the customer essentially zero. The one piece of information they do have - the price of a slightly different service that achieves the same end result - leads only to a conclusion of price gouging. The customer is reacting to the information asymmetry in a perfectly rational and quite ethical way.
Last edited by drsmithy; Sep 23, 2014 at 3:04 am
#786
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: DL PM, MM, NR; HH Diamond, Bonvoy LT Gold, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Diamond, others
Posts: 12,159
No, for tax accounting purposes I don't have a loss because I never booked the profit (see my other example).
#787
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: DL PM, MM, NR; HH Diamond, Bonvoy LT Gold, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Diamond, others
Posts: 12,159
How about this happening:
You buy a ticket AAA-BBB-CCC. You get on the first segment, then BBB gets socked in by weather, and the flight diverts to CCC. The airline tells you you're done, it has real passengers it has to re-route to their destinations. How successful do you think you're going to be demanding that they fly you to BBB then back to CCC? (You can probably get mileage credit for the ticket as purchased, but that's a separate example.)
You buy a ticket AAA-BBB-CCC. You get on the first segment, then BBB gets socked in by weather, and the flight diverts to CCC. The airline tells you you're done, it has real passengers it has to re-route to their destinations. How successful do you think you're going to be demanding that they fly you to BBB then back to CCC? (You can probably get mileage credit for the ticket as purchased, but that's a separate example.)
#788
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 21,621
How about this happening:
You buy a ticket AAA-BBB-CCC. You get on the first segment, then BBB gets socked in by weather, and the flight diverts to CCC. The airline tells you you're done, it has real passengers it has to re-route to their destinations. How successful do you think you're going to be demanding that they fly you to BBB then back to CCC? (You can probably get mileage credit for the ticket as purchased, but that's a separate example.)
You buy a ticket AAA-BBB-CCC. You get on the first segment, then BBB gets socked in by weather, and the flight diverts to CCC. The airline tells you you're done, it has real passengers it has to re-route to their destinations. How successful do you think you're going to be demanding that they fly you to BBB then back to CCC? (You can probably get mileage credit for the ticket as purchased, but that's a separate example.)
#789
Join Date: Jan 2008
Programs: QFF WP
Posts: 379
So, as mentioned, you haven't actually lost anything, you just haven't made as much as you thought you might have.
It's a bit like someone who puts notches on the bedpost for the women he says he could have taken home from the bar, but didn't.
#790
Join Date: Jan 2008
Programs: QFF WP
Posts: 379
#791
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SEA (the REAL Washington); occasionally in the other Washington (DCA area)
Programs: DL PM 1.57MM; AS MVPG 100K
Posts: 21,368
we can have an ethics debate, or we can have an economics debate ... it gets really difficult to stay on the flight plan when an aspect of either gets introduced into the conversation about the other
imo the ethics are pretty clear, at least in a simplistic and literal interpretation of what an airline ticket represents: it's not exactly ethical, for the sole purpose of paying less, to buy a ticket that one has no intention of using ... that said, I freely admit to having done it on an occasional basis on various airlines since 1976, and I have never slept any the worse at night for doing so
the economics side of the question is much fuzzier, though, because the airlines' opaque and seemingly illogical -- at least to some -- pricing structures are probably what have driven people to use hidden-city ticketing ... I suspect that many if not most people are fundamentally motivated to minimize their cash/credit outlays, and that in many if not most cases their risk/reward assessments regarding unethical behavior come down very heavily on the reward side
however, when the risk turns to reality (e.g., the individual winds up at the ticketed destination as a result of IROPS, or the airline comes after the individual or their FF account), I also suspect that at least some of these people seldom acknowledge that the situation is a direct consequence of the action that they probably knew was iffy in the first place
imo the ethics are pretty clear, at least in a simplistic and literal interpretation of what an airline ticket represents: it's not exactly ethical, for the sole purpose of paying less, to buy a ticket that one has no intention of using ... that said, I freely admit to having done it on an occasional basis on various airlines since 1976, and I have never slept any the worse at night for doing so
the economics side of the question is much fuzzier, though, because the airlines' opaque and seemingly illogical -- at least to some -- pricing structures are probably what have driven people to use hidden-city ticketing ... I suspect that many if not most people are fundamentally motivated to minimize their cash/credit outlays, and that in many if not most cases their risk/reward assessments regarding unethical behavior come down very heavily on the reward side
however, when the risk turns to reality (e.g., the individual winds up at the ticketed destination as a result of IROPS, or the airline comes after the individual or their FF account), I also suspect that at least some of these people seldom acknowledge that the situation is a direct consequence of the action that they probably knew was iffy in the first place
#792
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: MCI
Programs: AA Gold 1MM, AS MVP, UA Silver, WN A-List, Marriott LT Titanium, HH Diamond
Posts: 52,565
I've seen that AA letter before: I think it's intended mainly for travel agents who enable hidden-city or throwaway ticket repeat offenders.
That's rich that AA is unilaterally declaring hidden-city unethical. The entire reason it exists is because of anticompetitive practices by airlines at their fortress hubs, with the particular example they used (AUS vs. DFW) enabled by AA, through its political cronies, by preventing other airlines from fully competing in the Dallas area.
Cute that they throw LAX into their example. There's probably nowhere in the world from which a passenger would book AUS as a hidden-city to get to LAX. That example is 100% about AA and Texas politics, nothing more, nothing less.
That's rich that AA is unilaterally declaring hidden-city unethical. The entire reason it exists is because of anticompetitive practices by airlines at their fortress hubs, with the particular example they used (AUS vs. DFW) enabled by AA, through its political cronies, by preventing other airlines from fully competing in the Dallas area.
Cute that they throw LAX into their example. There's probably nowhere in the world from which a passenger would book AUS as a hidden-city to get to LAX. That example is 100% about AA and Texas politics, nothing more, nothing less.
#793
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bangkok or San Francisco
Programs: United 1k, Marriott Lifetime PE, Former DL Gold, Former SQ Solitaire, HH Gold
Posts: 11,886
There is also something called detrimental reliance.
But this rule is very clear. You buy a ticket A to B to C and you weren't aware of the B to C leg?
But you didn't agree to a subset, did you?
It's not arbitrary. It's marketing and load management. Do I understand it all? No, and I'd say most don't. But if you think the airlines are simply sitting around at a table drinking and saying "How about $400 from A to B?" you're mistaken.
It's not arbitrary. It's marketing and load management. Do I understand it all? No, and I'd say most don't. But if you think the airlines are simply sitting around at a table drinking and saying "How about $400 from A to B?" you're mistaken.
#794
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 21,621
Sometimes the market price from AAA to CCC is lower than the market price from AAA to BBB for other reasons. The advantage of market pricing is that you don't need to know the reasons, and nobody really knows the whole story. You only need to know the price to make your decision to buy or sell.
FWIW, I agree that it's unethical of airlines to mark up their monopoly route prices, especially if other carriers do not have any reasonable way to enter that market.
#795
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: MCI
Programs: AA Gold 1MM, AS MVP, UA Silver, WN A-List, Marriott LT Titanium, HH Diamond
Posts: 52,565
I don't know the intricacies of WN's pricing model, but if MCI-DAL was ever pricing at $497, there would be no point beyond DAL that I could book at $95. Perhaps an extreme example going all the way back to the OP, but the main reason is that for Southwest to have a $497 fare, it's probably due to real demand. (i.e., that flight is sold out except for AT/BS fares.) For DL to have a $497 fare to DTW, that plane could still be rather empty and selling $95 seats to GRR or whatever.
Southwest has fewer monopoly routes and less "weirdness" in their pricing model. Therefore fewer opportunities for a wildly lucrative repeat hidden-city strategy. But I'll concede a few could be out there somewhere...