LondonElite

Your example is just hidden-city ticketing, though. The previous two posts contemplated (in your scenario) BOS-CVG-ORD-CVG. I suspect if you price another ORD-CVG segment, it won't make financial sense.

sethb

ORD-CVG is $381, so BOS-CVG-ORD-CVG is still less (only a little, true) than BOS-CVG. That's the scenario I invented.

When a sort-of-similar thing happened to me some years ago (PMNW) (I flew NYC-SAN-BRD-NYC, returning Monday; I needed to be back in BRD Wednesday, so I bought NYC-BRD-NYC. I asked about just not taking the BRD-NYC-BRD segments,) and was told I'd have to pay a lot of money not to. So I collected 3K+ extra miles.

LondonElite

The thought of actually doing that would drive me mental!

pinniped

I understand that part...I was wondering more about this theoretical two-tariff, three-segment open jaw itin that was pricing out at fairly close to a "regular" hidden-city opportunity.

To use the example:

- BOS-CVG, $524
- BOS-ORD, $123 (via CVG)
- BOS-ORD-CVG, ??? (BOS-ORD via CVG)

If the ??? was somewhere in the neighborhood of $175-200, a would-be hidden-city buyer might buy it for the irrops protection, knowing he/she can't get stuck in Chicago.

But if it's $504, then why bother...you either buy the hidden city and take the risk, or you just book the nonstop.

For this to work you need all of the following to be true:
- Your hometown to fortress hub = absurdly expensive. (That's the easy part.)
- Your hometown to some third city = crazy cheap. (Not so hard part.)
- Third city to fortress hub = crazy cheap. (This is the hard part.)
- One airline pricing all of this on one PNR in response to competition and routing through your desired fortress hub. (Somewhat hard part.)

If ORD-CVG had a big dose of Frontier (to pick a random one), then it could work.

Wonder if Denver or Atlanta would be a more likely application of this concept? Isn't Cincy a pretty nasty fortress hub for everybody in every direction?

Yeah, at some point you can way overthink this...

nkedel

Honestly, I can see a lot of FTers doing it intentionally, just to get the extra miles, even if the circuitous route was marginally more expensive because of PFCs.

I have to be in Asia this fall and am debating taking advantage of a fare someone found from EZE-PVG; SFO-JFK-EZE-DFW-PVG-HKG is a lot of miles, even if SFO-DFW-HKG is cheaper.

PenaltyBox

The airlines pretty much bring these issues on themselves. There is no way a multi-leg trip can cost an airline less than a single-leg trip on the same initial routing. Either they're way overcharging for the non-stop to make up for the lack of revenue on the multi-leg trip or the price for the multi-leg trip is below the actual airline's cost just to keep the traveler on their planes. I realize the airlines are free to charge whatever they want but sometimes the ridiculous fare differences only invite creative actions by passengers.

I'm returning from the Middle East later this year (for the final time) and so I only need 1-way transportation. The 1-way J fare is $4,600 and the round trip J fare is $2,400. J fare 1-way and Y fare on the return is $1,900 total. What would you do if you were paying for the ticket out of your own pocket?

Mike Jacoubowsky

What would *I* do? At those prices, it might make sense to buy the miles for an award ticket. Something I'm surprised more people don't do, although that's likely a klunky practice for business trips.

But you're right, it does border on the absurd to price a round trip so much less expensively than a one-way, and I think it encourages people to look for opportunities to exploit the system to their advantage, breaking rules where they likely won't get caught. How can that be a good thing?

nkedel

That depends on your definition of the word "cost." The fixed costs of a seat a-b + a seat b-c are always going to be equal to or slightly higher than a-b plus b-c.

They will usually be higher than a seat a-c, but there are some circumstances where it isn't (biggest one being if a-b + b-c are on more efficient planes, or if the shorter routes mean lower crew costs.)

Those aren't the only two reasons. (Also sometimes the non-stop is cheaper, to begin with.)

Given that it's half of a round trip, I'd have no particular worry about doing the throw-away. Plus depending on the airline, you probably won't, but you might be able to cancel the return, and reuse part of the ticket value for credit.

Mike Jacoubowsky

It's not so much dependent upon the airline as it is the rules of the ticket. In many cases, regional restrictions in the ticket's rules require that residual value be applied to a ticket with the same restrictions. For example, a cancelled return ticket from LIM to SFO from last November had some value left to it, but only for other tickets in the same region. Of course, it took the "rate desk" 45 minutes to figure that out.

sethb

If you're talking about connections, remember, what matters is supply and demand and marginal costs and revenues.

I'd buy the cheapest one with the furthest-out return, planning to take the return as part of a visit or something 11 months later.

Then, when they change the schedule, ask for a refund on the return.

nkedel

Yes, even within a given airline this will be highly dependent on the given fare rules (and might -- or might not -- depending on the fare rules and one's future travel plans, in his example it MIGHT be a reason to spend the $2400 on the discount J RT rather than the J out/"y back")

OTOH, these things do also vary a lot between airlines at least at which given cost level they put a level of restriction on.

I like it!

elusive1

Make new FF account using middle name, fly with that for a while, merge them later on

PenaltyBox

By "costs" I mean the variable costs associated with actually flying a person from point A to point B. Additional fuel, PFC, meal/drinks, A/C wear and tear etc. Fixed costs will be the same whether the planes flies full or empty...crew, insurance, landing fee etc. If the ticket price is $100 to fly ABC-ORD-ABC and $200 to only fly ABC-ORD, of course people will buy the $100 ticket and simply not use the return. This brings in less $ for the carrier and prevents the carrier from selling the return seat for the full price if the original pax simply does not show up for the return instead of actually cancelling the return portion of the ticket with some advance notice.

In my case, the segment breakdown prices make absolutely no sense at all. Identical routing both directions....AAA-YYZ-ORD-ZZZ and return: ZZZ-ORD-YYZ-AAA. The westbound segments prices out at $1,400ish (J) and the return 3 legs combined price out at $201 (Y). Definitely not worth trying to refund a $201 coupon and raising any suspicion.

nkedel

Thanks to their ability (and frequent intent) to overbooking flights, I'm not sure it does keep them from selling the return seat at full price. It may even improve their ability to get more money for the return seat, because the cheap fare bucket is one seat closer to sold out.

Overall, who "wins" in that situation totally depends on passenger loads; they are already betting that they can sell a few more tickets than they actually seat (happens on some flights, bet fails on others) and that a few people will not end up flying (whether by accident or intent, and whether they end up flying other flights or not flying at all.)

It's a crooked game; the airlines win either way. If you do fly the return, you've filled up a seat at a cheap fare they expect to be vacant -- if you don't fly the return, well, they may be out the higher fare for the one way, but you've also either paid for a seat on the return that would have been empty anyway, OR you've let them accommodate someone who they'd have had to accommodate otherwise.

I doubt changing it would generate any suspicion, if you've not made a habit of throw-aways; for example, people fly out to possibly start a job with a return ticket in-hand all the time. People flying back from overseas gigs decide not to go back all the time. That said, change fees on a ticket like this are usually based on the most restrictive leg of the fare and $201 in residual fare might not even cover the change fee.

modern

Here is the AA letter: https://web.archive.org/web/20120411...p&locale=de_DE

Ticketing - Hidden City Sample Letter

Dear,

Let me take the opportunity to clarify American Airlines position on hidden city or point beyond ticketing. Purchasing a ticket to a point beyond the actual destination and getting off the aircraft at the connecting point is unethical. It is tantamount to switching price tags to obtain a lower price on goods sold at department stores. Passengers who attempt to use hidden city tickets may be denied boarding, have the remainder of their ticket confiscated and may be assessed the difference between the fare paid and the lowest applicable fare.

Because we compete with other airlines with different route structures, we sometimes find it necessary to give a traveler who is traveling beyond a connecting point a better price than travelers who are just traveling to the connecting point. For example, a passenger who is traveling to Austin, Texas from Los Angeles can go on one airline via Phoenix for a price that is lower than the cost of traveling on American between Los Angeles and Dallas. If we want to offer the same price to Austin as the other airline, but the only way we can get travelers there is via Dallas, we find ourselves charging the Austin passengers less than the Dallas passengers.

Although the issuance and usage of hidden city tickets is not illegal in the sense that one could be fined or sent to jail by the government, it is unethical and a breach of a passengers contract with AA. Both tariff rule 100AA and American's Condition of Carriage, which are incorporated into every ticket sold by American as part of our agreement to carry the passenger named on the ticket, bar hidden city ticketing. In addition, it violates the agencies' contract to act as an agent for American Airlines.

If American Airlines continues to lose revenue as a result of hidden city transactions, the fares we charge must inevitably rise.

Sincerely,