Cheaper to fly more flights?
So confused. Why is it £2 cheaper to take the exact same london to washington flight. but with two "free" flights to and from Glasgow?
|
Originally Posted by cupsandsaucers
(Post 29145332)
So confused. Why is it £2 cheaper to take the exact same london to washington flight. but with two "free" flights to and from Glasgow?
|
|
Supply, demand, competition, etc.
Why can it be £2000 cheaper to fly DUB-LHR-JFK rather than just LHR-JFK ;) |
So why not just not turn up for the DUB part?
|
Originally Posted by cupsandsaucers
(Post 29145355)
So why not just not turn up for the DUB part?
|
Originally Posted by Cymro
(Post 29145364)
Because it's sold with a condition that you have to fly it in order, and that if you don't turn up, your remaining flights are cancelled.
|
I thought with your vast travel knowledge and expertise that you would know all this stuff already, right?
|
Originally Posted by cupsandsaucers
(Post 29145370)
Oh ok. I think I follow. So it's assuming people from London will want a direct flight. However from Glasgow I may be tempted to fly direct on another carrier, ergo they tempt me to BA with a lower fare? (overall)
On the other hand, if you start from INV and go IAD but return from BWI instead, it's only £777 in WTP. |
Originally Posted by rossmacd
(Post 29145392)
I thought with your vast travel knowledge and expertise that you would know all this stuff already, right?
|
Originally Posted by cupsandsaucers
(Post 29145370)
Oh ok. I think I follow. So it's assuming people from London will want a direct flight. However from Glasgow I may be tempted to fly direct on another carrier, ergo they tempt me to BA with a lower fare? (overall)
|
Last summer I found that it was $700 cheaper to fly 109 miles from MSN to ORD rather than take the bus to start a TATL. Ironically the flight was cancelled owing to a thunderstorm and there were no seats to connect to the next available TATL so I took the bus anyway at my own expense. I thought it better not to ask for a refund for the MSN-ORD leg.
|
You certainly came to the right place to get the answer to that question.
|
Originally Posted by cupsandsaucers
(Post 29145418)
You going to be able to give me a bit more information on that passive aggressive little cat scratch? What are you talking about.
|
Originally Posted by cupsandsaucers
(Post 29145418)
You going to be able to give me a bit more information on that passive aggressive little cat scratch? What are you talking about.
|
Originally Posted by cupsandsaucers
(Post 29145370)
Oh ok. I think I follow. So it's assuming people from London will want a direct flight. However from Glasgow I may be tempted to fly direct on another carrier, ergo they tempt me to BA with a lower fare? (overall)
|
The flying more flights / connecting principle isn't just BA of course. Earlier this year I was visiting our data centres in Hong Kong and Singapore and it was significantly cheaper to fly LAS - LAX - HKG - SIN than to fly just to HKG even though, of course, you're flying through HKG to get to Singapore. An OpUp from WT+ to Business on the CX flight from LAX to HKG made the trip even better :)
|
Originally Posted by simons1
(Post 29145788)
You have flown dozens of carriers in the last 5 years but didn't know that indirect flights such as ex-EU, ex-GLA/INV etc were often (much) cheaper?
Anything else? |
Originally Posted by cupsandsaucers
(Post 29145945)
Thats right. I typically don't book my own flights. And as you can see from my join date and post count I'm hardly "up to speed" on all the fine dealings of flight pricing.
Anything else? https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/29112756-post14.html If you don’t book your own flights, who does when you book all the travel at work? |
Originally Posted by cupsandsaucers
(Post 29145332)
So confused. Why is it £2 cheaper to take the exact same london to washington flight. but with two "free" flights to and from Glasgow?
(i) Fares filed for each fare bucket are higher for travel ex-GLA but BA's inventory optimisation platform has opened or been influenced to open a lower bucket, most likely to increase fares paid by passengers travelling ex-LHR (ii) Fares filed for travel ex-GLA are indeed lower than fares filed for travel ex-LHR and this is a deliberate choice for indirect flight/competitive reasons (iii) Fares filed for travel ex-GLA are indeed lower than fares filed for travel ex-LHR but this is not a deliberate choice - either BA are busy and will increase it to match LHR later or they forgot about it and will wait until somebody spots the anomaly before taking action. Because the fare difference is so small and both GLA and LHR are in the UK my money would be on (iii) being most likely, (i) second most likely and (ii) being least likely. |
Originally Posted by Sixth Freedom
(Post 29146238)
Because the fare difference is so small and both GLA and LHR are in the UK my money would be on (iii) being most likely, (i) second most likely and (ii) being least likely.
(iv) Dual Inventory Fares and (v) Different Carrier Imposed Charge (Carrier Surcharge). As it happens it is (v), since from London it is £203 and from Glasgow it is £116 |
Airline managers around the world will be delighted that you have all swallowed their story so comprehensively.
A long long time ago when airlines were state owned, and half of them were vanity projects for their governments, there was a lot of overcapacity. Some bright sparks in the fares department realised you might be able to fill up your empty planes by selling some dodgy fares that undercut your rival even though it was costing you more to carry the passengers and it was less convenient for them. And lo, the marvellous model was born. Now that supply and demand are much better matched, airlines can't wean themselves off the model, because no-one wants to blink first. And so you have the fantastic situation where (if you indulge me for a second by assuming a much simpler global network and number of hubs) you have a flight from FRA- HKG half full of German passengers paying X, and half full of British passengers paying X/2, whilst the LHR-HKG flight is half full of Brits paying Y and Germans paying Y/2, whereas actually it would make much more sense and money to fly all the Germans from FRA with everyone paying 3/4X and fly all the Brits from LHR with everyone paying 3/4Y, and you could operate half the number of LHR-FRA flights too... And the occasional weirdo/afficionado who wants to fly indirect could pay an extra £100 or whatever for the cost of the extra flight, connections infrastructure etc. But like I say, no-one wants to blink first or admit that the Emperor has no clothes on ;) Note there are some other reasons for the current model, like it makes you less susceptible to fluctuations in individual markets, and in the case of third countries it might make sense for all competitors to offer eg WAW-HKG flights at a discount if the local market won't bear higher fares. But the "connecting flights have to be cheaper" argument is just a historical accident that airlines now have difficulties escaping from, and I genuinely think does them or their customers few favours... |
Originally Posted by DrBernardo
(Post 29146449)
And lo, the marvellous model was born. Now that supply and demand are much better matched, airlines can't wean themselves off the model, because no-one wants to blink first. And so you have the fantastic situation where (if you indulge me for a second by assuming a much simpler global network and number of hubs) you have a flight from FRA- HKG half full of German passengers paying X, and half full of British passengers paying X/2, whilst the LHR-HKG flight is half full of Brits paying Y and Germans paying Y/2, whereas actually it would make much more sense and money to fly all the Germans from FRA with everyone paying 3/4X and fly all the Brits from LHR with everyone paying 3/4Y, and you could operate half the number of LHR-FRA flights too... And the occasional weirdo/afficionado who wants to fly indirect could pay an extra £100 or whatever for the cost of the extra flight, connections infrastructure etc. But like I say, no-one wants to blink first or admit that the Emperor has no clothes on ;)
It is very easy to construct other illustrations of apparent nonsenses in airline RM, such as the situations in which it's more profitable to fly an aircraft with empty seats than to fill every seat with lower fares. |
Originally Posted by DrBernardo
(Post 29146449)
Airline managers around the world will be delighted that you have all swallowed their story so comprehensively.
A long long time ago when airlines were state owned, and half of them were vanity projects for their governments, there was a lot of overcapacity. Some bright sparks in the fares department realised you might be able to fill up your empty planes by selling some dodgy fares that undercut your rival even though it was costing you more to carry the passengers and it was less convenient for them. In truth, the current form of pricing does not date back to those days but rather to the emergence of hub and spoke network carrier model, which is more recent and largely linked to the greater degree of liberalisation in air transport. |
Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave
(Post 29146352)
There's also:
(iv) Dual Inventory Fares and (v) Different Carrier Imposed Charge (Carrier Surcharge). As it happens it is (v), since from London it is £203 and from Glasgow it is £116 |
The problem in this conversation is that logarithms are not alone. That means that you can never know. There is human intervention on a daily basis and logartihms logic stops being valid. That is why you will never come to one conclusion
|
It's easier to accept that airfares have no visible logic and just go with whatever works best for you. Looking for logic where there is none will make your brain hurt.
|
Originally Posted by dekaneas1976
(Post 29146910)
The problem in this conversation is that logarithms are not alone. That means that you can never know. There is human intervention on a daily basis and logartihms logic stops being valid. That is why you will never come to one conclusion
|
I recall a time, possibly as much as 40 years ago, when fares to long-haul destinations from the regions via London were the same as fares to the same destination from London. I also recall that in a period before the route was abandoned, the BA fare from MAN to JFK direct was more than the fare for MAN-LHR-JFK.
It also happens from time to time that the fare in CW for a particular flight is less than the WT+ fare for the same flight, and I have even seen the same situation between First and CW. On investigation, it usually turns out that the fare for the superior cabin has more restrictive conditions regarding changes and cancellations than the fare for the lower cabin. Presumably someone in BA understands when and why this happens. |
Originally Posted by duvin
(Post 29147573)
Surely that’s algorithms and not logarithms?
|
Originally Posted by MADPhil
(Post 29147762)
I like the idea of revenue management sitting in a back room with their logarithm tables trying to optimize yield.
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:05 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.