Globaliser

That's only a personal opinion of yours, rather than being a principle of ex-EUs, though. Some people will find the initial connection less painful than the one at the end. So the way it happens to work for you personally can't govern the way in which the situation is analysed for everyone.

KeaneJohn

MiraculousM

This is true. As a leisure Y traveller, i do look exEU every time but it makes a difference of around £10, which is not worth it. At all.

benjai

I think this a decent example though. If the manufacturer did state that you have to drink all of the milk as a condition of buying it otherwise you have to pay the difference of the more expensive combinations of cartons, would they be able to enforce/get away with it?

Because that is effectively what the airlines are saying.

Globaliser

All analogies are dangerous, especially when they get further away from the subject matter that's actually in issue. And people tend to think highly of analogies that suit their own point of view.

Rail transport does provide a much closer analogy, because it shares many of the same features as the airline conundrum. As has been mentioned, not only do railways have the same problem and do similar things contractually, but in addition that is enforced by legislation.

memesweeper

Petrus

Quid pro quo?

If carriers could get away with this, one would expect the reverse to be true. Overbooking should then be far more expensive, with greater compensation to PAX.
This is just another dubious revenue tactic. If you for some reason don't make your final leg, they will put a standby in that seat and in effect get paid twice for that seat. If flight is less busy, they still get dollars for an empty seat.

I cannot see any judge with common sense and a moral compass giving carriers a pass with this re-pricing tactic. It's immoral.
Money making corporations will more or less engage in dubious or criminal tactics to make profit if not regulated and reprimanded. That's a given and proven over and over again historically.

mikeyfly

This is getting a lot of traction compared to these normal articles! Even my office is discussing this today which never happens. They are pretty much asking, which I imagine is how all none regular flyers think, "how can they bill you more for taking less flights?" !

snaxmuppet

I have always marvelled at how it can be half the price to take a route that is twice as far! Not good for climate change but good for us and, potentially good for the airlines if it takes pressure off busy routes, utilises the less busy route more and makes them more competitive in that market.

But how to make it fair with respect not flying the last (or any) sector? I don't see why it would not be possible for the airline to price each route accordingly so that not only the final destination is priced but also a price for the route if a sector is dropped.

For example:

I want to fly OTP-LHR-LAX-LHR-OTP (OTP-LAX return). It is ex-EU so the fair is very nice thank you. However, I live in London and decide not to fly the last leg. Apart from the IT effort to implement it, I can't think of a reason why they couldn't price the trip as booked and also price a surcharge at the time of booking for the extra that might be chargable should I drop the LHR-OTP. In fact, I'd like to see a price grid rather than a single price as to what I would expect to pay should I drop any of the legs in the original itinerary. This would then give us the option... fly the itinerary as booked or incur the notified surcharge to drop a leg.

This way we would have the option without the uncertainty of what it might cost us and the airlines can then charge a more appropriate price for the route actually flown.

Petrus

Perhaps airlines could be forced to be completely transparent with their pricing. Now that's an idea!

Globaliser

The hub-and-spoke model has served consumers well too. It's a large part of what has made air travel affordable. The most recent big demonstration of this is perhaps Emirates (and to a lesser extent the other two big Middle Eastern airlines). EK's hubbing has made travel possible between any number of city pairs that would in the past have been a pain to travel between, and the model has driven down fares and revenue for everyone who's flying in the affected areas. The low-fare point-to-point model has not been spectacularly successful on long-haul, and even for short-haul travel in Europe there is still a lot that is not covered by low-fare point-to-point.

There's certainly an environmental argument to be made that people should be encourage to fly non-stop or direct where possible, and that deliberately taking more flights or travelling longer distances to reach one's destination should be penalised. But you wouldn't be able to do this without re-regulating air fares. Remember what it was like when they were regulated? Nope, I'll bet that most people here don't remember that, just as many people clamouring for UK railway nationalisation don't remember what it was like before privatisation and therefore have not thought about what should be done to avoid the problems of the past.

So, as I have said, we should be very careful what we wish for. If, collectively, we make it uneconomic for the airlines to offer cheaper fares to those who are prepared to jump through some hoops in return, we could come to regret the consequences.

Globaliser

What's not transparent about it now? I can see that it may look counter-intuitive, but I can't see how it's not transparent.

Sealink

Hmmm. Made up prices in this example but presuming it's the same as ex EU on BA.
If I fly from FRA I pay £2k rtn on LH.
If I fly from AMS I pay £1.2k rtn on LH.
By not taking the last sector, LH could have the right to charge me the difference. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that this could be classed as discriminatory pricing.

Just because LH have T&C doesn't make it enforceable by law.

I cant see what LH are losing here since they dont refund for a sector that is unused, and were willing to provide a seat to the pax for the last segment. By not flying the last segment the pax has freed up a seat. Yes LH would have earned more on a straight ex FRA fare but probably lost a passenger. I think they are on very thin ice here.

Globaliser

Why would it be discriminatory?

FRA-JFK (to take a hypothetical destination) is distinctly different from AMS-JFK - and both of those are distinctly different from AMS-FRA-JFK, which is clearly a less desirable and less valuable (= lower market value) route than either of the first two.

So I can't see what's discriminatory about this.

LondonElite

I don't think so. There is no reason to think that providing more of a certain service is to the benefit of the consumer, or that it should necessarily cost more. I only want, for example, a bit of my hair cut so that it looks neat and tidy. There is no reason to believe that having my barber to continue to cut my hair to the point where I look like an infantryman should deserve more payment or be in my interests.