miklcct

I can't understand the economics behind airline prices such that hidden city ticketing is possible.

For example, an airline may sell a business-intensive market A-B at $5000 but A-B-C at $3000, because it is trying to compete with some other airlines serving A-C or A-D-C, etc. However, in this case, isn't it better off to sell more $5000, $4500 or $4000 A-B tickets?!

CPRich

The demand curve for A-B may mean there are no tickets to be sold between $5000 and $3000 to A-B. They may also not want to abandon A-C and shrink their route map for competitive and marketing reasons.

Chromie25

Economics 101: Supply and demand

yyznomad

In general, you need to look at the origin and destination cities as the airline's product. They are selling A to B for X and A to C for Y, and it just so happens that some of the ways to get to C might be via B, non-stop, or both.
Of course, fare class availability and other factors are in play when it comes to prices, but this is the general reason.

Often1

Air carriers do not operate on a cost plus model. Thus, there is no per mile charge to be levied.

Connection points are simply logistical necessities. If you are flying A-C and happen to require a plane change at B, that has nothing to do with what you are prepared to pay for your ticket. If it happens that the demand for A-B is stronger than A-C, the carrier can charge more for the former, even though the latter is a great distance.

At first, it makes no sense. But, as soon as you look at A-B and A-C as separate demands, the pricing makes a great deal of sense. The HCT issue only arises when people purchase A-C because it is cheaper than A-B and then end their trip at B.

nd2010

OskiBear

It seems that if A-B @ $5K were the perfect price, they'd never even have space to sell A-B-C @ $3K. So, presumably there are unsold seats on the A-B route and getting people to fill those seats and also consider using their airline as an option for A-B-C seems like a fair use of the space on the plane, when another airline selling nonstop A-C is probably doing for $5K

OZFLYER86

CATCH 22

You might book an itinerary that goes from A to C via B, with intention of getting off at B, but sometimes the flight might become nonstop or get changed to A to C via D, but this is the chance you take.

g289t

@miklcct, this confuses a lot of people. For those who have trouble figuring this out, one simple way to picture it is to forget about the connecting airport completely. As others have pointed out, connecting flights are usually a logistical necessity.

For example, you can fly from Phoenix to Minneapolis on United, but not nonstop. The only way to do it is to connect in ORD (or another United hub). You might notice that PHX-ORD costs more than PHX-MSP with a connection in ORD. This is due to supply and demand. Pricing of the airfare has nothing to do with your PHX-MSP itinerary being routed through ORD. You are being sold a ticket with its airfare based on PHX-MSP.

It is certainly possible to buy a ticket for PHX-MSP if you want to go to ORD, but you are taking several risks. One, airlines do not allow this practice, technically speaking. However, there is often little they can do about it. You must have only carryon luggage, because any checked bag will be checked through to MSP. You will not see it at ORD. (Note: there are exceptions to this, such as if you are flying into the US from an international destination.)

Another risk is that you could be rerouted. For example, you could also fly PHX-MSP on United via IAH. If one of your original flights is canceled or delayed, United might issue you a new routing via IAH. Because United's responsibility is to get you from Phoenix to Minneapolis, they have no obligation to connect you in Chicago. There would be nothing you could do about it.

javabytes

This is always floated as a risk, but the reality is if your flights are canceled or delayed, airlines have always been exceedingly flexible in rebooking. If you find availability and ask for specific flights through Chicago, I've never encountered an agent who would refuse and insist you had to route their way via IAH.

pewpew

In this day and age, I think the real risk is that you go carry on only and end up with your bag getting gate checked because there's no overhead space

Toshbaf

Not much of a risk. For example, if one's ticket is DCA-ORD-MKE but one really wants to go to ORD, when they try to gate check it in DCA, they usually ask "you're going to Chicago?". Some will say "yes". Others, will say "no" then show their boarding passes for the flight number to MKE, DSM, STL, etc.

One could always insist at the gate and they are in such a hurry, they might say "whatever!"

s0ssos

Do you understand why airlines fly a plane with only a few passengers? Why don't they just cancel it?

My flught tonight was less than half full

OskiBear

Because you'd still have a planeload of really angry passengers who planned on getting somewhere and the airline perhaps needed to get that plane somewhere in position for its next flight.
If there were no confidence in airlines actually flying scheduled flights and could cancel willy-nilly for whatever reason, would you ever book with that airline again?

ft101

To fly the other leg (outbound or inbound) with a full load of passengers and to fly both ways with a full load of freight in the hold.