KevinWI

A very good argument. Better than mine. May be the first time these words have ever been typed on the internet, but you've convinced me.

Well, I'm actually stuck between a rock and a hard place. I can see the consumer and the airlines' side of it.

santaclaus002

I think there is some merit to knowing the routing based on the discussion of route profitability etc. I'm interested in the pricing side of this - specifically, whether B is the hub or C is the hub, or neither. Trying to understand why the pricing is set up the way it is - I imagine B is the hub but some of the comments suggest C is the hub. I'd construct an argument on pricing strategy differently if B were the hub or if it was C. So not necessarily city pairs, but hub/spoke status of A/B/C and competition status on A-C.

cepheid

That's the same misinterpretation of the contract that started this entire argument. By purchasing the ticket, the passenger implicitly agrees to the Contract of Carriage. The CoC includes the provision quoted upthread by cordelli: that if the passenger disembarks at the intermediate city, he is liable for the fare difference between the itinerary purchased (A-C via B) and the itinerary flown (A-B only). By agreeing to the CoC, the passenger has promised to pay the penalty (fare difference) if he chooses to disembark at the intermediate city rather than continuing to the originally-contracted destination. The promised revenue is not merely the revenue already paid for A-C via B, it is also the revenue liable to be paid should the passenger decide to change the itinerary mid-trip. Hence, there is a loss of promised revenue.

From yet another perspective: let's say the passenger decides to (officially) change his ticket from the purchased A-C via B to a new one going A-D (i.e. to a completely different destination). It is quite clear that the passenger would be liable for the fare difference between the original itinerary (A-C via B) and the changed one (A-D). (We'll assume the fare rules have no change penalty, such as a refundable ticket.) In the hidden-city scenario, by disembarking at the intermediate city, the passenger is de facto changing his ticket to a new destination, A-B, rather than the originally-purchased A-C via B. It is functionally and legally equivalent to changing the ticket to A-D, because in either case, the final destination has changed: neither B nor D equal C. Therefore, just as in the A-D case, the passenger is liable for the fare difference. That is exactly what the clause in the CoC, quoted upthread by cordelli, says, and by agreeing to the CoC, the passenger therefore accepts that liability.


Primarily because they don't operate a hub-and-spoke system, so they don't necessarily have situations where the intermediate cities are more desirable than the destinations. Their pricing model is therefore subject to vastly different market forces than are those of hub-and-spoke legacy competitors. It's also noteworthy than in most cities that Southwest serves, there is significant competition either from legacies or other LCCs, while cities that Southwest doesn't serve may have very few airline choices... thus, again, the market pressures on Southwest's fare structures are different than for legacy airlines.

wanaflyforless

Well said.

Another reason is that Southwest does not serve VERY small markets. WN serves only citypairs that can mostly fill 737 aircraft.

It is very likely that the OP's A-B is served by a very small plane, much smaller than any Southwest has, due to very low quantity of passenger who need the route. The Southwest business model is no good for people who need to go between A-B, as it says no service if there isn't more demand.

KevinWI

It's not directly about the hub/spoke status, but based on the competition, demand and cost of flying the routes.

Example
* It costs United $40,000 to fly from A-B on a 200-seat plane. With their schedule, demand for that route and a fare set at $400, they can fill up 75% of the plane and make a profit of $20,000.
* It costs United $60,000 to fly from A-B-C on a 200-seat plane. United would like to charge $444, that way, they'd be making their usual 20% profit, if they sell out 75% of the plane, like usual.
* But! Southwest flies direct A-C and charges only $375. United can't compete with that!
* So United charges $350 for A-B-C. With it being the new cheapest fare to get from A-C. They fill up all the seats, making a profit of $10,000. They aren't making as much money, but they are making money. And they're screwing Southwest. Whom they hate (at least, in my example land).
* MilkPowder wants to go A-B. He doesn't want to pay $375, he wants to pay $350. (I know the difference is bigger in real life, but it's 20 past midnight here, bare with me). So, he books A-B-C every day, pays $350 and only flies A-B. United finds out, and realizes they're losing $250 per week on him. They proceed to send him mean letters.

The airlines are trying to maximize profit. The question is, should they be allowed to stop MilkPowder and his ilk.

KevinWI

Yes, took the words out of my mouth.

Southwest will fill every seat on every plane, or die trying.

My dad did some engineering work for ORD. I'm sure some of you know this, but the maintence staff for the airport told him that Southwest pilots will ask the tower if they can take off in the direction of the desitiation, even if it isn't the primary runway at the airport - just to save fuel on changing heading once they've taken off.

So, it's safe to assume that Southwest's revenue models are based on 100% occupancy anyway.

Edit: Sorry for spelling, had a few with dinner.

belfordrocks

Well if we're talking damages based on potential revenue then consider this hypothetical scenario.

A has decided to fly UA first class internationally on a $10000 fare. He is talking to his friend B and mentions in passing his flight, which B recommends switching to AA. Since B is a travel expert (or FlyerTalker ) A takes B's advice and books with AA instead. Should UA now sue B "costing" them $10000 in "damages"?

By the way in the OP's scenario I'm guessing based on the provided info that city B is DTW, and therefore the airline in question would be DL.

cordelli

The issue is pretty simply this.

When you bought the ticket you agreed not to do something, say this:

PROHIBITED PRACTICES:
1) FARES APPLY FOR TRAVEL ONLY BETWEEN THE POINTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE PUBLISHED. TICKETS MAY NOT BE PURCHASED AND USED AT FARE(S) FROM AN INITIAL DEPARTURE POINT ON THE TICKET WHICH IS BEFORE THE PASSENGER’S ACTUAL POINT OF ORIGIN OF TRAVEL, OR TO A MORE DISTANT POINT(S) THAN THE PASSENGER’S ACTUAL DESTINATION BEING TRAVELED EVEN WHEN THE PURCHASE AND USE OF SUCH TICKETS WOULD PRODUCE A LOWER FARE. THIS PRACTICE IS KNOWN AS “HIDDEN CITIES TICKETING” OR “POINT BEYOND TICKETING” AND IS PROHIBITED

and they told you if you did they could take actions including accessing fees, canceling your FF account, taking your miles, refuse to board unless you pay the difference, and take legal action and whatever is in their list.

It doesn't matter if it's right or wrong, or if it's a fair practice or not or what buying soda in the grocery store costs.

What matters is you agreed not to do something, and if you did they could do something else. When you break that agreement, nobody should be outraged when they take any of the actions they said they would.

Yes it sucks they price tickets this way, and yes probably most of us have bought prohibited tickets. But there's no sense in being outraged when caught doing it and they enforce the rules you know they have in place.

lazy_flyer

I agree, except for the part about it not mattering if it is right or wrong. IMHO, there are two issues: The current contract with the airline, and what is right or wrong. I see no problem with the airline enforcing the contract that they have with a passenger as, like it or not, we agree to this contract when we buy the ticket. On the other hand, what is right or wrong is an issue for the government authority that monitors unfair pricing to consider. This second part is worth debating I think. Governments often influence prices to ensure consumers are not ripped off.

ralfp

A bit off topic...

Dangerous airline to work for... their load factors are among the lowest in the USA.

I guess the staff (Chicago Dept. of Aviation?) also work at MDW (WN does not service ORD).

No. LUV is profitable and WN has low load factors, so it's safe to assume that Southwest's revenue models are not based on anything close to 100% load factors.

emma69

So you buy a ticket for A-B-C. If I get off at B, how does the airline know why I got off at B? By their own policies the airline would not fly me from B-C if:

a) I was too drunk to fly (a few crafty beers in the terminal anyone?)
b) I was too late to the gate for whatever reason (got the gate number wrong, got lost in the airport, watch stopped, etc etc. (while really hanging around the gate until it closes, aircraft pushes back and then I rush, ticket in hand to the departing gate agent)
c) I got sick - do they really want someone vomiting all over the aircraft (there are people who get airsick every time they fly, so they couldn't use the 'well it happened last week too' reasoning)

I really don't see that choosing not to fly could be thought of as theft - take for example Mr. Bloggs. He buys a ticket from A-B-C at $95. However, on the day of the flight he gets a flat on the way to the airport and doesn't take his flight. By the reckoning from some others above, the airline would be fine to charge Mr. Bloggs an extra $402 dollars, after all, someone could have wanted the A-B flight so he is depriving them of that revenue, because he didn't fly to C after all.

Breach of Contract, yes, I can see that in theory - but I am not sure how sucessful the airline would be in sueing. Each ticket is a seperate contract, so they would need to sue for each occurance (wouldn't they? not a lawyer!) Presumably for them to claim damages (the point of sueing), they would have to show that they could have sold that fare - wouldn't that rely on them having been at capacity for both flights (that is, not a seat left on the plane?) Otherwise, they can't claim they 'could have' sold the $497 leg of the flight, if there weren't any customers lining up to purchase it. Unless that flight is packed to the rafters each time the OP takes it, I would like his chances! Even if they were full, not sure if the airline could show the OP didn't intend to take the flight (but fell asleep in the airport for example, so missed it?) He then took a train home, as he was clearly too late for the purpose of his intended trip to Newark...

emma69

On the UK train one - the rail company have no right to detain passengers on the train (i.e. they can't make you stay on the train against your will). So if you felt e.g. travel sick I am not sure how they can force you to pay up if you get off (to avoid throwing up all over the other passengers for example). Now if I got off and then wanted to get on another train, on which my ticket was not valid, then absolutely, I would expect them to collect that additional fare.

erik123

The CoC is typically over 50 pages long and typically not available when you book.

cordelli

For A, B, and C chances are you would show up and ask to be put on a later flight, and they would not have a pattern of it happening over and over and over again. There is a huge difference between showing up late trying to get on a flight and being rebooked on a later flight, and just not showing up at all, over and over again. Once maybe, a few times, they know exactly what you are doing. This was not a one off thing they were concerned about.

Again, there is no need to sue. Nobody needs to be sued. You agreed they can just take the money, and if they wanted to (like they issue debit memos to travel agents when they catch them) they can just charge your credit card as you agreed to let them do when you bought the ticket.

hemispheric

It's probably more likely that the airline would ban a customer than actually attempt to sue for $400/flight. This wouldn't generally be an issue - many people use hidden city ticketing, and I would imagine that the airlines, as much as they may hate it, expect there to be some.

The problem in this case is that one person, using a trackable FF number, used the same flight over and over again (I don't want identifiable information, but I'm curious for how long and how many times this happened - was it weekly or biweekly for a year, etc).

Did you have any other communication with the airline - complaints, disputes over miles? Anything other than an automated system flagging this issue to the revenue protection dept? Was there some kind of irrops that would have prompted some kind of agent intervention in the booking between B-C?

What I'm curious about is that this is the "potential contact" that always is discussed in hidden-city threads but never seems to happen - how many times does it have to happen for a major airline to notice, and is it an automated flag or does some other event have to occur to make someone look at the flyer's history?