AA_EXP09

I've done this about 8x for the EUR11 promotion so far, and no warning yet =)
(SEA-LON hidden city in YVR on the way back on BA)
All I say is I want my bags to YVR and I 'refuse search' as I am legally permitted to do.

hykos

Your analogies are both wrong. Try 1 log for $4.97 and two logs for $.99

nineworldseries

OK, serious question:

CMH-MSP flight on Southwest is currently $211 connecting through MDW. CMH-MDW is $59 and MDW-MSP is also $59 on the -exact- same flights as the CMH-MSP. Ergo, booking the two one-ways (which WN will allow me to do quite easily) will save 93 dollars. Should I instead book the "regular" flight to give Southwest an extra 93 bucks because that's how they priced CMH-MSP? Would some people in this thread say "yes"? What's the difference?

pinniped

I would book the two $59 segments. I've done this quite often on WN over the years.

The only thing you give up is the ability to reroute around MDW if Chicago weather is the source of delays. I've actually had this happen to me once...same exact scenario as you, bought two $49 tickets DTW-MDW and MDW-MCI. The ploy backfired that day: ended up 5 hours late thanks to a weather delay and then misconnect at Midway. Had I been on one ticket, I'm guessing I could have gotten home faster through STL or wherever.

But I still do it and usually it works out fine.

nineworldseries

It's more of an ethical question. I don't really want to go to MSP. Some people in this thread seem to be saying that hidden city ticketing is unethical because it deprives the airline of competitively pricing certain routes based on supply & demand. Well, here's an example. WN clearly thinks flying CMH-MSP through MDW is more valuable than flying CMH-MDW and then MDW-MSP on the same exact flights. Anyone want to claim that I should book it at 211 vs. 118 because that's how WN values the flight? Besides the "contract of carriage" issue, I see no difference between this scenario and a hidden ticket one.

rjque

The ethical issue is really about entering into a contract you have no intention of honoring, resulting in a deal that the airline never would have agreed to in the first place. It's not an issue where the airline contractually allows you to engage in hidden city ticketing - and doesn't WN's COC allow that?

pinniped

I'm probably a bad person to ask because the whole hidden city thing is so asinine that I don't consider it unethical to play that game to begin with. The scenario you describe is end-on-end ticketing, which isn't prohibited or even frowned upon that I'm aware of. (In fact, some airlines will happily link the PNRs for the purposes of checking bags, handling irrops more gracefully, etc.)

The CoC probably doesn't mention it, but in the Southwest blog somewhere I read that they simply ask that you let them know if you're jumping off early so they can get their onboard passenger count right. Their reasoning is that their fare structure is intended to be logical and fair, so if you find a rare case where it isn't, you are welcome to exploit it with the obvious limitations and caveats that hidden-city entails.

I remember on one of the distance-based sales, I bought a few MCI-DAL-OKC for $49...never actually made it to OKC. No agent ever said "Hey, you're ethically required to honor your contract and fly on to OKC..."

JerryFF

This, of course, is the logical argument and been used to mock the complexity of airline fares many times. The airlines counter with the following --

When you buy a ticket, you technically enter into a contract with the airline. You are contracting to fly from point A to point C. If you fly from A to B rather than from A to C, you are violating the terms of the contract and they can sue to collect the difference in the fare.

pinniped

Yes, illegal dumping of firewood is bad.

Sometimes the best part of any hidden-city / back-to-back / etc. thread is the diverse list of analogies we come up with to describe the situation.

Analogies, by their very nature, are always imperfect. But they are usually entertaining!!

ThePointsCollector

Anyone done it on AA recently? Never had to do it, but this time is tempting.

AA_EXP09

Not recently though yes in the past

danielonn

I have never done Throwaway ticketing. For instance when you book a flight you can look for good one way deals or roundtrip deals. In my opinion its not worth getting caught by the airline and having to compensate them for the tickets etc.

FlyerTalker683455

It's a crock of s..t, always has been and always will be. (The silly CoC legalese that is)

Binba

I hate that logic too, and when I fly international it can amount to many hundreds of dollars. (Admittedly I've never done it, instead I focus my energy on researching the best integrated multiple-airline or "hacker" fare instead.)

However I think I managed to come up with an analogy that does explain the airlines` perspective: I am a professional photographer, and my daily rate's "list price" is $600. Sometimes I get that rate, sometimes not. Let's say I had a slow month and gave a client a great deal - $300/day - and he prepaid but never showed up. That's fair since he paid... but if he does it 10 times in a row, at some point I'd start wondering if I'm losing revenue and my ability to book higher-paying gigs because of that behavior.

Really, any service or rental analogy would be better than logs of wood since we "rent" that seat and time on the plane, we don't take the seat home (especially with Y chairs, who would want those).

To clarify, I still think the airlines fare system doesn't make sense. For most of us any ticket is always a "promotion" so the logic where more product correlates with a higher price has been long lost. Even renting a 2BR is way cheaper per bedroom than a 1BR, but it's still more than a 1BR rental overall. The market doesn't allow otherwise.

Tchiowa

And virtually all of the analogies, as you point out, are false. Prices are based on a number of factors. People think they are clever when they find a way to scam the system. Until they get caught.

An example of the bad analogies pointed out above.