Why are tickets non-transferable?
Sep 10, 2003 | 8:31 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Internets
Posts: 8,269
Why are tickets non-transferable?
I had a recent experience with Easyjet which allows on their website full changes to a booking, including times AND passenger name.
That struck me as very progressive and, as far as I know, the only example of full transferability of a ticket online.
I don't see what the problem is with it, and why other airlines do not do it.
I understand that non-transferability is a source of revenue, but is there any other reason?
That struck me as very progressive and, as far as I know, the only example of full transferability of a ticket online.
I don't see what the problem is with it, and why other airlines do not do it.
I understand that non-transferability is a source of revenue, but is there any other reason?
Sep 10, 2003 | 9:35 pm
#2
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: West Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,469
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Droneklax:
I understand that non-transferability is a source of revenue, but is there any other reason?</font>
I understand that non-transferability is a source of revenue, but is there any other reason?</font>
Sep 10, 2003 | 10:29 pm
#4
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Brooklyn, NY, US
Posts: 2,311
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Droneklax:
I don't see what the problem is with it, and why other airlines do not do it.
I understand that non-transferability is a source of revenue, but is there any other reason?</font>
I don't see what the problem is with it, and why other airlines do not do it.
I understand that non-transferability is a source of revenue, but is there any other reason?</font>
- I buy a 21 day advance $300 ticket JFK-LAX.
- I go to the airport the day of the flight, asking people in line if they're buying full Y tickets
- I find someone who's buying a $1200 walk-up fare, offer to sell him my ticket for $600.
- I walk away with $300, he "saves" 600, and the airline "loses" $900
Sep 10, 2003 | 10:56 pm
#5
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Washington State
Programs: Delta Platinum, Marriott Gold
Posts: 330
Easy to solve the resale problem (and preserve the extra profit made from price discrimination) by just limiting ticket transfers by the rules of the ticket. So if there is a 21-day advanced purchase requirement, allow transfers only up to 21 days before the flight.
That airlines don't allow this is a signal that they do better by not allowing it (economists really do believe in revealed preference). So I expect that there is sufficient unused tickets to make non-transferability more profitable than the additional sales that might come by if people knew they wouldn't be stuck.
That airlines don't allow this is a signal that they do better by not allowing it (economists really do believe in revealed preference). So I expect that there is sufficient unused tickets to make non-transferability more profitable than the additional sales that might come by if people knew they wouldn't be stuck.
Sep 10, 2003 | 10:58 pm
#6
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Washington State
Programs: Delta Platinum, Marriott Gold
Posts: 330
I should add that this is a pretty simplistic analysis, but probably captures some of the salient reasons for denying transferability. There are, likely, some transactions costs as well.
Sep 11, 2003 | 1:09 am
#8
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Programs: UA Platinum, AA Lifetime Platinum, DL Platinum, Honors Diamond, Bonvoy Ambassador, Hertz Platinum
Posts: 8,179
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by yamaka:
Easy to solve the resale problem (and preserve the extra profit made from price discrimination) by just limiting ticket transfers by the rules of the ticket. So if there is a 21-day advanced purchase requirement, allow transfers only up to 21 days before the flight. </font>
Easy to solve the resale problem (and preserve the extra profit made from price discrimination) by just limiting ticket transfers by the rules of the ticket. So if there is a 21-day advanced purchase requirement, allow transfers only up to 21 days before the flight. </font>
Sep 11, 2003 | 11:44 am
#9
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: MSY; 2-time FT Fantasy Football Champ, now in recovery.
Programs: AA lifetime GLD; UA Silver; Marriott LTTE; IHG Plat,
Posts: 14,814
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by yamaka:
There are, likely, some transactions costs as well.</font>
There are, likely, some transactions costs as well.</font>
"Transaction cost" is just another word for "profit center", these days.
Sep 11, 2003 | 2:03 pm
#10
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Over the Bay Bridge, CA
Programs: Jumbo mas
Posts: 42,583
Transaction costs? Sheesh. They won't even let a travel agent do it at no "transaction cost" to the airline.
The real answer to this question is the answer to so many other questions. Tickets are non-transferable for the same reason that dogs lick themselves. Because they can. If one major airline bucked the trend, they would all follow like sheep going to slaughter. (Don't get me going on how there's no antitrust in this industry.) Now they'd probably cite "Security concerns". Of course, that wouldn't explain the excuse for the past 4,598 years of history when they didn't have that excuse.
The real answer to this question is the answer to so many other questions. Tickets are non-transferable for the same reason that dogs lick themselves. Because they can. If one major airline bucked the trend, they would all follow like sheep going to slaughter. (Don't get me going on how there's no antitrust in this industry.) Now they'd probably cite "Security concerns". Of course, that wouldn't explain the excuse for the past 4,598 years of history when they didn't have that excuse.