iahphx

It will be interesting to see if the airlines feel a need to offer some sort of compensation to convince folks to cancel tickets they're not going to use. Logic would suggest some sort of sliding scale where you get a 75% refund 60 days out, 50% 30 days out, 25% 7 days out, etc. -- and whether you would always get SOMETHING for cancelling even a day or two in advance.

My guess is the airlines believe they make more money by not being flexible. And they're probably right. But what if you include "unbought tickets"? Like do the airlines lose business to folks who think they MIGHT be able to travel but aren't 100% sure? Like say I have a job with an unpredictable schedule, but I'd like to take my family on vacation. But if I can't go, I might lose $1500 in airline tickets (assuming the rest of the family won't go without me). I don't know how many sales the airlines lose because of this "buyer reluctance," and I'm guessing the airlines don't know either.

In any event, I'd personally hate to run a travel company where purchases are essentially 100% non-refundable. It's a sucky way to run a travel business where, for obvious reasons, travelers sometimes have to change their plans. There's no other component of the travel experience that has the onerous rules of the airlines.

cblaisd

I agree the change fees are usurious. However, all I can control is my behavior. I still prefer to act in the way that I would wish to be treated. You seem to prefer otherwise.

I've done so, thanks.

Concur.

LaserSailor

If your plans aren't firm, there is a fare class for that. We In biz buy them all the time. That cheap fare you got with change fees is subsidized by the YBM fare passengers. The change fees have to reflect those fare differences or else the revenue management doesn't work, not some traveller notion of what is "fair and reasonable"

...or we can go back to regulation and 2000 USD transcon economy fares

iahphx

Well. this is the underlying reason why the change policies of the airlines have become so horrendous. The Saturday Night Stay requirement used to separate the leisure travelers from the biz travelers, but Southwest's ticketing policies largely eliminated that approach. So the other airlines slowly tightened the "changability" rules to the point where, today, tickets are basically unchangeable for most leisure travelers.

And the idea that a leisure traveler can "buy a different fare" with fewer restrictions is, in most cases, laughable. The difference is fare is usually several times what they've paid. Really, the only solution the leisure traveler has is to fly Southwest, where they'll credit you the price of the ticket to a future flight as long as you cancel before the plane takes off.

STS-134

Again, UA's behavior shows a misunderstanding of game theory. Have you checked out the prices of those fully refundable tickets? In some cases, they can easily be $500-1000+ more than the nonrefundable tickets that have change fees. I even saw some int'l F tickets today that commanded a whopping $9k premium over the discounted F ticket.

Logic says that if you're going to offer a ticket at a higher price, to supposedly protect against paying a change fee that's, at most, $200, then you offer that ticket for LESS THAN $200 more than the nonrefundable fare. Really, who pays $500 as "insurance" against an event that will cost you at most $200? At that point, anyone with half a brain will just self-insure, by going without the insurance and paying up if the event occurs.

For reasonable tickets that actually avoid change fees, check out HA's "Coach Plus" fares. It's $50 extra, per segment ($100 additional per roundtrip). For that extra $50, you get:
- 2 free checked bags ($55 savings per segment, $110 savings per roundtrip, assuming you check two bags)
- Waived change fees ($150-200 per ticket)

Unlike UA, HA clearly understands that the price of insurance needs to be LESS THAN the cost of the "worst case scenario" without the insurance.

Wait...so you're BLAMING WN for the reason why airlines supposedly need to change change fees? That's funny, WN is the only airline that DOESN'T charge them, and it has been profitable during more years recently than the legacy airlines that do.

iahphx

Yup, that's how this insanity happened. By accident of course. The legacy carriers used to require you to book roundtrip and stay a Sat. night for the cheap fares. But then Southwest started flying "everywhere" and the legacy carriers matched their fares WITHOUT the Sat. night stay. But they didn't match the "cancel without penalty" structure. And, over time, they've kept raising that change fee to the current absurd levels.

It's really a very screwy system. There's really not much a leisure traveler can do about it on most routes, other than fly Southwest or hope their plans don't change.

Baze

But that's just it. They offer it at a big discount but say you will need to pay $200 if you need to change it and it will still be cheaper than the refundable. Competition drives the prices to a certain extent. Where the rub is, is when they do need to change it the passenger claims highway robbery even though they are still paying less than the refundable changeable ticket. I won't get into the SW model. My last few flights booked through my corporate travel agency I was given an option, buy the cheap ticket or buy the refundable H fare which was only $160 more than the cheap fare. I chose the H fare as I knew I would probably be changing it. Saved my company $40 and took $40 out of UA's pocket. But usually I get the cheap fare and pay the change fee (per company policy) and I am not even given the choice of the refundable ticket. And I did change the ticket. So I see the logic built into the travel agent software where if the refundable is less than the cheap plus change fee they offer it as a choice. Of course then they call and try and change it to the cheap ticket. I just say I know I will be changing it so don't touch it, saves money.

Lori_Q

Are you implying that canceling would be a nice thing to do? I suppose that's true, but it's pointless karma. United has accounted for no-shows in their ticket pricing, so the cancellation probably won't change any ticket prices. If there is someone on standby, the seat will be filled at T-15. If there are no standbys, everyone who wants to fly is accommodated. In any case, the plane goes out with the same number of passengers.

The only benefit to canceling the flight would be to cancel the the reminder emails, voicemails & SMS messages that are delivered by UA prior to the flight.

Rae Song

It is a shame that United doesn't offer a small incentive to cancel a ticket (even a token credit like $5 would be better than nothing). I guess that means that United doesn't really care whether you cancel a ticket or not, as having a no-show doesn't really hurt its bottom line.

Kacee

It's a revenue neutral proposition for them - they keep your money whether you cancel or not. Also, note that since the pax has not checked in, the res will cancel at T-45 or T-30, leaving the gate agent ample time to reassign the seat.

STS-134

What if the pax checks in but no shows?

iahphx

Yes, you SHOULD check in, so you're "good to go" for a refund if your "flight" is delayed.

BTW, I don't think cancelling your ticket in advance for no money is "the right thing to do." The right thing to do is for the airline to give you some of your money back if you can't make the trip and they're going to resell your seat.

dcpdxtrans

Than it is T-15 for failure to show. While in school, we had to run complicated statistics on no-shows, oversell, and more. The airlines have so much data that they know exactly what they are doing. They do not have a need to provide an incentive to us to cancel. For one minor example, I know someone who was forced to pay $2000 times 2 for last minute tickets. Do you think UA cared that it gave a measly $200 in e-certs to a VDB?

wompin221

Booked two one way tickets from BOS – LAX for $175 each, no status. I need to cancel this flight but change fee quoted by UA is $200 + $40 service fee per ticket.

It seems like my best option is to just keep the flight and just not show up at the airport. Am I missing something? Why would I pay extra to cancel a flight?

How does this make any business sense by UA? Wouldn't they rather let me cancel and re-sell the ticket?

This may be a long shot, but is there any way to earn miles on this flight by checking in online, but not flying?

Thanks in advance

IAH-OIL-TRASH

You misunderstood the agent. It costs you nothing to cancel the ticket. It costs you something to use the remaining value. The loss of value is the gamble you willingly take when you purchase a non-refundable ticket. UA is saying, "OK, we'll sell you this ticket at a price far below a full price (and refundable) fare, but you risk a lot if your plans change". You could "teach UA a lesson" by not cancelling the outgoing flight and potentially not allowing another customer to buy a ticket. You're also sort of potentially penalizing another flyer by "teaching UA a lesson". UA will not feel sorry if you don't cancel ahead of time, but it may impact another flyer. UA will have the return seat to sell, anyway, after they cancel it because of the outbound no-show. I'd just cancel it, which you can do for nothing, if you're 100% sure you're not going to take the flight. There is no way to get the miles by not cancelling. Well there is, but it's sleazy and involves finding two people (better w/ carry-on luggage only) who want to fly on the dates/flights you currently have.