> “Purchasing a ticket to a point beyond the actual destination and getting off the aircraft at the connecting point is unethical,” according to the letter by American, which isn’t party to the case. “It is tantamount to switching price tags to obtain a lower price on goods sold at department stores.”
What in the world? How is that comparison anywhere near remotely justifiable? Absolutely ridiculous.
> American Airlines Group Inc., in a letter to travel agents on its website, suggested it will have to raise fares if it keeps losing money from the practice.
Yes, please do. Price each ticket based on what it costs and a fair margin, not based on competitive meta-market games.
I can only assume that airlines are engaging in potentially unethical pricing themselves. For example, imagine if an airline delivers service from A->C and is low cost. A large competitor airline has no direct route, but flies A->B and B->C, and so offers A->B->C for the same price as the first airline. The route is actually below cost (or has a substantially smaller margin), but the airline offers it anyway to harm its competitor and to keep passengers within its brand. I don't know if I consider this unethical or not, but it's certainly no less ethical than customers taking advantage of hidden city routes for a lower price.
> Price each ticket based on what it costs and a fair margin
That sounds great in theory, but airlines are the textbook example of "what it costs" not making sense. An airplane costs almost the same to fly from New York to San Francisco whether it's completely empty or completely full. The margin cost of fuel for your 150 lbs of body and 50 lbs of luggage is pennies compared to the cost to operate the airplane generally (e.g., a 777-300ER costs about $320 million today, or a lease payment of about $45,000 per DAY [1]... plus depreciation of the engines, maintenance, inspections, flight crew, cabin crew, etc).
How do you divide that up? If you assume 100% capacity on every flight, the airlines will be even broker than they already are (airlines are hardly raking in money: American Airlines filed for bankruptcy in 2011, Delta and Northwest in 2005, US Airways in 2004, United in 2002, and US Airways again in 2002...). [2]
If you assume something in the middle, maybe 70%, then you end up with a silly situation where seats are flying empty even though the airline would be happy to sell then for 50% off and people would be willing to fill them for 50% off.
Then add the fact that first class passengers are willing to subsidize the rest of the cabin... and so are people who need flexible fares, etc.
Airline seats are a lot like software in that there isn't a good way to figure out "charge what it costs." On average, we know the airlines are charging slightly LESS than what it costs to operate an airline. But it's not like gasoline where you can figure out how much it costs to refine a gallon and then charge a small markup.
Probably the same way folks try to justify selling a DVD that only plays on North American DVD players. Generally people substitute the phrase "it isn't fair when ..." when they meant to say "I don't like it when ..."
I expect that the airlines will be unsuccessful in their suit but will get the FAA to approve a fee that would be charged if a passenger did not make the complete flight. In the back rooms they will tell the FAA its for passenger safety, after all its important in an emergency to know who is really on the plane, and people who get off early are putting first responders in harms way as they will go looking for people who aren't actually on the plane. They will argue they need a way to discourage that behavior and one way to do that is to charge a hefty "early exit" fee should a passenger depart the route mid-route. They would of course be open to discussions if it was for a legitimate emergency like you had to get back home or something.
And then there will be a $250 "early exit" fee and this web site will be toast and the airlines will be happy again.
Paying for a flight and not boarding is way more ethical than the Airline selling you a seat that doesn't exist (overselling is super common... ever hear them ask for volunteers to take a later flight in exchange for a voucher? That means they sold seats that didn't exist).
Of course, the airline thinks it's fine when it is pulling the switcheroo but they get pissed when you do it back to them. As long as the FAA allows them to oversell flights, they should allow passengers to use hidden city fare discounts... it's only fare.
This sounds absurd. This is the best analogy i've come up with:
A Sandwich shop sells half sandwiches at 5$ and full sandwiches at 6$
You, and a friend would both like half a sandwich. Instead of ordering two separate halves. You order only 1 full sandwich and cut it in half yourself.
Now the sandwich shop is suing you because you paid $6 for one sandwich, and only ate half of it. That's instead of paying 10$ for two half-sandwiches like the shop would like.
----------
I think if they don't want people to buy a product, then they shouldn't sell it.
Either lower the price of A -> B tickets, or make sure that tickets from A -> B -> C cost no less than A -> B
OR they could ignore this altogether and continue to sell A-B tickets at a premium realizing that people will only buy them for convenience.
Subway update their pricing such that a footlong sells for $5 and a six inch sub costs $7. Looking at those prices, you purchase a footlong sandwich. Should Subway be allowed to demand $2 from you if they see you discarding half of the sandwich?
The problem with the analogy (as I see it) is that A->B->C may be 'worse than' than A->B (because place C may be undesirable), whereas that isn't true for halves of a sandwich (because it is ok to not eat the second half of a sandwich).
Oh, and the airlines sell you the full sandwich for $3, but the half sandwich for $5.
It doesn't make a lot of sense, but it's the airlines right to set their prices and try to defend them; they may succeed or they may not. I doubt this particular lawsuit will be the test case that breaks them.
The problem is that travel is a bit more complicated than sandwiches -- flight prices end up being set more by competition rather than cost of production. Let's say, per your model, you offering flights from SFO to PDX for $200, LAX to SFO for $100, and sell the LAX->PDX route for $250 (with a stopover in SFO). I decide to start an airline which doesn't fly to SFO, but offers direct flights from LAX->PDX for $190. You don't want to lose the business of people flying from LAX->PDX, but also don't want to alter your routes. Any thoughts?
The airlines aren't suing passengers though, they are suing Skiplagged. Whether or not you agree with the way that airlines charge for tickets, the ticket is a contract between the passenger and the airline and breaking that contract has consequences.
For the passenger, the contracts say that you are expected to use all legs of the tickets and if you do not then the rest of legs of the flights are voided. For the airlines, if they are unable to provide the flight they owe the passenger compensation.
There are no legal repercussions for the passenger not using all legs of the flights, but Skiplagged is clearly committing conspiracy to defraud and I would wager a fair sum of money that they will lose this case.
The issue with the Sandwich analogy is that there is no contract.
In case you missed it, restaurants already do this (well not the suing part) but many will charge extra if you order an entree (main dish) and ask for an extra plate to share it.
This type of purely nuisance punitive lawsuit should wind up biting both Orbitz and the airlines in the ass.
The crucial thing that this website owner must do is keep this story in the media. He will have to make himself available to various news outlets--sometimes on short notice. Of course, he will need to consult with his attorney.
Unless I'm missing something, as long as he can weather the delays, this appears to be a slam dunk.
Ignoring the merits of the lawsuit, I don't see how Skiplagged could ever be a big business. If it succeeds, it will result in its own destruction: the airlines will either eliminate hidden-city ticketing (i.e. reduce the 'hub premium') or otherwise prevent people from doing this (e.g. charge people extra if they don't complete their flight).
I actually thought that airlines have always threatened to 'claw back' the fare difference from travelers that did this, but I may be mistaken.
Many companies trying to enter a market with a big markup (like travel) will do things like this. Find a differentiator, build a user base, and in the end become another comparison booking site that just passes people off to an agency for a big cut.
If you look back in the history of the big and small comparison sites, most started with (if the don't still operate) a gimmick but really are making their margins by being a step in the user's path to buying an airline ticket-- or better, a hotel reservation.
The airlines will go after passengers who abuse hidden-city ticketing but will generally let it slide if you only do it once or twice. There are stories on FlyerTalk about repeat offenders being banned from certain airlines.
It's probably the most frequently asked question on that site.
You're presuming that skiplagged wouldn't then branch into other ticketing angles using all the publicity / usage it acquires prior to losing the original product.
TravelZoo is worth $192 million, and has $158 million in sales. Why couldn't Skiplagged enter that turf with its momentum? (in this hypothetical)
Not every business needs to be big. If they make a profit on a flaw in the system and eventually leave the world a better place as they gracefully shut down operations, win-win.
That would be like a casino clawing back estimated losses from a card counter. While the airlines and Orbitz use the word, "prohibited," like card counting it is not actually illegal and only contravenes their ticketing policies.
however, during your search, you would NOT see tickets that go from A-B-C.
why is that relevant? sometimes tickets from A-B-C are cheaper than A-B. so you would buy a ticket (A-B-C) and simply leave the airport of city B (not boarding the B-C flight).
the website in question made it easier to find these types of tickets. These tickets are commonly known as "hidden-city" tickets.
the airlines would prefer you to spend more money on an A-B flight rather than buying the cheaper A-B-C ticket.
they are now suing this website to enforce their preference on consumer choice.
if there were something illegal going on, it would be limited to your individual contractual obligations as the owner of an airline ticket. (there could be a term that requires you to actually be present on the airplane for an A-B-C flight)
This website is simply _enabling_ people who intend to violate this (potential) term of their airline ticket agreement.
> This website is simply _enabling_ people who intend to
> violate this (potential) term of their airline ticket
> agreement.
Which might, in some jurisdictions, open the website operators to claims of tortious interference (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference) if they can prove that the site operator knew about the contractual term and incited people to breach it.
Hopefully a term requiring someone to take a flight is unenforceable (if such a term even exists) - so that might give them a defence even if such a term exists.
I think most people have, at some point, chosen between available flights based on layover city. I know I have. So there's a distinct utility offered, separate from any missed connections.
It's very hard for me to imagine a contract that includes "once you get on the plane, you must not miss your connecting flight".
Heck, I wish I could get the airlines to say "once you're on the plane, we will make sure your connecting flight doesn't leave without you", but of course that's impractical.
Interesting. I was under (perhaps mistakenly) the impression that buying a ticket to A-B-C and stopping at B, would result in being charged for the A-B route instead.
Regardless, I always check my baggage so A-B-C type tickets would not work for me.
Can someone explain the harm this causes the airlines? I get there's a bit of an opportunity cost because they'll have an empty seat, but apart from that? I feel there's something more here
While this might be an unpopular opinion but layover or not the passengers are still on the manifest for the final destination.
This means that if they decide to use this method they'll get off at the layover without telling anyone about it. This act alone can will cause delays while the flight crew and the airport staff will try to locate the missing passengers. Additionally depending on the security situation at the time and other conditions such as if it's the same aircraft or not of if they've checked in luggage (intentionally or by misstake since you can always apply for missing luggage and you'll get it delivered to you after a day or 2) this trick can lead to complete off boarding of the aircraft and a secondary security screening of all the passengers and the checked in luggage.
Even if this event will only happen once in a 100 flights it will still cost the airline, the airport, and the people enough time and money for everyone really pissed about this nonsense.
While i agree that the law suit might be slightly out of place, i think there are some good reasons why this practice isn't kosher.
Tho the fact that it's hard or near impossible to buy the same tickets directly without going trough a booking agent that can fix the price for you kinda sucks, i would think that most people would want to kill that guy that made them wait for 2 hours while they got their shit screened again just beause he tried to save 50$...
A smart airline would flag few people that do this and put them in a high-touch queue where the airline confirms if they intend to stay on for the final leg of the flight. If no, the airline modifies the passenger's flight details and makes it an A-B flight, and the seat on the B-C flight is marked available for purchase (maybe at a discount last-minute type price). If Yes, nothing changes. This way the airline can still sell that ticket. Savvy customer is happy with high-touch customer service, airline makes more money.
the only real point they have is that if many people buy A-B-C tickets, their calculations will expect many physical people to be on the B-C flight.
Here is a contrived situation that they might present:
Aircraft are fueled to certain amounts based on the number of passengers they have.
If an airplane takes off from SEA to LAX, it does not want to stop right away and land, minutes after taking off. The landing might be too "hard" since the plane weighs too much. Normally what happens is the plane will either take off with less fuel, or it has to circle around in the air, burning off excess fuel before landing.
If you have an airplane flying from SEA to LAX to DFW, and too many people get out at LAX, and don't make the LAX-DFW flight, then the weight calculations on takeoff and landing at LAX and DFW will be very different.
Now keep in mind in the real world, this probably won't make any difference, since more than 2% of travelers don't do this. Also i have not looked up what kind of weight impact the actual passengers are supposed to have relative to the actual airplane.
Can someone give me some examples where this tool works out well? I live in a hub city (MIA) so I can't seem to find any results in their search (or is their site overloaded?)
I wonder how big of an impact such passengers have on environment. Imagine if half of the people who bought tickets on A->B->C flight decided to stay in B->C. They leave the airline in a position where they can't resell the empty seats, so the jet flies half-full while still using the pretty much the same amount of fuel (the impact of passengers is marginal). If you scale this behaviour up, an airline ends up flying 2x as many B->C flights as needed, thus literally wasting half of the fuel on that route.
I don't think it's very ethical to deliberately introduce inefficiencies to a system for personal gain, especially if it leads to wasting scarce resources. Being a responsible human being means caring about other things than just money.
Also, it's hard for me to feel compassion for passengers exploiting this trick - air travel is totally underpriced already, casual passengers pay much less than they should actually pay to cover the operating costs (not to mention externalities). People complain about algorithmic pricing, but that actually makes air travel affordable for a typical person, where a fixed pricing scheme would not.
> "Airlines have told Orbitz that a traveler caught on a hidden-city routing is subject to having his ticket voided without refund, the Internet travel company said today in a statement."
How in the world can they ever prove this unless I as the passenger explicitly tell them that I'm on a hidden-city route? Surely, a simple "I was feeling too ill to catch the second flight, so stepped out" would be something they can't contest.
I understand that as the seller they have the right to refusal passengers but it seems like their combative stance is akin to the music/movie industries attitude towards torrents. I would think that both Orbitz and United would be better off on-boarding an "if you can't beat them, join them" mantra. This whole episode could have been flipped on it's head if the headline read "Skiplagged officially endoresed by United and Orbitz". Imagine the number of passengers they'd attract! I'm assuming that the market for flights is demand elastic to some extent. This is anecdotal based on my own buying pattern though.
Typically if you miss a leg, any leg, they will then cancel the rest of your itinerary. They won't give you a refund, but it still falls under the normal missed flight rules. To me this is more fraud on their part than you not flying a portion if the itinerary
So Awesome
Born in Bangladesh, Zaman grew up in Brooklyn, N.Y., and graduated with a bachelor's degree in computer science at age 20 from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. He lives in Manhattan and works at a technology start-up that he declined to name.
I don't understand. These types of websites have existed for a long time. This is nothing new. Most people have found out that hidden-city ticketing doesn't work either on round-trip flights because the airlines will cancel the rest of the trip if they find out. It only works for one-way trips with carry-on bags only.
[+] [-] Pyxl101|11 years ago|reply
What in the world? How is that comparison anywhere near remotely justifiable? Absolutely ridiculous.
> American Airlines Group Inc., in a letter to travel agents on its website, suggested it will have to raise fares if it keeps losing money from the practice.
Yes, please do. Price each ticket based on what it costs and a fair margin, not based on competitive meta-market games.
I can only assume that airlines are engaging in potentially unethical pricing themselves. For example, imagine if an airline delivers service from A->C and is low cost. A large competitor airline has no direct route, but flies A->B and B->C, and so offers A->B->C for the same price as the first airline. The route is actually below cost (or has a substantially smaller margin), but the airline offers it anyway to harm its competitor and to keep passengers within its brand. I don't know if I consider this unethical or not, but it's certainly no less ethical than customers taking advantage of hidden city routes for a lower price.
[+] [-] slapshot|11 years ago|reply
That sounds great in theory, but airlines are the textbook example of "what it costs" not making sense. An airplane costs almost the same to fly from New York to San Francisco whether it's completely empty or completely full. The margin cost of fuel for your 150 lbs of body and 50 lbs of luggage is pennies compared to the cost to operate the airplane generally (e.g., a 777-300ER costs about $320 million today, or a lease payment of about $45,000 per DAY [1]... plus depreciation of the engines, maintenance, inspections, flight crew, cabin crew, etc).
How do you divide that up? If you assume 100% capacity on every flight, the airlines will be even broker than they already are (airlines are hardly raking in money: American Airlines filed for bankruptcy in 2011, Delta and Northwest in 2005, US Airways in 2004, United in 2002, and US Airways again in 2002...). [2]
If you assume something in the middle, maybe 70%, then you end up with a silly situation where seats are flying empty even though the airline would be happy to sell then for 50% off and people would be willing to fill them for 50% off.
Then add the fact that first class passengers are willing to subsidize the rest of the cabin... and so are people who need flexible fares, etc.
Airline seats are a lot like software in that there isn't a good way to figure out "charge what it costs." On average, we know the airlines are charging slightly LESS than what it costs to operate an airline. But it's not like gasoline where you can figure out how much it costs to refine a gallon and then charge a small markup.
[1] http://www.myairlease.com/resources/fleetstatus [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_bankruptcies_in_the_Uni...
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|11 years ago|reply
I expect that the airlines will be unsuccessful in their suit but will get the FAA to approve a fee that would be charged if a passenger did not make the complete flight. In the back rooms they will tell the FAA its for passenger safety, after all its important in an emergency to know who is really on the plane, and people who get off early are putting first responders in harms way as they will go looking for people who aren't actually on the plane. They will argue they need a way to discourage that behavior and one way to do that is to charge a hefty "early exit" fee should a passenger depart the route mid-route. They would of course be open to discussions if it was for a legitimate emergency like you had to get back home or something.
And then there will be a $250 "early exit" fee and this web site will be toast and the airlines will be happy again.
[+] [-] razzberryman|11 years ago|reply
Of course, the airline thinks it's fine when it is pulling the switcheroo but they get pissed when you do it back to them. As long as the FAA allows them to oversell flights, they should allow passengers to use hidden city fare discounts... it's only fare.
[+] [-] leeoniya|11 years ago|reply
Was that 'unethical' as in, "Price gouging and charging what the market will bear," or 'unethical' as in [1]? Someone must be confused.
[1] http://business.time.com/2012/06/26/orbitz-shows-higher-pric...
[+] [-] hayksaakian|11 years ago|reply
A Sandwich shop sells half sandwiches at 5$ and full sandwiches at 6$
You, and a friend would both like half a sandwich. Instead of ordering two separate halves. You order only 1 full sandwich and cut it in half yourself.
Now the sandwich shop is suing you because you paid $6 for one sandwich, and only ate half of it. That's instead of paying 10$ for two half-sandwiches like the shop would like.
----------
I think if they don't want people to buy a product, then they shouldn't sell it.
Either lower the price of A -> B tickets, or make sure that tickets from A -> B -> C cost no less than A -> B
OR they could ignore this altogether and continue to sell A-B tickets at a premium realizing that people will only buy them for convenience.
[+] [-] sjwright|11 years ago|reply
Subway update their pricing such that a footlong sells for $5 and a six inch sub costs $7. Looking at those prices, you purchase a footlong sandwich. Should Subway be allowed to demand $2 from you if they see you discarding half of the sandwich?
[+] [-] justinsb|11 years ago|reply
Oh, and the airlines sell you the full sandwich for $3, but the half sandwich for $5.
It doesn't make a lot of sense, but it's the airlines right to set their prices and try to defend them; they may succeed or they may not. I doubt this particular lawsuit will be the test case that breaks them.
[+] [-] jowiar|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bweitzman|11 years ago|reply
For the passenger, the contracts say that you are expected to use all legs of the tickets and if you do not then the rest of legs of the flights are voided. For the airlines, if they are unable to provide the flight they owe the passenger compensation.
There are no legal repercussions for the passenger not using all legs of the flights, but Skiplagged is clearly committing conspiracy to defraud and I would wager a fair sum of money that they will lose this case.
The issue with the Sandwich analogy is that there is no contract.
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kaonashi|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Hilton1|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Avitas|11 years ago|reply
The crucial thing that this website owner must do is keep this story in the media. He will have to make himself available to various news outlets--sometimes on short notice. Of course, he will need to consult with his attorney.
Unless I'm missing something, as long as he can weather the delays, this appears to be a slam dunk.
[+] [-] justinsb|11 years ago|reply
I actually thought that airlines have always threatened to 'claw back' the fare difference from travelers that did this, but I may be mistaken.
[+] [-] wirelessest|11 years ago|reply
If you look back in the history of the big and small comparison sites, most started with (if the don't still operate) a gimmick but really are making their margins by being a step in the user's path to buying an airline ticket-- or better, a hotel reservation.
[+] [-] saryant|11 years ago|reply
It's probably the most frequently asked question on that site.
[+] [-] meritt|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adventured|11 years ago|reply
TravelZoo is worth $192 million, and has $158 million in sales. Why couldn't Skiplagged enter that turf with its momentum? (in this hypothetical)
[+] [-] Dylan16807|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rhizome|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ixwt|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hayksaakian|11 years ago|reply
imagine you want to go from city A to city B
normally you would search for tickets from A-B
however, during your search, you would NOT see tickets that go from A-B-C.
why is that relevant? sometimes tickets from A-B-C are cheaper than A-B. so you would buy a ticket (A-B-C) and simply leave the airport of city B (not boarding the B-C flight).
the website in question made it easier to find these types of tickets. These tickets are commonly known as "hidden-city" tickets.
the airlines would prefer you to spend more money on an A-B flight rather than buying the cheaper A-B-C ticket.
they are now suing this website to enforce their preference on consumer choice.
if there were something illegal going on, it would be limited to your individual contractual obligations as the owner of an airline ticket. (there could be a term that requires you to actually be present on the airplane for an A-B-C flight)
This website is simply _enabling_ people who intend to violate this (potential) term of their airline ticket agreement.
[+] [-] A1kmm|11 years ago|reply
Which might, in some jurisdictions, open the website operators to claims of tortious interference (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference) if they can prove that the site operator knew about the contractual term and incited people to breach it.
Hopefully a term requiring someone to take a flight is unenforceable (if such a term even exists) - so that might give them a defence even if such a term exists.
[+] [-] quesera|11 years ago|reply
It's very hard for me to imagine a contract that includes "once you get on the plane, you must not miss your connecting flight".
Heck, I wish I could get the airlines to say "once you're on the plane, we will make sure your connecting flight doesn't leave without you", but of course that's impractical.
This is just silly.
[+] [-] eurleif|11 years ago|reply
Interfering with a contractual relationship is a tort. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
[+] [-] balls187|11 years ago|reply
Regardless, I always check my baggage so A-B-C type tickets would not work for me.
[+] [-] micampe|11 years ago|reply
I know I would be pissed if I needed to take a flight but it was fully booked, and then found out that a dozen people already planned to not show up.
I see this trick as not very respectful to other people.
[+] [-] sgdesign|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] canjobear|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rtpg|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lnanek2|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dogma1138|11 years ago|reply
Even if this event will only happen once in a 100 flights it will still cost the airline, the airport, and the people enough time and money for everyone really pissed about this nonsense.
While i agree that the law suit might be slightly out of place, i think there are some good reasons why this practice isn't kosher. Tho the fact that it's hard or near impossible to buy the same tickets directly without going trough a booking agent that can fix the price for you kinda sucks, i would think that most people would want to kill that guy that made them wait for 2 hours while they got their shit screened again just beause he tried to save 50$...
[+] [-] djloche|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thescribe|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hayksaakian|11 years ago|reply
the only real point they have is that if many people buy A-B-C tickets, their calculations will expect many physical people to be on the B-C flight.
Here is a contrived situation that they might present:
Aircraft are fueled to certain amounts based on the number of passengers they have.
If an airplane takes off from SEA to LAX, it does not want to stop right away and land, minutes after taking off. The landing might be too "hard" since the plane weighs too much. Normally what happens is the plane will either take off with less fuel, or it has to circle around in the air, burning off excess fuel before landing.
If you have an airplane flying from SEA to LAX to DFW, and too many people get out at LAX, and don't make the LAX-DFW flight, then the weight calculations on takeoff and landing at LAX and DFW will be very different.
Now keep in mind in the real world, this probably won't make any difference, since more than 2% of travelers don't do this. Also i have not looked up what kind of weight impact the actual passengers are supposed to have relative to the actual airplane.
[+] [-] rhizome|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brianbreslin|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TeMPOraL|11 years ago|reply
I don't think it's very ethical to deliberately introduce inefficiencies to a system for personal gain, especially if it leads to wasting scarce resources. Being a responsible human being means caring about other things than just money.
Also, it's hard for me to feel compassion for passengers exploiting this trick - air travel is totally underpriced already, casual passengers pay much less than they should actually pay to cover the operating costs (not to mention externalities). People complain about algorithmic pricing, but that actually makes air travel affordable for a typical person, where a fixed pricing scheme would not.
[+] [-] kartikkumar|11 years ago|reply
> "Airlines have told Orbitz that a traveler caught on a hidden-city routing is subject to having his ticket voided without refund, the Internet travel company said today in a statement."
How in the world can they ever prove this unless I as the passenger explicitly tell them that I'm on a hidden-city route? Surely, a simple "I was feeling too ill to catch the second flight, so stepped out" would be something they can't contest.
I understand that as the seller they have the right to refusal passengers but it seems like their combative stance is akin to the music/movie industries attitude towards torrents. I would think that both Orbitz and United would be better off on-boarding an "if you can't beat them, join them" mantra. This whole episode could have been flipped on it's head if the headline read "Skiplagged officially endoresed by United and Orbitz". Imagine the number of passengers they'd attract! I'm assuming that the market for flights is demand elastic to some extent. This is anecdotal based on my own buying pattern though.
[+] [-] chrismcb|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] razzberryman|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bribri|11 years ago|reply
Zaman said Skiplagged is just a "side project."
[+] [-] bentcorner|11 years ago|reply
Out of curiosity, is it all possible to book A -> B -> C, and travel the B -> C leg?
Would the airline sell your seat if you didn't show up at A?
[+] [-] stephenhuey|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rsanheim|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bohnej|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joliv|11 years ago|reply