You’re absolutely right.
American Airlines is also free to decide that they don’t want to do business with you, or any other person who skiplags.
One could argue that, if you bought a ticket from Chicago to San Francisco but used it to fly to Denver, you’re using a different service than the one you paid for.
You started out asking “What difference does it make to the airline…?” @Cheesesteak was answering that question. In response, you talk about what you owe the theater (/airline) and what your obligations are, which is a different argument.
I think an important difference is that when you buy an airline ticket, you’re agreeing to abide by the contract of carriage. Now I’ve never read that for any flight I’ve ever taken, and I doubt many passengers do, but I’ll bet that skiplagging is covered in it.
Or, back in the days of double features (I remember them) if the theater charged more for a single movie than the double feature, and then got mad at you for buying the double feature and walking out after the first movie.
The problem here is that the airlines have an irrational pricing structure from the point of view of the consumer, and such structures lead to consumers finding loopholes. Same for round trips being cheaper than one way, same for big discounts for Saturday stay overs.
Almost certainly not what is going on here. You stop over or change planes in hubs, which are higher demand. Low traffic cities are usually at the end of a trip, and if they were really low demand they would not be competitive, and thus not have discount prices for tickets to them, so it would not be cheaper to travel to them.
To continue the movie theater analogy, they would be unhappy if you bought a ticket but brought in your own popcorn, candy and drinks. They expect you to buy that stuff from them, especially since they only get a fraction of the ticket price.
Agree. It’s not illegal for someone to skiplag, but the airlines can refuse to do business with you if you are caught doing it. Fair enough.
But hey, airlines, how about a more transparent pricing scheme, and maybe charge more for the longer itinerary, instead of less?
Sure it is. American Airlines is free to decide they don’t want to do business with me because I have brown eyes.
That would be a foolish decision. Just like it would be a foolish decision to refuse to sell tickets to people who want to buy tickets for flights they don’t take.
How about when you reserve a hotel room at a certain rate, and the itinerary either cannot be cancelled (you pay no matter what) or you have to pay a cancellation fee?
Okay, let me ask you guys this. Suppose I bought a ticket for a direct flight from New York to Los Angeles. Then on the morning of my flight, I decide to not go to Los Angeles and stay home. I don’t ask for a refund.
Have I violated my contract with the airline by not taking the flight I paid for? Do you guys feel I owe the airline something?
I wonder about the contract of carriage, the fact that the airlines are common carriers, and their contracts of the adhesion variety. It ain’t as tho the passenger has the right to negotiate that contract. No idea as to the extent to which the government regulates/reviews/authorizes the specific terms. I could imagine a court deciding whether or not an anti-skiplagging term is in the public interest…
I should know more about this - but I mostly slept through Contracts class some 35 years ago…
You need to consider the possibility that a multi-leg flight might only be profitable if a certain number of people pay full price for a direct flight involving a single leg, and that the people signing up for flights with a stop or a plane change are merely a way to squeeze something extra out of the route, but would not by themselves, if the plane was fully booked with them, be sufficient to generate a profit.
Pricing decisions certainly appear irrational from the consumer’s perspective, but that does not mean they are actually irrational—perhaps even from the consumer’s perspective. Permissive skiplagging might, for example, result in higher prices for everyone and/or loss/reduction of routes.
Anyone who has taken a master’s level course in operations research would grasp this problem intuitively. But then how many consumers take a master’s level course in operations research?
You’re asking the airlines to raise prices?
I appreciate the concept of transparent logical pricing, but lower prices are not a bad thing, even if they’re counter intuitive.
No, that makes no sense. The profitability of the flight is based on whether or not I bought a ticket. Once I’ve paid for the ticket, the airline has my money regardless of whether I actually take the flight or not.
You’re only considering a single trasaction, not the actions of many passengers over time.
Let me rephrase: the profitability of the route might depend on a number of people paying the higher single-leg fares. There may, within that framework, be some situations where an individual flight loses money, because too many dual-leggers are on the flight, but where it makes business sense to accommodate the loss because passengers will not react well (they hardly ever do) to having an entire flight summarily cancelled because too many dual-leggers bought tickets on that one plane. Plus, presumably, the airline’s overall plan expects the plane to complete the route or else it will cause disruption downstream and lose even more money.
But if that becomes a repeat problem, where there are more dual-leggers and fewer single-leggers than expected and flights along the route consistently lose money as a result? Yeah, I’d expect either (a) prices for everyone to go up or (b) the route to be terminated.
ETA: in other words, what @Thudlow_Boink said.
Go ahead, consider away. Assume that all of the passengers buy tickets and then decide to stay home. The airline, which was going to make a profit with all of those passengers on board, doesn’t make a profit if it receives the same amount of money but flies an empty plane. Come up with a scenario that explains that.
Please see what I wrote above.
The same number of people are paying the same amount of money. So the route would be just as profitable, with or without the actual passengers.
We’re talking about skiplagging, not staying home.
Scenario, Passengers who want to fly from NY to Chicago pay $500 per ticket, and passengers who go from NY to Peoria pay $300.
Insert skiplagging, and passengers from NY to Chi pay $300 because they’re buying Peoria tickets and not using the final leg. Passengers from NY to Peoria also pay $300. Airline thinks they have a full plane to Peoria but have a plane that’s 75% empty, with about 30 minutes notice.
Do you understand why the airline might not prefer this skiplagging scenario? Please don’t elaborate on whether they’re justified or have the right to complain, do you get why they don’t like it?
Here’s another way of looking at it. The airline has a daily flight from New York to Los Angeles. The plane has a hundred seats on it and those seats sell for a hundred dollars apiece. By selling tickets to one hundred passengers, the airline flies a full plane and makes ten thousand dollars, which is enough to keep the flight profitable.
The one day a rich sociopath decides to take the flight. He doesn’t like to be around other people. So he pays ten thousand dollars and buys all one hundred tickets for the flight. He gets on and takes his seat and the other ninety-nine seats are empty.
According to the argument of some people in this thread, this flight wasn’t profitable even though it made the same ten thousand dollars that the regular flights did.