But it’s not just about passengers saying home. It’s about how much the passengers staying home paid. Obviously the idea of all the passengers consistently staying home is absurd, so let’s just keep it to the scenario that we are actually talking about in this thread: the one where all the passengers decide to get off after the first leg (for which the fare would be higher if they weren’t engaged in skiplegging), instead of completing both legs of the flight (which is what their fare was based off of).
True, the profit or loss is the same whether they fly both legs or not. But the point is, it is far more likely to be a loss if they all paid the two-leg fare. They all displaced people who would have paid the higher one-leg fare, and so that by itself may be enough to make the flight unprofitable. If that keeps happening the route in unprofitable and the airline stops running the route.
Do you understand that? Do you understand that the airline’s profit expectations may be based on—even require—a certain number of people paying the higher single leg fare, and that there is just no way for the route to operate profitably if 100% of passengers pay the lower, two-leg fare, regardless of whether they fly both legs, a single leg, or no legs at all?
I’ve been following this discussion with interest, because I really don’t understand the pricing structure of the airlines. So, yes, I understand that the airline wants people who are flying the single leg to buy the single leg ticket. What I don’t understand is why the two-leg fare is cheaper.
If it’s already been explained, it must have gone over my head.
Most likely because there is a competing airline offering a direct route which is faster. Who in their right mind would pay more, or even just as much, for a flight with a stop/layover when they could get a direct flight that takes less time and involves less turbulence (from landing—the worst part of the experience)?
I like to think of a hypothetical tri-city route where the cities are vertices on an equilateral triangle. A to B takes just as much time as B to C or C to A and vice versa. If one airline has a hub out of B and the other out of C, then the first airline will likely have an advantage in the A to B route while the other will have the advantage in the A to C route. Meaning the only way the first airline can really earn any kind f market share on the A to C travelers is by, possibly, offering them cheaper fares to fill out the A to B and B to C flights.
Actually, no. In my example that I posted yesterday (Wichita to Miami via Atlanta was cheaper than Wichita to Atlanta), there are no direct flights from Wichita to Miami. In the example given by @Cheesesteak a few posts up (NY to Peoria via Chicago), I’m seriously doubting that there are direct flights to Peoria from NY.
So I will ask again: why is it cheaper for me to fly from Wichita to Miami with a stopover in Atlanta, than to fly the SAME FLIGHT from Wichita to Atlanta?
At the end of the day? Because the airlines did the math and determined that was the best way to do it.
I can only provide you hypothetical examples. If you want the 100% “here’s the answer for every individual route” you probably need to become good friends with someone who works at an airline and does route planning/scheduling and isn’t afraid of getting fired for sharing their employer’s confidential information with you.
Here is a toy example showing how this works out explicitly
Suppose we have a flight that goes from New York to Maco Georgia via Washington DC.
Suppose further it costs $16,000 to run a 100 passenger plane from New York to DC and another $12k to run the same plane to Maco GA, for a total of $28k
There are 50 executive businessmen who need to be in DC on a schedule and are willing to pay $300 to get there, there are also 50 people who want to visit there parents in Maco but only if they can get there for $250. Additionally there are 25 people who want to go from DC to Maco for $100.
So selling all of the tickets, the get 50x$300 + 50x$250 +25x$100 = $30,000 so everyone gets a price they can afford and the airline they makes a profit of $2000. Everybody’s happy.
But those executives decide to skiplag, then the airlines earns 50x$250 + 50x$250 +25x$100 = $27,500 and ends up with a $500 loss, not good.
Suppose instead they decide to change the pricing structure so that New York to DC and New York to Maco both cost $275. But then half of the passengers visiting their parents decide its not worth the money. So they end up with 50x$275 + 25x$275 +25x$100 = $23,125 for an even worse loss of $4,875
So finally they decide maybe to keep the $300 fairs and drop the Maco run as unprofitable. Well then the New York to DC flight is only half full and so they only bring in $300x50=$15,000 for a flight costing $16,000 so a $1000 loss.
So the solution for the airline is to drop the flight entirely and everybody loses.
You signed a contract to do X, not do Y, receive services Z, and pay $A for the privilege. Then you do X, receive Z, pay $A, and do Y anyhow even though you signed a contract not to.
What now?
Regardless of whether you understand (or agree with) the why and wherefore of the bit about Y, your counterparty thought it was important enough to prohibit in writing and you thought it was unimportant enough to violate those terms of your mutual contract.
Anyone remember when bag fees came into existence? It was to pay for the high cost of fuel when gas prices exploded. Gas prices went down but strangely enough bag fees are still here. Skiplaggers must abide by the contract and travel all of their itinerary which strangely enough did not mean that Southwest had to actually fly people according to the itinerary they bought last Christmas. There is no financial argument that the airlines lose money on skiplagging - they made the same money whether or not my butt is in that seat. But for the sake of argument let’s just say that if I don’t fulfill my part of their pricing algorithm they lose money. That’s a them problem with their dumb-ass algorithm and not a me problem.
The only real reason they are against skiplagging is so they can continue their tradition of F’ing over their customers.
Guesswork following, but I was a services pricer for over a decade, so it’s not entirely baseless guesswork.
They need to fill out the flight from Wichita to Atlanta. They don’t have enough passengers interested in that trip to fill every flight. So, they offer people in Wichita an attractive price for other trips that go through Atlanta, so that they get some incremental revenue on an already scheduled flight.
Many people going from Wic to Atl (and Atl to Mia) are probably going for business, and therefore are less price sensitive than families thinking about a trip to Miami.
The airlines want to get full price from the subset of people who aren’t price sensitive and just want their direct flight to the business meeting and airlines also want to offer good deals to people who are very price sensitive so they can get more bodies on the plane and a little extra revenue to offset fixed costs.
What they don’t want is the good deal “put a few more fannies in seats” price to become the standard for their bread and butter passengers.
I know that it’s complicated enough that just because it doesn’t make sense to you or me doesn’t mean it doesn’t make any sense at all, or even that they are screwing consumers over.
Given how infamously close to the margins airlines operate, I am satisfied that there really isn’t a whole lot of wiggle room in routes/fares, and that this removes the problem from the moral realm (where I am normally eager to endorse screwing over large corporations, because eff them) to the merely contractual realm, where I am largely indifferent to the outcome where I am not a participant myself.
Let me ask you the same question I asked others above.
My answer is that all I owe the airline is the money I paid for the ticket. That’s it. I do not owe the airline my presence on the flight. I do not have to go to Los Angeles just because I bought a ticket to Los Angeles.
Sure, and if the contract of carriage says “and oh by the way, if you’re on the first leg of your flight but you’re not on the second leg of the flight, we reserve the right to cancel your frequent flier miles and/or never sell to you again” then the airline is within its rights to do that.
So, with that, and to the OP, should skiplagging be permitted? Sure. To the exact same extent that the airline should be permitted to enforce the terms of its contract against you should you engage in it.
I asked you if you understood why airlines don’t like skiplagging and you said
i.e. they make less money with skiplagging.
I get that the airlines are giant scumbags. The problem is that skiplagging is NOT some clever way to stick it to the man, it’s a painfully obvious gaming of the system. It will not result in a better air travel experience for Americans, it will just result in the airlines changing the game so it won’t work anymore. Probably by fucking over the small town traveler so that their prices aren’t attractive enough to drive skiplaggers.