No no no. You guys are making it too complicated.
Haven’t you ever noticed that it takes less time coming back from someplace than it takes to get there?
That’s it! The return trip is shorter! 
Until I saw the capital S and realized it was the sandwich chain, I thought to myself, “What would happen if I walked into the NYC subway and asked the token clerk for a loaf of bread and has anyone ever done this?”
I doubt that the response would have been positive or friendly.
My area of expertise, here.
It’s not open jaw. Open jaw would be flying Minneapolis to Detroit, driving to Chicago, the flying Chicago to Minneapolis. What you’re referring to is back-to-back ticketing.
Back-to-back is when you create two round trips, each originating in opposing cities, when one round trip is inside the other.
I’ll also tell you how the airlines are catching people…by their frequent flier numbers. If their computers see two overlapping trips, then they can assume that what they see is a back-to-back.
Is it technically illegal? That’s still up for debate. The airlines say it is, and they’ll capture the tickets and make you pay the difference between what you paid and the unrestricted fare.
You want to fight it in court? Go ahead. Others have tried and lost. The airlines have never tried to prosecute anyone for fraud yet, though. (That’s what they claim it is.
The easiest way around the rules is to use two separate airlines…one round trip each. You can’t be caught that way.
This is getting hard. Somebody relieve me. (A Wallian exclamation)
This is what we should do. We should re-regulate the airline industry. Then the small towns that had airline service and no longer do would have it again. Also, there would be no more fare games. Flight attendents wouldn’t have to get food stamps anymore, they could make a decent wage. Period.
The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it. (Karl Marx, 1845)
Addendum: The airlines have forced travel agencies NOT to advertise nor promote back-to-backs on penalty of having their rights to issue tickets revoked. They haven’t sued Joe Lunchbucket. Yet.
This is getting hard. Somebody relieve me. (A Wallian exclamation)
Dystopos, if Subway charged me MORE for just a loaf of bread then I would be confused!
Hmm… let me get this straight: in order for the airlines to be able to rip business travelers off, they have to know when you go on your return trip. Hence they don’t want you to simply buy a one way ticket. Ok, I guess that makes sense. I sure would like to see some airline CEO explain THAT on camera though! I’m still incredulous and hoping some other explanation comes up. But this is probably as good as it will get.
Thanks everyone.
galen wrote
Puh-lease. May I suggest you move to Cuba, one of the last bastions of sanity in this cruel democratic free-market world.
Yeah, let’s re-regulate, then ALL our fares can be the price of those expensive one-way deals.
Airline ticket prices went down by a huge amount after de-regulation. Now a middle class family can actually afford to fly somewhere for a holiday. Oh, the horror.
I’m surprised no one has mentioned the benefit to the airlines of the round-trip fare – namely that they have assurance that the plane will be full (or nearly so) when it goes back the other direction. This reduces their anxiety (and presumably their costs) so they can discount the return portion of the flight.
boy I really screwed this thread up with a misleading title.
I’m talking about round trip tickets that are cheaper than a SINGLE one way ticket.
“Open jaw would be flying Minneapolis to Detroit, driving to Chicago, then flying Chicago to Minneapolis.”
Crikey! I really hope that the airlines haven’t banned this. There are perfectly legitimate reasons to travel in this manner, where one has business in two cities that are very near each other, flying into one city, conducting their business, traveling to the other city by car or train, doing their business there, and then flying back. Such city pairs as Chicago-Milwaukee, Los Angeles-San Diego, and any two cities on the Northeast Corridor from Washington DC to New York are all easier to travel between by train than airplane.
For example, I once traveled for business to the East Coast (I forget which airline). But my tickets were Chicago-Philadelphia and New York City-Chicago. I had business in both cities, and I traveled from Philly to NYC via Amtrak.
So that was open jaw? The airline could have voided my tickets? Now MY jaw is open in shock.
Open jaw traveling is perfectly legal. I am using a free ticket in this matter. (Into Detroit and out of Milwaukee. I didn’t say it was a fun trip, but that’s where the relatives happen to be.)
It usually doesn’t cost much extra.
You can also use open jaw traveling when going to Europe. My father and I started our trip in Amsterdam and finished it in Helsinki. The cost was not appreciably much higher.
Well, if you visit any of those fine travel sites on the web, a lot of them will show you the price breakdown coming and going. For my trip to the Virgin Islands over the holidays:
IAD -> Charlotte Amalie: $1,200
Charlotte Amalie -> IAD: $99
Naturally, you have to go there in order to be able to come back at that fine, bargain rate. Sure looks to me like this ticket was designed to get all they can out of those folks who are relocating instead of merely vacationing.
Sorry. My bad. My recollection of a Consumer Reports Travel Letter article from a few years ago has degraded a bit and I got the terms mixed up. As Rysdad explained, “open jaw” ticketing isn’t illegal, but back-to-back ticketing is.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by m3:
Dystopos, if Subway charged me MORE for just a loaf of bread then I would be confused!
I hear you I hear you. I tried to come up with a better analogy, but the airlines are just so much more extreme with this ‘packaging’ technique. It’s not unimaginable that Subway would charge more for just the bread if they bought all their ingredients based on the bread count. If people came in droves just buying bread they’d end up with crates of rotting tomatoes (or, in the airline’s case, a whole lot of rusting 747’s in Miami.)
Back-to-back tickets aren’t illegal, they can’t be. I mean, imagine the insanity of someone trying to pass a law requiring you to actually use something you bought.
I don’t doubt that they claim it’s illegal, but that doesn’t mean anything. You haven’t been shown a contract, or been told not to do that (that it’s against their agreements) so you can’t be expected to agree to a contract clause stating you won’t do it.
If they cancelled the second half of my flight just because of their policy, which I wasn’t informed of, I’d sue them. With damages cost by missing whatever I’d been going there for. If you contract to something, you are bound to deliver that. You can’t just cancel a sale at any time by returning the money. (Except in certain circumstances, which are almost all for the protection of the customer, not the merchant.)
They could very well forbid travel agents from offering these tickets, if I wanted to, my fictional airline could refuse to deal with any travel agent with yellow in their logo, or any other inane condition, as long as it wasn’t discriminatory (or obviously designed to restrict business unfairly.)
They could tell the agent that they didn’t like that practice and that they wouldn’t honor any tickets from that agent in the future, what they couldn’t do is stop honoring already sold tickets. Or, if they did, it’s be fraud, or contract violation. They’d deserve to be hit with huge damages, for such a flagrant abuse of power.
Incidentally, CNN has an article on the back-to-back issue today. Seems like airlines are cracking down on passengers who book this way. What insanity!!!
http://www.cnn.com/2000/TRAVEL/VIEWS/elliott/04/05/