So, I’m looking at fares for my next flight to Melbourne, Australia from Orlando, and I’d like to know why a oneway ticket costs as much or more than a round-trip ticket?
And as a follow-on question, what happens if I simply don’t use the return leg? I’m moving there, and I won’t be returning for several months at the very earliest, for a visit.
Because it’s more economical - they have to fly the plane back anyway, and they’d rather have a guaranteed bum on the seat then risk leaving it empty. If you don’t use the return leg…nothing will happen except that once you haven’t checked in, your empty seat will probably be offered to some impoverished traveller, who was hoping for exactly this to happen, as a cheap standby.
Your explanation makes no sense. I’m sure that if you re-read what you just said, and think about it for a little bit, you will come to that conclusion. They lose nothing by having an empty seat that was paid for. Just like a restaurant loses nothing if you buy a meal and leave before they finish cooking it.
Hopefully, someone will have an explanation as I have wondered about this myself.
Not always true. Some discount return fares are sold with the restriction that you must use the return leg. The airline reserves the right to charge the full no-discount one-way fare to a defaulter’s cridit card.
As to why the disparity exists at all, there are at least two motivations from the airlines’ standpoint, both marketing led. Firstly very cheap fares can act as a loss leader. You can advertise your low low fares, but impose such severe restrictions on availability and use that most passengers end up purchasing a higher fare.
Secondly, many airlines attempt to charge people as much as they are willing to pay, and best of all to acommodate all these levels of willingness on the same flight with exactly the same level of service! They do this by making you pay for flexibility. Business users have the deepest pockets and the greatest need to fly when and where they want. Those on a tighter budget must bend to the airlines’ will. Even if they could offer total flexibility at lower prices they wouldn’t want to as then business users would not be willing to pay a premium. Remember also that an empty seat costs almost as much to fly as a full one. Flexible tickets require extra capacity so cost the company more.
In Europe, there’s a trend away from this type of pricing, started by the budget airlines but now being used by many large traditional ones - economy seats are quoted separately for each leg of the journey, so there’s no disadvantage for somebody buying a one-way ticket.
I suspect that more advanced yield management helps remove the ‘empty seat on way back’ problem - they just need to make sure equal numbers of single tickets are sold in each direction.
I don’t think there ever really was much of an ‘empty seat on the way back’ problem per se. Most routes will have pretty even loads in both directions.
The ticketing policy of the new low-cost carriers in Europe is in fact a much simplified but very effective variation of the same old strategy of charging for flexibility. All they do is set a quota for different fares on each flight. The earlier you book the better chance you have of getting a good deal. For maximum flexibility you can turn up and fly, but chances are the only tickets left will be the high price ones. They do not sell ‘open’ tickets and you cannot easily switch flights. The brilliant part is the simplicity which means it is very cheap to administer.
This is true for the low-cost carriers - I was talking about the hybrid system increasingly used by major operators, with the low-cost model for the cheapest economy fares, but also have retained options for flexible tickets and business class.
Nobody has mentioned yet that one-way tickets are essentially a specialty item. A lot of the problems mentioned apply to airlines only, but say if you want to rent a U-Haul, one-way is also a lot more expensive. Essentially they charge more for one-way, because if you are buying one-way, then you are asking for a specialty item, and are willing to pay more. (Requiring people to use the return ticket further enforces this).
I’ve wondered about this. If I buy a plane ticket, and don’t show up, I still am out the price of a plane ticket, but the airlines can resell/reassign my seat. I’ve paid for that seat. I’m not getting my money back. What gives them the right to fill it with anyone other then me. Is this just a case of some obscure contract that I’ve never bothered to read, because the print is too small?
It’s part of the contract, that usually says something like “If you do not present yourself at the gate 20 minutes before the scheduled departure time, your seat may be reassigned/resold.” What happens at that point depends on what kind of ticket you bought. You can probably get your money back if you bought a full fare ticket. Usually only business travelers pay full fare, because they’re expensive. If you have a non-refundable ticket you may be able to reschedule for a later flight, either the same day or another day, but probably has to be the same origin/destination. Or if you bought a super-special-ultra-cheap-deal ticket, you may get absolutely nothing.
I’ve never read the contract on a ticket very closely before (perused it out of broedom while waiting in a boarding line on a few occasions) but it would not surprise me that it is spelled out in there (e.g. you are expected to check in at least XX minutes before a flight or risk losing the seat).
That said why would you care? Further, I think if you miss a flight they generally let you apply the unused ticket to a future flight along with a surcharge ($50 last I remember) for the switch. IANAL but perhaps this is the way they can legally hand a seat to someone else even though you paid for it (i.e. your ticket retains value since you did not use the service you bought so you technically have not lost anything).
All offered as a WAG…just there as food for thought till an airline pricing guru comes along.
I was faced with this same issue when I was moving back from New Zealand to live permanently in Australia again. The return Wellington-Sydney ticket was much cheaper than a one-way ticket. So I just bought a return and threw the remainder of the ticket into the bin when I got to Sydney. Nothing happened.
They’ve been doing that for a while now over here. I really prefer it to the old way.
That’s true, but I also think part of it is that they run smaller airplanes, so it’s much easier to reach maximum occupancy.
There’s a difference with U-Hauls and rental cars in that they have the problem of the fleet accumulating in popular destinations if there is an imbalance of rentals in one way or another. They have to pay to get the car/truck back, and so it is reasonable to charge you. Not true with airlines.
And it has nothing to do with balancing seats. You can get a very reasonably priced three leg ticket.
I think one possibility is that this prevents people from finding cheap fares on airline X in one direction, and cheap fares on airline Y the other. This way they lock you into both legs. Or it might be because they can.
This is a common misconception - what you’ve actually paid for is passage, not the seat, and as others have pointed out, this passage comes with terms & conditions. The only reason everybody has to have a seat is for safety. (You don’t expect a refund from a train company if every seat is taken when you board.)
Why? Doesn’t the single-ticket pricing give more flexibility? (I easily buy as many single journies as returns, building up triangular routes, or just finding the two cheapest legs via different modes of transport).
I’d question this - most short-haul operations are with 737s and the like, whether with a low-cost or traditional airline.
I imagine this is a good reason for going through a travel service, since the service probably buys round trips from the carriers, but allocates a portion of them to sell to customers who are only going one way.
For instance, we recently changed our planned trip to New York to include a few days in Boston, meaning that instead of simple round trip tickets from L.A. to N.Y., we need a three-legged itinerary–from L.A. to Boston to N.Y. and back. But when I made the change in my Expedia itinerary, it didn’t seem to make that much difference in the cost.
I’d propose a simpler reason: airlines do it because they believe they can get away with it. This is just a small part of “yield management,” which the airlines mastered (or, rather, thought they’d mastered) in the 1980s - in other words, it was a way to charge different prices to different people for the same service, based on how price sensitive the people were believed to be. Airlines determined that people who buy one way tickets were more willing to pay extra - a lot extra - for the privilege. I suspect that’s because one-ways are typically bought in emergencies - e.g. a deal is messed up and the lawyer has to fly from Newark NJ to Orange County CA to try to solve the problem (true story from my life - I was the lawyer). In emergencies, it’s easier to extract your pound of flesh.
The problem, of course, was that the airline’s calculations were all based on approximations which had lots of exceptions - like the example of simply moving residence, which wasn’t an emergency at all. And the differentials led to a lot of customer resentment. Companies like RyanAir and Southwest abandoned the practice, forcing the majors to follow suit, all the way to bankruptcy court.
Throwing away the return part of a round trip ticket is usually a violation of the “contract of carriage” - the contract you agree to with the airline by purchasing a ticket. By the letter of many of those contracts, they could actually CHARGE you for the difference between a one way and a round trip fare when you don’t show up. From Delta’s fare page:
Bolding mine. Similar wording may be found on other airlines. The point-beyond variant has mostly been prevented by anti-terrorist measures for the last several years - you don’t get away with noting that the ticket to a major hub is actually cheaper than to the stop enroute, buying the ticket to the hub and simply getting off the plane at the stop. You’ll trigger all sorts of alarms when they count noses.
Of course, all of this is caused by the fact that airline prices don’t behave in a rational fashion with regard to distance flown. Part of it came with deregulation - the pricing structures for airlines became, ummm, creative, as airlines endlessly tweaked them in all sorts of arcane ways based on factors other than the distance between city A and city B.
Another thing is that people aren’t comparing the exact same things. One way tickets are usually only available as full-price, fully refundable tickets. If you buy a full-price, fully refundable round-trip ticket, it’s twice a one-way ticket. Discount round trip tickets are cheaper than full price one-way tickets, but then those are two different beasts.
Now, why don’t the airlines sell discount one-way tickets? Because they only want to sell discount tickets to people who won’t fly if the price is too high. As ticker and OxyMoron indicated, airlines know that people who want to buy one-way tickets often have to fly whatever the price. So they’re gouged.
Ed
At what point are you throwing away the return, and at what point are you just waiting to use it? Changes cost money, no problem. If I delay my return leg by three days, they charge me for changes. No biggie. At what point do they decide you’re not going to show up?
I guess I have a real quandry – I used miles to get round trip tickets on AA to get to Mexico. It was the same number of miles one way or round trip, so I got the round trip “just in case,” and never used the return. Since the miles cost was the same, I don’t see American chasing me down. I don’t know if the tickets qualify for paid changes, either, since they were miles-bought. I’ll have to check that out.