Teenager Denied Flight Boarding for 'Skiplagging', the Money-Saving Lifehack Airlines Hate (ktla.com) 338
"Logan Parson's first flight by himself ended with airport officials taking the teenager into custody and whisking him away into an interrogation room," reports the Independent. The teen was "denied boarding to an American Airlines flight," reports the Washington Post. "He hadn't committed a crime, nor was he accused of being unruly.
"His offense? Attempting to make use of a money-saving hack that gutsy fliers use every year." Direct flights to major cities are so expensive, it can actually be cheaper to book a flight with stops in two cities — and then skip the flight to that second city. The Post points out that while passengers can save money with this so-called "hidden-city ticket" trick — or skiplagging — "most carriers regard it as a form of fraud."
From North Carolina TV station WJZY: In a statement to WJZY, American Airlines said, "Purchasing a ticket without intending to fly all flights to gain lower fares (hidden city ticketing) is a violation of American Airlines terms and conditions and is outlined in our Conditions of Carriage online...." Other major airlines, like Delta and United, also prohibit hidden city ticketing. Even [skip-lagging resource] Skip Lagged warns there may be consequences of hidden city ticketing, like your checked luggage moving on to the final destination instead of where you stop or losing frequent flyer miles you've accrued.
The Arizona Republic adds: According to American and Southwest's contracts of carriage, they can cancel any unused part of a ticket, refuse to let the passenger and their bags fly, not issue a refund and charge the customer for what the ticket would have cost for the full route. Airlines may ban a passenger from flying with them in the future.
Some airlines have challenged the practice in court but without success. In November 2014, United Airlines sued Skiplagged.com and its founder in court, claiming trademark infringement, according to court documents. A judge dismissed the suit the following year.
The Washington Post shares another warning: Chris Dong, a Los Angeles-based travel writer and points expert who used to skiplag, says you especially can't do this on a round-trip flight. "Airlines will cancel your return flight if you're a 'no show' for any segment of a booked itinerary," Dong said in an email.
While the teen's father told WJZY that his son was "interrogated a little bit" before being "taken to a security room," American Airline says their records don't show that the teen was taken to a security room. Instead, they've told the Post that "Our records indicate the customer was questioned only at the ticket counter about their travel, while attempting to check-in for their flight." The fact that the teen was denied boarding underscores how serious airlines take skiplagging. It makes sense, since the practice saps revenue from them on two fronts: Not only do passengers underpay — potentially by hundreds of dollars per ticket — but the seat on the tossed leg could have been sold to someone else. Most contracts of carriage from major airlines expressly forbid skiplagging as a result.
The Post also got this quote from Clint Henderson, an industry expert and managing editor for the Points Guy. "The airlines are getting increasingly sophisticated and smart about it. I expect that will get even more prevalent as technology improves further."
"His offense? Attempting to make use of a money-saving hack that gutsy fliers use every year." Direct flights to major cities are so expensive, it can actually be cheaper to book a flight with stops in two cities — and then skip the flight to that second city. The Post points out that while passengers can save money with this so-called "hidden-city ticket" trick — or skiplagging — "most carriers regard it as a form of fraud."
From North Carolina TV station WJZY: In a statement to WJZY, American Airlines said, "Purchasing a ticket without intending to fly all flights to gain lower fares (hidden city ticketing) is a violation of American Airlines terms and conditions and is outlined in our Conditions of Carriage online...." Other major airlines, like Delta and United, also prohibit hidden city ticketing. Even [skip-lagging resource] Skip Lagged warns there may be consequences of hidden city ticketing, like your checked luggage moving on to the final destination instead of where you stop or losing frequent flyer miles you've accrued.
The Arizona Republic adds: According to American and Southwest's contracts of carriage, they can cancel any unused part of a ticket, refuse to let the passenger and their bags fly, not issue a refund and charge the customer for what the ticket would have cost for the full route. Airlines may ban a passenger from flying with them in the future.
Some airlines have challenged the practice in court but without success. In November 2014, United Airlines sued Skiplagged.com and its founder in court, claiming trademark infringement, according to court documents. A judge dismissed the suit the following year.
The Washington Post shares another warning: Chris Dong, a Los Angeles-based travel writer and points expert who used to skiplag, says you especially can't do this on a round-trip flight. "Airlines will cancel your return flight if you're a 'no show' for any segment of a booked itinerary," Dong said in an email.
While the teen's father told WJZY that his son was "interrogated a little bit" before being "taken to a security room," American Airline says their records don't show that the teen was taken to a security room. Instead, they've told the Post that "Our records indicate the customer was questioned only at the ticket counter about their travel, while attempting to check-in for their flight." The fact that the teen was denied boarding underscores how serious airlines take skiplagging. It makes sense, since the practice saps revenue from them on two fronts: Not only do passengers underpay — potentially by hundreds of dollars per ticket — but the seat on the tossed leg could have been sold to someone else. Most contracts of carriage from major airlines expressly forbid skiplagging as a result.
The Post also got this quote from Clint Henderson, an industry expert and managing editor for the Points Guy. "The airlines are getting increasingly sophisticated and smart about it. I expect that will get even more prevalent as technology improves further."
Fuck the airlines (Score:5, Insightful)
This makes absolutely no sense except from a 'gouge the customer' standpoint.
If they can make money with you taking a multiple-hop flight, they can make a bit more from you skipping the last leg because they use a tiny bit less fuel on account of not having to haul your butt through the sky.
What really ought to result from this is a serious investigation into the airlines for the implicit over-charging on shorter flights.
Re:Fuck the airlines (Score:5, Insightful)
Supply and demand drives pretty much all economic activity, even when harshly regulated. In this case, demand for short term tickets is higher than longer flights with layover.
So this practice enables airlines to ensure that smaller airports retain at least some service by using what they estimate would be remaining unsold flights from the short hops in both directions. Customers flying short hops get a small price increase, customers flying to smaller destinations can actually get service to said smaller destinations.
One effectively subsidizes the other, and generates economic productivity that would otherwise not exist as a result. We do this all the time with regulation, for example, public transit companies being mandated to serve certain destinations at a loss, and are allowed to recoup this cost by charging more on popular routes. In addition to air travel, train, bus, and ship travel all use the same model where it's either forced by regulation or enables enough new economic activity to offset the losses on getting a bit less profit from the popular route.
Re:Fuck the airlines (Score:5, Informative)
Other factors to consider.. The fees charged by the airport to the airline for transit are lower than the fees for local arrivals because there is less overhead. By exiting from the airport, the airport will charge the airline for an arrival rather than a transit.
The airline is also required to declare passenger lists to local authorities, this can be a much bigger problem on international stopovers as they won't be expecting your arrival and could hold the airline liable.
There is also the issue with bags, if the passenger is not flying then their bags are not allowed to either (otherwise this would be the ideal way to plant a bomb without killing yourself), so if you cancel the 2nd leg they have to offload the bags, sort out which is yours and get everything else loaded back onto the plane before it can depart. This can often cause a delay for all the other passengers.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sensible reasons to prohibit skipping booked flight, yes.
But still not justifiable reasons to charge more for a shorter flight. Travel should not be demand-driven. It should be solely resource driven (fuel, time, capacity). And travel to a mix of big and small cities should be mandated or otherwise regulated into practice.
Find another way to subsidize travel that's not charging disproportionate prices.
Because the practice, after all, greatly incentivizes hacking it. No one understands or wants to pay twice
Re:Fuck the airlines (Score:4, Insightful)
>But still not justifiable reasons to charge more for a shorter flight. Travel should not be demand-driven. It should be solely resource driven (fuel, time, capacity).
Flight is not a resource generator. But economic activity generated by enabling fast travel is.
Ergo, travel is in fact resource driven. The resources in question are not fuel, time or capacity, but economic activity generated by said travel.
Re:Fuck the airlines (Score:5, Interesting)
I should have said pricing for travel should not be demand-driven. Like pricing for health care should not be demand driven. Pricing for air should not be demand driven.
Basic necessities to operate in the modern world should have pricing schemes that are fair, sustainable, and universally accessible. Air travel gets into a gray area because it straddles critical infrastructure level service and pleasure service. But with that in mind, it would be perfectly fair to price air travel in a way not designed to maximize shareholder value, but instead according to actual cost imposed on the providers and society itself and then to devise means to subsidize this to whatever extent is necessary to make it work optimally in that capacity. Corporate travel and travel by the wealthy, for instance, should really be way more expensive than it is now. Travel for vacation should be about where it is now. Travel for holidays should probably be way more expensive because it's currently over utilized and has negative social and environmental impacts.
Travel for funerals or other such things should be cheaper than it is.
Obviously, accounting for all these factors when booking travel is more hassle and paperwork than it's worth. I'm speaking in terms of ideal pricing. However, the intent of the pricing and subsidies should be targeted in that general direction. Airlines need not make people rich either. Nor should utilities. etc.
Re: (Score:3)
>You witnessed two epic collapses of Capitalism: 2008 global financial crisis and COVID.
It's excellent that you cite two events as worst that Capitalism has to offer, because it offers us a chance for direct comparison to what planned economies do at their worst as a comparison.
So let's go with Mao's Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward (somewhere between 40.000.000 and 150.000.000 million dead. We don't actually know how much because Communists don't view individual life as relevant or valuable, o
Re: (Score:2)
>But still not justifiable reasons to charge more for a shorter flight. Travel should not be demand-driven. It should be solely resource driven (fuel, time, capacity).
Flight is not a resource generator. But economic activity generated by enabling fast travel is.
Ergo, travel is in fact resource driven. The resources in question are not fuel, time or capacity, but economic activity generated by said travel.
That's basically how it was pre-deregulation. Interstate routes were priced, by the government, to allow a profit and allocated between airlines, which was why tickets were so expensive and airlines competed on service.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sensible reasons to prohibit skipping booked flight, yes.
It also saves on all the people waiting around and holding the door open until the very last second for the selfish passenger who deliberately isn't going to show, all the calls over the intercom, followed by the obligatory checks to see if all the baggage will need to be unloaded, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
"The selfish passenger".
You're blaming the customer for avoiding being overcharged by an unreasonable system, instead of blaming the system.
Re: (Score:2)
It should be solely resource driven (fuel, time, capacity).
How would they know that months in advance when booking starts?
Re: (Score:2)
Demand for air travel is far more volatile than it would be if pricing were reasonable and predictable.
It is these very practices by the airlines that are causing demand volatility. Fixing the pricing would create predictable demand (with the exception of something like a global pandemic)
Re: (Score:3)
Fixing the pricing would create predictable demand (with the exception of something like a global pandemic)
Let's hope you never have to run an airline. You'll be broke in six months.
Re: (Score:3)
There is also the issue with bags, if the passenger is not flying then their bags are not allowed to either (otherwise this would be the ideal way to plant a bomb without killing yourself), so if you cancel the 2nd leg they have to offload the bags, sort out which is yours and get everything else loaded back onto the plane before it can depart. This can often cause a delay for all the other passengers.
This makes sense and i'm sure it exists in some regulation somewhere, but it's definitely not followed strictly.
I travel a lot. Like a lot lot. Many times I have been unable to deplane and make a connecting flight in the time allotted, due to a late plane or other complications, and yet my luggage did make it and continues on to the destination. If what you said were true, they would have pulled (or rather not loaded) my bags.
Re: (Score:3)
What you're missing is that it is carry-on only for Skip Lagging, no checked luggage.
Is carry-on luggage not screened?
Again, how does this jibe with the fact that passenger airplanes also carry freight that doesn't belong to any passenger at all? If we have a process that allows us to successfully screen and therefore trust completely-unattended freight, why aren't we using that process for all the luggage humans are bringing on board?
Re: (Score:3)
this is all bs. rtfa, it describes the reason pretty clearly, it is pure greed:
It makes sense, since the practice saps revenue from them on two fronts: Not only do passengers underpay — potentially by hundreds of dollars per ticket — but the seat on the tossed leg could have been sold to someone else.
so plain and simple a case of pretending "loss of rightful revenue", except courts won't play along with this one so the next best thing seems to be bullying the customer. they do have some experience in that.
Re:Fuck the airlines (Score:5, Insightful)
but the seat on the tossed leg could have been sold to someone else.
The same is true if you order a Happy Meal, eat the burger, but skip the fries. McDonald's could have sold those fries to someone else.
Re: (Score:3)
Good work. You found a typo. Unfortunately for you, you failed to find any actual counterargument.
Not your fault, really. I mean, you can't find what doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:3)
Good work. You found a typo. Unfortunately for you, you failed to find any actual counterargument.
Not your fault, really. I mean, you can't find what doesn't exist.
I wasn't attempting to make any counterargument at all.
Nor was I going for typo Gotcha points.
I legitimately was curious about that usage of "curtain", because I've never seen it used as a verb like that but based on its theatre association with "ending" I could understand if it were, in this case. And this particular sentence has the delightful attribute where all three of the possibilities - curtain, contain, and curtail - absolutely fulfill the semantic meaning.
I was simply curious which of the three pos
Re: (Score:3)
OK, sorry for jumping to conclusions there. I understand how that would be confusing.
I did mean "curtail", of course.
And thanks for the cogent reply.
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, they can always give the empty seat to a passenger waiting on standby after one of their innumerable canceled flights. Or...sell it to a desperate traveler at the exorbitant walkup rate.
Re: (Score:3)
I am not with the airlines on this one, but they really can't sell the skipped leg because they can only confirm that the passenger has skipped the leg when they are essentially closing the flight down for takeoff.
Re:Fuck the airlines (Score:4, Interesting)
Easy:
Buy a multi-hop ticket. Invoke the right to not use one or more hops ahead of time. Only be penalized for skipping without advising, not merely for skipping (as long as you tell them with enough time to make things right with the empty seat, bags, and airport plans). Airline wins, Customer wins.
Oh, but the airline doesn't get to invent crafty tricky fare schemes which are effectively price gouging. That's the sole reason they have these prohibitions in place.
Re: (Score:3)
In some cases, airline pricing is driven by competitive pricing. An airline X wants to compete with airline Y on flights from A to C, but X has has no direct flights -- it can only offer flights via B. So what happens is that airline X offers a better rate on flights from A to C (via B), than flights from A to B, which has less competition.
Some years ago, I wanted to buy flights from California to the UK. Flying from the US via Heathrow to Manchester was much cheaper than flying from the US to Heathrow.
Airl
Re:Fuck the airlines (Score:5, Interesting)
This makes absolutely no sense except from a 'gouge the customer' standpoint.
Beyond the economic and commercial basis for this there are also technical reasons. Someone who skiplags has checked in for the flight they don't take. This is taken into account in fuel and haulage.
Additionally it's chaotic. It is also a serious issue for delayed flights and finding missing passengers at airports (airlines and airports actually go out of their way to make sure passengers are not stranded mid flight, they couldn't give a fuck if you miss your first flight, but will hold up a plane if you are checked in and don't board on a continued flight).
There is no gouging here. Airlines are insanely competitive and constantly tether on the border of unprofitable. Economics have driven down cost of ticket prices in ways that from the outside appears to make no sense, but ultimately you're not being screwed. Just because I bought a TV at a 30% off sale because of overstock at the local shop doesn't mean you were price gouged for paying full RRP.
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally it's chaotic. It is also a serious issue for delayed flights and finding missing passengers at airports (airlines and airports actually go out of their way to make sure passengers are not stranded mid flight, they couldn't give a fuck if you miss your first flight, but will hold up a plane if you are checked in and don't board on a continued flight).
As if they give a fuck if you missed a connecting flight and get stranded. Airlines took the effort to find missing passengers because they need to take out their check-in luggage if the passenger owning it is not on the plane, I lost count of the times I had to wait another 15 mins for the plane to fly because they needed to first take out the luggages of someone who had not boarded. If you don't have any checked-in luggage the plane will happily take off without you if you do not appear at the gate.
Re:Fuck the airlines (Score:5, Insightful)
No. If this were not a prohibited practice, all those reasons would vaporize.
All you have to do is require the customer to provide some reasonable notice. 7 days should be more than enough. Even 24 hours is likely plenty.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think this is about seat utilization?
Isn't it more likely that the airline has to tell the airports where passengers will leave the airport, and if a passenger leaves somewhere the airline expects them to transit that airline could be accused of handing over a false manifest.
Re:Fuck the airlines (Score:4, Informative)
if a passenger leaves somewhere the airline expects them to transit that airline could be accused of handing over a false manifest.
It probably triggers all sorts of security protocols and extra paperwork, too.
Plus they'll have everybody standing around and holding the door until the very last second when they could be doing all the departure stuff instead.
Re:Fuck the airlines (Score:4, Funny)
Airline's fault (Score:5, Interesting)
when A->B costs more than A->B->C you got to wonder where the logic it.
time to regulate the airlines industry so that this bullshit stops.
Re:Airline's fault (Score:5, Insightful)
when A->B costs more than A->B->C you got to wonder where the logic it.
time to regulate the airlines industry so that this bullshit stops.
Probably because airlines compete on endpoints and this is what determines the fare but their cost is based on where their hubs are.
Semi-hypothetical example:
United and Delta compete on flights from SFO to STL.
United has a hub in Denver so this is an efficient connector for them. Denver is right in the middle between SFO and STL.
Delta's hub is in MSP. This awkward connection costs Delta more to operate and is less desirable to the consumer. To stay in the game, Delta might price its flights to STL less than the United flight even though it costs them more.
Meanwhile, Delta has a non-stop flight to MSP. Customers like that so Delta may charge a premium for SFO -> MSP above what United can charge for their connector flight. And that SFO -> MSP fare just might be more than Delta's SFO -> STL fare.
Re:Airline's fault (Score:5, Insightful)
So, this is still an idiotic action that is only be possible by corrupt tax policy and exploitation. It hurts you even if you don't fly.
Re: (Score:2)
This
Re:Airline's fault (Score:5, Interesting)
when A->B costs more than A->B->C you got to wonder where the logic it.
time to regulate the airlines industry so that this bullshit stops.
Exactly, this is like selling 3 apples for cheaper than 2 apples, and then deny sales to people who bought 3 apples but only ate 2.
When business engage in bullshit to reap more profits, it is expected that customers will go around your BS practices.
Re: (Score:2)
when A->B costs more than A->B->C you got to wonder where the logic it.
time to regulate the airlines industry so that this bullshit stops
What bullshit? The airlines have price optimised everything to the n-th degree. Flying is comically cheap as a result of these optimisations. They may not make sense, but any regulation you think of introducing will have the exact opposite effect you think they will. The "price gouging" of airlines is nothing more than min-maxing operations to make tickets cheap, and if you're not going to a popular destination, sucks to be you.
I paid more for dinner at the airport last time I flew across the continent than
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not on the ones for 33 Eur....
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
when A->B costs more than A->B->C you got to wonder where the logic it. time to regulate the airlines industry so that this bullshit stops.
If the complaint by the airlines is B->C isn't optimal, why not allow the customer to cancel the B->C portion following the ticket sale? Then the airline can sell B->C, or offer another flight of B->C->D, or outright cancel the flight from B->C if there aren't enough seats sold.
Free Market in THE Tand of the Free Free people. (Score:2)
Free Market in THE Tand of the Free Free people.
Re: (Score:3)
when A->B costs more than A->B->C you got to wonder where the logic it.
time to regulate the airlines industry so that this bullshit stops.
From what I heard there are so called "airport costs", which depend on the number of passengers boarding/leaving.
Airlines pay for airports' services and apparently it depends on their passengers - I'm pretty sure they wouldn't bother if such activity didn't cost or caused delays.
Re: (Score:2)
Logic of supply and demand. The thing that applies to everything from ecosystem-level inputs and outputs to bacteria fighting for living space in your gut.
Are you suggesting that airlines (and corporations in general) should be drowned in the equivalent of antibiotics before they cause an explosive diarrhea all over everything and everyone?
I mean, sure.
Nine-eleven times a hundred IS a solution to clearly rampant self-serving and insatiable greed of corporations, but wouldn't something like a probiotic solution be more elegant?
You know... Nationalizing corporations and the ill-gotten wealth of the bloodsuckers that run and own them while imprisoning said blood
Can we cancel the term "Lifehack"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Everything is a lifehack these days. The term is meaningless.
"Skip-lagging" isn't a lifehack, it's exploiting the special cases of a system and it makes things more expensive for everyone.
A flight with a layover is a direct flight when considering folks departing from the layover city. Skip-lagging just makes it more difficult for regular folks to find reasonably price air tickets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Skip-lagging just makes it more difficult for regular folks to find reasonably price air tickets.
No. this only works when prices are not reasonable to begin with. Like two flights being more expensive than one. This is a complete seperation of price and value.
Re:Can we cancel the term "Lifehack"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. Corporate greed is the only thing preventing people from getting reasonably priced tickets.
The airline industry is optimised to the point of unprofitability. It is literally the cheapest form of travel now by mile, and by a long shot. There is no corporate greed here.
This makes no sense (Score:4, Interesting)
I always figured this was like buying a train ticket and deciding to just get off at an earlier stop. What's the difference? You still paid for the whole itinerary.
Re: This makes no sense (Score:3, Insightful)
The main difference is that trains tend to be priced reasonably, where you pay for every leg of your journey. Airlines treat you more like a FedEx parcel: they'll get you there, but you better not car about the fine details of how they get you there.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever wondered why you feel like self-loading payload on some airline trips?
Re: (Score:2)
You still paid for the whole itinerary.
Airlines don't see it that way. If they sold you a flight from A to C that just happens to stop at B on the way, they see their contract as a ticket from A to C only.
What if you buy a ticket from A to C (via B) and, before you fly, the airline changes the itinerary to be A to C via D?
Re: (Score:2)
That would be pretty hard to do since a lot of the people on flight A-B are expecting to get off at B.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I always figured this was like buying a train ticket and deciding to just get off at an earlier stop. What's the difference? You still paid for the whole itinerary.
No one is looking for you when you suddenly aren't on the train. You didn't hold up every other passenger in an attempt by the train conductor to not leave you unintentionally stranded. No one is questioning where your luggage is and if it may or may not be unloaded at the right stop. No one is putting extra fuel in the train for you which itself is part of a careful weight calculation. No one is preparing meals for you.
Re: (Score:2)
This was an American airline. Nobody is preparing meals for anyone unless this teenager was flying business class. His mini-sized bag of over-salted pretzels will keep just fine.
Complaints make no sense to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only do passengers underpay â" potentially by hundreds of dollars per ticket â" but the seat on the tossed leg could have been sold to someone else
1) Why did you undercharge them for the first leg on that trip then. Seems like you have a broken pricing if it costs more to fly to just one part of the trip than the full thing. Especially when you consider reduced fuel use. Fix your damn pricing.
2) Almost all of the flights I've been on in recent years have a healthy waiting list for seats. So by not taking the second leg, you are doing the airline a favor, someone else can grab that seat last minute. My wife and I made an earlier flight this way one time, there was only one seat open so we couldn't go - but then last moment one more seat opened up and we could both get on, and fly home hours earlier... we paid a bit more for that early transfer so the airline made a little bit of money more than if the seat belonged to s person who actually flew.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only do passengers underpay â" potentially by hundreds of dollars per ticket â" but the seat on the tossed leg could have been sold to someone else
1) Why did you undercharge them for the first leg on that trip then. Seems like you have a broken pricing if it costs more to fly to just one part of the trip than the full thing. Especially when you consider reduced fuel use. Fix your damn pricing.
It could be that other airlines have similar pricing for the same route so to remain competitive they raise & lower fares to similar levels as their competitors. Some call it price collusion, but can you prove it? Some simply understand with fares being published all over the Internet so airlines can much more easily keep an eye on each other's prices. All it takes is 1 airline to low ball prices on a competitive route and then wait to see if competitors will follow. Sometimes competitors follow the lea
Don't think loss leading applies here. (Score:2)
It is called "loss leader selling"
I don't buy this is what is happening, not on multi-leg flights. Loss leader would make more sense only on direct routes.
As much as airlines do indeed want "butts in seats" (which as you noted often these days leaves standby people high and dry, most flights I'm on now are 100% full) It makes more sense to have a butt on one flight than two, because they can make more money on the two butts than one.
It wouldn't make sense to loss lead on multi-connection flights because no
Re: (Score:3)
it's even worse.
if A->B is more expensive thant A->B->C, maths says the price for B->C is negative. which is impossible.
time to regulate the industry and force sensible pricing structure based on actual costs.
Airlines should amend the pricing structure (Score:2)
So just amend the pricing structure?
The cost of A -> B should be less than the cost of A-B-C, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe not. Airports charge airlines a cost for transiting passengers, who don't use exit security and have a high chance of buying things. They charge a different cost for exiting passengers who do use exit security, rarely buy things, and put extra load on the local road network.
This is so fucked up. (Score:2)
This is so fucked up. I can't believe they say with a straight face (presumably), that their problem is they lost money on the 2nd leg, the they bundled themselves in the first place, meaning it made financial sense for them to do so.
Such a racket...
Re: (Score:2)
They got paid for the 2nd leg, so how can they claim they lost money?
Re: (Score:2)
Airports charge different fees for landing (ie leaving the airport) vs transit (where you stay in the airport).
The latter is usually cheaper because it involves less overhead (ie no check in/out staff, no customs or passport control, no security screening, sometimes lower taxes), and may even be subsidised because they expect someone with a few hours stopover to buy some overpriced food in the airport or use other paid facilities.
Airlines also make money by carrying goods, so some flights which have expensi
My grocery store did something similar (Score:5, Funny)
I was gonna make spaghetti sauce the other night, but I needed 8 ounces of tomato sauce. So I went to the store - but found that the 16 ounce cans were on sale and actually cheaper than the 8 ounce ones. So, I bought the 16 ounce can... the cashier gave me a dirty look, somehow she sensed my nefarious scheme.
I got home and poured half the can into the saucepot. The other half I was going to save, but I didn't have a clean container so I just dropped it in the garbage.
Next day, as I headed out the door on my way to work, the cashier and a policeman were there waiting for me. The cashier held the half-wasted can in one hand while pointing an accusing finger with the other - she said angrily "YOU are SAUCELAGGING!" I stood there, silent and ashamed... I had no defense.
Now, here I am, writing these last words while I wait for my execution. Please, please friends - learn from my mistake. DON'T saucelag, and don't skiplag! It's not worth the price to you or your loved ones.
Too bad for the airlines that courts disagree. (Score:5, Informative)
Overbooked flights (Score:5, Interesting)
Bullshit. In my experience, American Airlines always oversells their seats and then starts trying to get people at the gate to take a different flight. I hate them with a passion. If they can oversell seats, their poor customers can underuse them too ;)
Re: (Score:2)
This would make sense if they didn't hold up their flight wondering where the hell you were. This isn't a train. Not boarding a flight you have checked in for is hugely disruptive. You may not like American Airlines, but I'm sure 150 other plane passengers don't give a **** about your view of late stage capitalism and just think you're an arsehole for delaying them.
Re: (Score:3)
So how can I tell the airline that due to some unforseen changes that I don't need the 2nd leg but that of course I will do my contractual duty and still pay the agreed price for it? Of course I don't want my changed plans become their problem...
Of course, in a sane world with reasonable pricing you would tell them by not buying the 2nd ticket to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
Are skiplagging passengers the only ones that miss flights unannounced?
Airlines have to have robust procedures for this occurrence anyways.
Allow me to explain why this happens (Score:3)
Why do airlines sell A-B-C flights cheaper than A-B flights? And why are they stroppy if you "miss" your last leg?
Because planes work a lot like computer software. Big fixed costs, very low per-unit cost. Meaning, the bulk of the cost is in getting that plane from A to B. Whether one passenger is in it or whether it's 300 does of course matter, but less that you think it would or should. An A380 has a capacity (standard) of 575 passengers, an empty weight of 285 tons, a max payload of 85 tons and a max takeoff weight of 575 tons. In other words, of the 575 tons it can have when ready for lift off, only 85 tons are actually cargo (i.e. passengers). And unless all of them weigh about 150 kilograms, including their luggage, that weight is usually far lower.
In other words, most of what that plane has to haul is basically itself. Now add the wages for the pilots and crew, which is mostly independent of the amount of passengers, the airport fees, which, again, is independent of the passengers, and you'll find that the per-unit cost (i.e. the cost per passenger moved) is negligible.
The revenue, on the other hand, is directly dependent on the number of passengers. Transporting 200 passengers pay half as much as 400 passengers. So what they want is a (paying) passenger in every seat.
Now, why not fly some planes A-B and some A-C? Because planes are discrete machines. If you have 200 passengers who want to go from A to B and 200 who want to go from A to C, you can't just have half that 400 seat plane fly to B and the other half flies to C. Flying A-B-C, though, you can use that plane at least mostly sensible, and with a hint of luck you can pick up some people wanting to go from B to C on the layover.
Why not operate two planes with a capacity of 200? Because of the aforementioned fixed cost. You would need two sets of crews, you need two planes (which are by some margin more expensive than one large one), you have to keep them serviced and checked, you have to pay twice the berthing and airport taxes... you get the idea.
But why should it bother that they "miss" their second leg? Because of the return trip. That plane is than at airport C. You do NOT want that plane to fly back empty. Ever. Empty flights are anathema. They kill your airline. If you have people flying A-B-C, you can reasonably expect about the same amount flying C-B-A a couple days or weeks later. If they get off at B, that C-B leg would be at least half empty. And that's NOT gonna happen.
Re: (Score:2)
You have people paying for flights they don't take - double win .... ...
You have people still wanting to fly back - presumably
They will probably use a similar deal to return
Airlines regularly bump people because they have overbooked a flight this is the opposite
Re: (Score:2)
If you pay for the C-B leg for your flight back, they sure won't mind. But why would you?
What happens here is that people buy tickets for A-B-C, fly A-B and then, for the way back, buy tickets for B-A-D and fly B-A. And that is something airlines don't like one bit.
Re:Allow me to explain why this happens (Score:4, Informative)
So what they want is a (paying) passenger in every seat.
No what they want is a paying ticket in every seat.
"Oh dear" they whinge "empty seats cost us money, blub, blub". What a load of tripe! Unsold seats cost them money, definitely, but an empty seat with a paying passenger who didn't show up doesn't cost them any money at all (presuming that they aren't going to issue a refund).
Re: (Score:2)
The empty seat does not buy a return ticket. That's the big deal here.
The Airlines can stop this easily ... (Score:2)
Just charge the same price for the same journey - apparently an odd concept ...
I had this happen accidentally (Score:3)
Flying to Antalya from Amsterdam via Istanbul. Our flight out of Amsterdam was delayed so naturally we were late getting into Istanbul and missed our connecting flight. Turkish Airlines has loads of flights to Antalya so there was a guy helpfully waiting on us with a sign, he rushed us through the airport and pointed us to a plane which was about to take off. We scanned the tickets, *angry beep* and got a red X on the boarding gate. The guy explained to the boarding staff that we missed the previous flight, and they said "oh okay, just jump on seat 25B and C." And a few hours later we were there.
End of our stay we go to online check in for our flight out of Antalya and get an error. Call up customer support and they accused us of skiplagging in Istanbul and Turkish cancelled our return flight since they had no record of our boarding. The lady was surprised to learn we were in Antalya, hugely apologetic, we had a laugh over it, and got a business class upgrade on the now reinstated flight.
Airlines do not take kindly to this "life hack". Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to "life hack" my morning drowsiness at the coffee machine.
Re: (Score:3)
End of our stay we go to online check in for our flight out of Antalya and get an error. Call up customer support and they accused us of skiplagging in Istanbul and Turkish cancelled our return flight since they had no record of our boarding. The lady was surprised to learn we were in Antalya, hugely apologetic, we had a laugh over it, and got a business class upgrade on the now reinstated flight.
Airlines do not take kindly to this "life hack". Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to "life hack" my morning drowsiness at the coffee machine.
There was absolutely no reason why an airline need to cancel you return flight because you missed or intentionally skipped the last leg on the first trip, you could have walked the last leg and it is none of their business. You have already bought and paid for both journeys, and it is airlines' responsibility to provide what they have sold, period.
Restaurants also don't take kindly to people only ordering the cheapest dishes and do not order drinks, but that doesn't make customers doing that in any way wro
I stood silent when they took away the skip-lagger (Score:3)
... and then there was no one to speak up for those of us who use Subscribe and Save, while intending to only make one purchase. And often with a coupon incentive!
Idea for an app... (Score:3)
It matches people with the same name as you to split a ticket.
John Smith 'A' wants to fly from New Jersey to San Francisco. John Smith 'B' wants to fly from San Francisco to Honolulu. John A flies the first leg and John B downloads a boarding pass for the second leg.
There are no rules broken because, technically, John Smith did fly from destination A to destination C.
Price Dumping (Score:2)
Isn't this the exact definition of illegal price dumping?
Offering your service at non sustainable prices to boout out your competition?
And if two flights are cheaper than one, then this is either price dumping or overcharging for the more expensive single flight.
How did they identify this guy was doing it? (Score:2)
Ok so this individual booked a flight that was sold as "A to B via C" and showed up at A to get on his plane to C. How did the airline know at that point that he wasn't intending to actually get on the second leg?
Good luck to them (Score:2)
""Purchasing a ticket without intending to fly all flights to gain lower fares (hidden city ticketing) is a violation of American Airlines terms "
Proving 'intent' is not as easy as it seems.
They messed up! (Score:3)
That it is against the contract of carriage is also not an effective argument since there is never a situation that someone is forced to consume everything they purchased, this part is illegal, and when it is taken to court (now it will be) it will be found to be illegal. They normally don't deny boarding of the first leg this is what will get the airlines sued, they very much wanted to keep this out of court. A company can put anything in a contract, doesn't mean it is enforceable or even legal. Sadly the justice system allows this, and will only nullify the illegal part not the whole contract even when a company knowingly puts in something illegal.
The Airlines can cancel the return ticket, not get you our bags back, not award ff miles, or kick you out of the ff mile program. However, they can only do this as long as they never ever go to court. If they end up in court these could be found punitive for an illegal practice, so I am surprised the airline denied boarding for the first leg as now the family has grounds to sue.
Re: (Score:3)
If I take the flight, the airline spends money on fuel.
If I don't take the flight, the airline spends the same money on fuel.
If I take the flight, the airline got $X, which covers "my" cost of fuel.
If I don't take the flight, the airline got $X, which covers "my" cost of fuel.
Whether I take the second leg or not, the airline got $X and spent the same money on fuel. Me getting off the plane changes neither of those facts.
The only thing that changes is the airline makes less profit than it could have, not tha
Re: They messed up! (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you an attorney? That's a legitimate question, not a dig. I'm not an attorney, but my perception is that contract law is a lot less simple than you make it out to be. Take-it-or-leave-it contracts like Contract of Carriage get a lot more scrutiny due to the relative power imbalance, and whether or not the contract is equitable can come in to play.
Also, a quick Google search supports what other posters have said, that airlines have never won a sliplagging case, and that most of them keep it out of court, presumably because they think they might lose. Two European airlines, Lufthansa and Iberia, did bring suits in German and Spanish courts, respectively, and both definitively lost, on the grounds that a seller cannot require that a buyer consume all of the purchase. In Spain it was appealed to the supreme court, which declared skiplagging explicitly legal.
AFAICT, no US airline has ever brought an actual skiplagging suit to court. United tried to sue skiplagging.com over business interference and had its case dismissed for jurisdictional reasons... but didn't bother re-filing in the correct jurisdiction. Southwest sued and won, but over data scraping, not skiplagging. So skiplagging.com does not offer Southwest flights, because they can't legally get the required data.
I repeat that I'm not a lawyer, but European courts seem quite convinced that the Contract of Carriage argument doesn't work, and the apparent reluctance of US carriers to bring suits against skiplaggers, preferring instead to attack skiplagging sites in other ways, seems like pretty strong evidence that their lawyers don't believe they'd win here, either.
I find that ultimately I just don't care (Score:4, Funny)
I won't fly. Ever. If there's something I want to do and it involves going anywhere near an airplane I find something else to do. Weddings, funerals, etc. If I can't get there by driving I won't be able to make it. You know how so many of us see a problem with something (real or perceived) and say "I'm never going to give them a dime and refuse to ever do business with them again"? Well refusing to ever fly again is the one "boycott" I have managed to make stick and at this point I wouldn't fly if I was handed a golden ticket to heaven by Jesus Christ himself and the only way to get there was a seat on an airline.
"Supply and Demand" (Score:3)
A few /.ers have chimed in with a "Supply and Demand" explanation.
Well, from where I stand as a non-USAian where domestic air routes are typically one-leg, it sure looks to me there is a not-inconsiderable demand for air tickets where either A or B (separately, on their own) cost less than A + B. But the airlines decline to supply that. So the "lifehack" supplies it.
Well, here's a novel idea: discount the multi-leg ticket with the amount of the unused leg, perhaps only if and when it is sold to "someone else". If I where the traveler I would in return for the discount be willing to notify the air carrier well in advance that I intend to skip the leg, so they have ample time to find "someone else" to take the leg. It would even be reasonable to me if they discounted me pro-rated e.g. by air miles, and thus keep the remainder of the inflated one-leg ticket's price for their own profit.
I can do with my purchases whatever I want (Score:3)
WTH? I can do with goods and services I purchase whatever I want - which includes dumping them right into the trash or just not using them. You got my money. I owe you nothing. That is capitalism, which the airlines usually claim to love⦠unless they need another bail out or a teenager tries to save a few bucks.
start the lawsuits (Score:3)
this guy has a decent 4th amendment violation on his hands. if he hasn’t found a lawyer, perhaps a lawyer should contact him. also, seems like he might have another lawsuit against the airline.
Re: (Score:3)
The airline loses what, the chance to manipulate customers into paying more? Surely this is offset by the reduced cost of fuel and not having to carry luggage for the customer in question? What's the problem airlines have with this?
They're losing people buying the more expensive ticket for the direct flight, the irony being that what is a direct flight for you could be one of multiple stops for the aircraft. Whole thing seems hypocritical to me seeing as how airlines are allowed to oversell flights.
Re: It makes no sense (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some airline reps were claiming that different destination airports have different fees and skiplagging can allow passengers to unfairly circumvent those fees, but interestingly https://simpleflying.com/the-c... [simpleflying.com] doesn't mention those fees anywhere in their analysis. Do they not exist or just aren't really a factor compared to everything else?
Those fees do exist and they do vary by airport. Local potentates decide those fees then force them on the airlines; "You wanna land here? Then you gotta pay up sucka!"
Those fees are embedded in the cost of your ticket because of the complexity involved in displaying all of those fees to you...and then having to staff phone lines at the airlines so the travelling public has someone to whine to.
Honestly, factoring the sales tax for your specific location for a business like Newegg with nationwide and even wo
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know what the fees are, but if they're more than the cost at the destination plus the cost of fuel and the seat etc etc, then maybe the airports should be investigated for gouging.
Re: (Score:2)
The flight from A->B->C still has to Land at Airport B and pay the landing and ground handling fees at every Airport they land at, AND the customer had to Pay for the Passenger Facility Charge for every Airport in the middle they're boarding a plane on (which is maximum $4.50 anyway), not just the final destination airport's fee.
As for the Passenger who chose to skip the flight from B->C, They already had to pay all the fees in the middle to obtain their ticket, And clearly they aren't asking
Re: (Score:3)
Their luggage still goes to the original destination, unless they are only bringing carry-on.
There are security related airline rules that say that (in most cases) a passenger must travel with their luggage - presumably so that if someone checks something that could somehow take down the plane, it would need to be a suicide level commitment and not just checking a bomb with no personal risk. Because of this if a passenger has a ticket from A->B->C and they have checked a bag, if the passenger doesn't board the flight from B->C, then the airline has to find the bag on the second flight and
Re: (Score:3)
Not just a jerk move, but a dumb move since your luggage might end up in the wrong place... I mean supposedly they should de-plane it, but relying on that seems dodgy. I'm pretty sure all the skiplaggers are carry-on luggage people.
Re: (Score:2)
How is this a valid concern? You think someone who is smart enough to skipjack flights would somehow forget that their luggage is checked for the final destination and lose all their belongings, or do you think they would just bring hand luggage? All smart business travelers just bring hand luggage anyway because check in luggage gets lost or delayed routinely.
Re: It makes no sense (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Their luggage still goes to the original destination, unless they are only bringing carry-on.
Which means that this hack can only be used by passengers who don't check luggage. So no huge leakage of fares from these routes anyway.
Re: (Score:2)