Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Opinion: Why airlines hate hidden-city ticketing (and maybe you should too)
Airfarewatchdog.com founder George Hobica writes why airlines, and possibly paxs, should be weary of the practice. (www.usatoday.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
FYI some cities gives money to airlines based on # of passengers on the plane to get them/keep them fly to their city.
Austin opened the door to non-stop flights from and two London via BA. I have no doubt some serious credits, if not outright cash was handed out. As long as it's not a burden on taxpayers, I don't care. But the flights are still 60% higher than taking a $70 SWA flight to DFW and catching BA on to London.
I have to wonder how often have these games possibly cost a small city scheduled service in part or entirety because semi-locals find the seats full and resort to just driving and the arriving passenger data suggests a lack of need for service? Personally, I'd be pissed if I couldn't get a ticket home to timbucktoo in a timely because of cheapskate skipdoodles creating phantom flights.
As long as corporations and governments create loop holes, people will take advantage of them. They are hardly phantom flights or you wouldn't be able to get there. The airlines have been paid for the seat some pax just got off early.
Welcome to the law of unintended consequences. The airlines created the situation and then didn't expect -- or like -- the end result. Personally, I agree with Chris -- the pax bought and paid for that seat to the destination and it really doesn't matter if he is in the seat or not. The airline doesn't like the unintended way the fare is being used because they are losing *potential* money.
Sorry United, you can't have it both ways. If you play games with fares, don't cry when the pax play fare games back.
Sorry United, you can't have it both ways. If you play games with fares, don't cry when the pax play fare games back.
I see more wrong with this article than right. We're hardly talking about real costs we're talking about opportunity costs and greed. I'm an infrequent flyer any more, but it seems to me that, with the advent of smaller and faster computers many of these combinations could be eliminated. It's the airlines choice, in most cases, to combine cities that make this strategy work. Further, if they are getting paid for the whole trip and some only fly part of the mileage, the carrier is flying the second part of the route with less weight and we are told to believe that a single pound is worth about a $1.00. At 200 lbs I'm worth $200.00. So what's their beef if it isn't the greed of opportunity lost.