Judge Tosses United Airlines Lawsuit Over 'Hidden City' Tickets 126
An anonymous reader writes: United Airlines lost a legal round in its effort to stop a website that helps people find 'hidden city' ticket pairs. The airline, along with online travel site Orbitz, sued New York-based Skiplagged.com and its founder, Aktarer Zaman, in November seeking an injunction to stop the site from sending users to Orbitz to purchase United tickets. A federal judge ruled Thursday that Illinois isn't the proper venue for the carrier's claims.
Contract of Carriage (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just claim you're feeling sick, and you'll re-book for later after a rest. They don't let people who are feeling really sick get on even if they want to. Truth is, they can't do much to the passenger, and that's why they are trying to bully the messenger. I say bully because they don't have much of a case given that connecting info is all public info.
Re: (Score:2)
Truth is, they can't do much to the passenger, and that's why they are trying to bully the messenger. I say bully because they don't have much of a case given that connecting info is all public info.
I agree. They don't want it to be easy to find hidden cities since then more people would use it. It's easier to kill th messenger. I worked for a company that used back to backs regularly and us travelers rarely had a problem; the only time one did was when they gave the wrong ticket to the agent raising questions about the itineraries. The airline went after our travel agent saying we could not do that anymore and they'd cancel tickets if we were caught. We switched to another airline for the mid week fl
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly why competition is so important!
Funny things is, it is equally important for the supplier as for the consumer.
If there is no or little competition in the market, the supplier don't know what their market _really_ want, because the consumers can't choose among (competing) products, and suddenly a game changer may appear, that will make it difficult for the supplier to change direction in time.
An example is Nokia.
Probably Nokia would have wanted a little more competition and a lesser market sh
Re: (Score:1)
united had better tread lightly and carefully.... because if this case does go to trial, they stand a pretty decent chance at having a few things tossed from their contract of carriage
Re: (Score:1)
.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly - just writing something in a ToS/EULA/Contract/Other in itself doesn't make the thing legal if that thing contradicts other laws and this has been proven many times in the past - especially so if those documents are fixed and one party had no opportunity to negotiate.
The hidden cities clause is in very murky water (as well as the others you quoted) when put up against various laws intended to protect the consumer from fraudulent and anticompetitive behaviour by large companies but its not 100% clea
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've done that to United, even got in an argument with the CS person on the phone. UA tried to charge me a $200 fee to change my return flight home on a round trip ticket that only cost me $227 total. I simply bought another one way ticket home for $125 and told CS I am not cancelling my original ticket out of spite. He said I had to if I did not intend to use it because it was a violation of the sale terms. Oh well. I even checked in for that flight just to screw them more. I paid for it so why not.
Good (Score:3)
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Regarding the cartridges, due to a couple issues that came up, such as this one, they started including cartridges that were 1/2 to 1/3 full with new printers.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody should be required to buy into loss leaders or other pricing schemes like this.
And now they're taking a page out of the BSA's lawyer playbook with this "lost revenue" crap. Just because someone could have bought a $500 ticket from NY to SLC doesn't mean that $100 was stolen from United because they bought a $400 ticket that was NY to LA with a layover in SLC.
And then there's airline pricing in general. I always have a hard time feeling sorry for the airlines, but when the price of oil (the biggest expense for them) dropped like a rock end of last year, did the airlines lower ticket prices or remove fuel surcharges? Nope. [npr.org]
Big companies like airlines have used obscure and convoluted pricing schemes for decades as a way to screw over the average customer. Seeing them get thrown back into their faces isn't illegal -- it's a sweet dose of justice.
Re: (Score:1)
.. when the price of oil (the biggest expense for them) dropped like a rock end of last year, did the airlines lower ticket prices or remove fuel surcharges? Nope. [npr.org]
Minor inconvenience for United (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Minor inconvenience for United (Score:5, Insightful)
Other than they were jurisdiction shopping in a venue that would be more likely to win because they are headquartered there and the juror pool would be likely to be influenced by that?
The judge didn't rule on venue without it being challenged by the defense. United didn't pick this court by accident.
Re: (Score:3)
The judge didn't rule on venue without it being challenged by the defense. United didn't pick this court by accident.
Right. They picked it because they are headquartered in Illinois. It's not some evil plot.
Re: (Score:3)
To assume it's not an evil plot would require the assumption that United had lawyers so inexperienced that they didn't know they were filing in the wrong venue.
That's a preposterous assumption.
Re: (Score:2)
To assume it's not an evil plot would require the assumption that United had lawyers so inexperienced that they didn't know they were filing in the wrong venue.
They didn't know what the judge would rule until he made the ruling, or that there would be a ruling. You talk like it is a cut and dried issue, and it isn't. They filed in the jurisdiction where the alleged damages were taking place, and which is probably also the jurisdiction specified in the contract for carriage that the customers who were buying the tickets were subject to.
The claim that the defendants don't have significant presence in Illinois for purposes of legal action, in the context of an Inte
Re:Minor inconvenience for United (Score:5, Informative)
The claim that the defendants don't have significant presence in Illinois for purposes of legal action, in the context of an Internet-based service, is just ridiculous. The judge is applying brick-and-mortar rules to a global network.
No, he is apply the law. Where to file is spelled out in 28 US Code 1391, and unless you can't for some reason, like you don't know where the defendant lives, the place to file is "a judicial district in which any defendant resides". The law is clear, and the judge has no choice but to follow it.
Re: (Score:1)
All this ruling does is make them go back and file it in the appropriate venue. And while that's the right thing to do from a legal standpoint, it will have basically no bearing on the case when it is filed again in the appropriate location. This doesn't address the merits of the case (or lack thereof) in any way.
It's a standard legal practice by unscrupulous companies, make the small guy spend a lot of money to travel long distances in order to have his day in court.
Re:Minor inconvenience for United (Score:4, Informative)
It's a standard legal practice by unscrupulous companies, make the small guy spend a lot of money to travel long distances in order to have his day in court.
That is why under 28 US Code 1391(b) the proper legal venue is where the defendant resides. The reason why you see a lot of patent suits filed in Texas is that for large corporations, where they reside is murky since they do business everywhere and are registered the Secretary of State in most/all of the states, including Texas, so they are considered "local" under these rules. The "small guy" however lives in a specific place, so that is where the proper venue would be.
I wish it had been dismissed on the merits (Score:5, Interesting)
Too bad it was just a procedural dismissal due to wrong venue and not due to the merits of the case.
United said such ticketing schemes violate its fare rules. For one thing, the tickets capture seats that will go unused, and an airline would have no way to sell those unused seats
Well, actually, they already *have* sold those seats -- to the person that bought the ticket and decided not to use the rest of it. But it's not true that they have no way to sell those seats -- if the flight is overbooked or full, then they'll fill the unused seat with a bumped or standby passenger. But if they want to be able to sell that seat before departure time, all they have to do is give the ticket holder a way to cancel that leg of the bookng, perhaps refunding a small percentage of the purchase price as an incentive to do so.
So it's not true that they have no way to sell the seats, they just don't want to do it.
Re:I wish it had been dismissed on the merits (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I wish it had been dismissed on the merits (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never understood why they won't transfer me to an otherwise empty seat on an earlier flight when I happen to be early for a connection. It would seem to be in their best interest to fill up the planes and push the "empty seat" to a later flight when they have a chance of selling it, but they never do offer me a free change, they always want to charge me an extra $50, so I just get a soda and wait it out.
They used to do that, I used have no problem fly standby on an earlier flight when I got there early. But then I guess they found out that it's convenient for passengers so it's something that they need to charge for because no one should get anything for free when flying.
Re: (Score:2)
And that business model is clearly not even part of their problems. Clearly. The government should give them our money because we aren't giving enough of it to them.
Re: (Score:2)
The government does give them our money. Kerosene is taxfree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org]
As of 2007, jet fuel (called "kerosene for aviation" by the IRS) is taxed at 21.9c/gal unless it is used for commercial aviation (airlines such as American Airlines and United Airlines and small chartered commercial jets). Because such commercial operations are subject to the federal transportation tax, they are subject to a reduced fuel tax of 4.4c/gal.
Re: I wish it had been dismissed on the merits (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad it was just a procedural dismissal due to wrong venue and not due to the merits of the case.
United said such ticketing schemes violate its fare rules. For one thing, the tickets capture seats that will go unused, and an airline would have no way to sell those unused seats
Well, actually, they already *have* sold those seats -- to the person that bought the ticket and decided not to use the rest of it. But it's not true that they have no way to sell those seats -- if the flight is overbooked or full, then they'll fill the unused seat with a bumped or standby passenger.
Do you really want to encourage them to overbook and bump more people?!
Re: (Score:1)
The airlines have managed to try to "beat the customer" by complex yield management pricing, which results in the customer finding the loopholes. The answer is as it always was. Clear and open pricing per leg. The result will eliminate the "secret fares", and everyone will pay "win" (in that "win" means we all get to pay more, but it will be transparent!)
'Hidden city' explanation (Score:5, Informative)
Wouldn't have hurt to put this in the summary - who RTFA?
Say you want to fly from NY to Chicago, and that'd cost $300. You can also get a ticket from NY to LA, and that'd cost $250. The catch? That flight from NY to LA also lands in Chicago.
So if you wanted to go from NY to Chicago, you'd be better off buying the NY to LA ticket instead, saving $50.
The airlines don't like this, because if you book NY to LA, they can no longer sell the Chicago to LA seat (except at last minute rates or more often push standby passengers onto that flight) that might normally be $150. So not only are they out $50 on you, they're potentially out an additional $150 on the unsold seat.
( They save a few $ in fuel consumption, food and beverages, etc. )
Presumably the solution would be to not make part-flights more expensive than full-flights to begin with, but I'm sure the bean counters worked out that this is still the more profitable route for them.
As for headline - yeah, it's only tossed out because it's the wrong venue.. there's really no winner or loser, other than the courts who wasted time on a case that they apparently shouldn't have spent any time on at all.
Re:'Hidden city' explanation (Score:5, Interesting)
How does this work with checked luggage? Presumably your stuff won't be pulled from baggage if you aren't expected to get off in Chicago, but instead in LA.
Obviously, if you only have carry on luggage, that works fine.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's true for INTERNATIONAL flights. For DOMESTIC flights your luggage may fly without you.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought it was a TSA regulation that it is not permitted for your luggage to travel on a different plane than you.
I believe that the rules say YOU cannot cause your baggage to go on a flight you aren't on. I.e., you can't check in and then not get on. That's to keep you from planting a bomb in your baggage and then not being on the plane. But if the airline puts your bag on another plane, you can't plan that.
Airlines do it all the time, too. Weight limits may make your luggage be held for the next flight, or it may not make a connection.
Thus, yes, they'd have to pull your luggage off the plane if you didn't get on.
When you're on a stopover with no equipment change, you got on the plane in Ne
Re: (Score:2)
You can't have your luggage deliberately fly on a plane without you. It's common for luggage to get on an earlier or later flight when there's weather, delayed planes, or baggage issues, but they'll pull your bags if you check in and check your luggage and then don't fly.
Re: (Score:3)
How does this work with checked luggage?
It only works with carry on, unless you want you checked luggage to end in LA. But given that people are trying to pass off huge cases as carry ons, it doesn't seem much of an impediment.
Re: (Score:1)
It only works with carry on, unless you want you checked luggage to end in LA.
Your luggage won't end up in LA because the airline is not going to put it on the flight if you aren't on it. I would imagine that it would not be a fun process to try to retrieve the luggage in SLC, however.
Re: (Score:2)
How does this work with checked luggage? Presumably your stuff won't be pulled from baggage if you aren't expected to get off in Chicago, but instead in LA.
Obviously, if you only have carry on luggage, that works fine.
I think that's implied -- if you check your bags to the destination on the ticket when you don't intend to travel to that city, then you deserve to lose your bags.
Re:'Hidden city' explanation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How does this work with checked luggage? Presumably your stuff won't be pulled from baggage if you aren't expected to get off in Chicago, but instead in LA.
Obviously, if you only have carry on luggage, that works fine.
It doesn't work with checked luggage. It doesn't work with route trip tickets either. The airlines fixed that a long time ago. If you don't get on the second leg, they cancel your return flight.
What really the trick doesn't work for the kinds of flights most people actually take.
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly is the seat unsold in this case? It was sold, it is simply unoccupied.
I agree. If anything the airline made *more* money as it didn't have to expend the fuel to get the passenger from Chicago to LA.
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly is the seat unsold in this case? It was sold, it is simply unoccupied.
I agree. If anything the airline made *more* money as it didn't have to expend the fuel to get the passenger from Chicago to LA.
Not only that, but if the seat is unoccupied when they're ready to close the doors, they can let a passenger on if the flight is overbooked, saving the airline both a seat on the next flight, and whatever compensation they had to offer the passenger who would have missed his flight because it was overbooked.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazingly no. free open seat means 1 thing 200 to 250 lbs of cargo. they want cargo not live complaining rush cargo that can sell for $ 10.00 a kilo.
Re: (Score:1)
Yup, exactly. It's no different procedurally than someone missing their flight. What's different is that they didn't earn as much as market research said people were willing to pay, and they're pissed about that. They probably know they don't have a case, but they intend to just sue the source of info as a bully tactic.
Re: (Score:3)
And the lawyers, who billed for the time filing the case. And the clients who, I suspect, worked with the lawyers to find the friendliest venue to file the case ina: a friendly venue can make an enormous difference in court cases. It's called "forum shopping", and it's a critical tactical factor.
Re: (Score:2)
And some of those routes are just a factor of supply and demand. Lots of people want to fly to Salt Lake City, but very few want to fly to Rapid City. Granted, you could say that you could gouge people who want to fly to a remote destination, but most airports have multiple carriers and competition has shown to work on pricing(the Southwest/Jetblue effect).
Re: (Score:2)
You're wrong. Which should be obvious given the name "back-to-back" which would obviously involve multiple tickets.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just paraphrasing the articles (had to click-through some). The first article summarizes it thus:
Which very much sounds like buying a ticket A-C, then getting off the plane after A-B and essentially discarding B-C.
That's very much different from buying tickets A-B and A-C separately with a price that's cheaper than buying a ticket A-C.
I don't know i
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not. Hidden city is wanting to go from NYC -> Chicago and instead buying a ticket from NYC -> LA that just happens to have Chicago as a stop. Chicago is the "hidden city" that you want. You know exactly what the GP said.
Of course there's the risk of flight cancellations resulting in that flight getting cancelled and the NYC->LA people being rebooked on a different flight that doesn't stop in Chicago.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're double counting, they aren't losing anything other than an opportunity cost but they accept that when they sell the flight. Don't forget they overbook flights too.
I don't see anything wrong here between the consumer and the airline, perhaps the airport authority has a complaint as the flyer might not be paying airport fees.
Re: (Score:2)
The airlines don't like this, because if you book NY to LA, they can no longer sell the Chicago to LA seat (except at last minute rates or more often push standby passengers onto that flight) that might normally be $150. So not only are they out $50 on you, they're potentially out an additional $150 on the unsold seat.
They already sold the Chicago to LA seat... to you. Why would it be unacceptable to not be able to sell the seat when they had already accepted the idea of flying someone on that leg for money they already collected? There are legitimate arguments to be made for the screwy fare system, but that one seems less than weak.
Re: (Score:2)
So not only are they out $50 on you, they're potentially out an additional $150 on the unsold seat.
Only if you don't count the $250 they already got for the ticket you bought. Their complaint (on that issue) is that you're buying a cheaper ticket than they wanted to sell you. Everything else is smoke and mirrors, which amount to "we want to sell the same seat twice, and we can't when you do this, and we don't like it even though we couldn't if you bought the ticket we wanted to sell you."
The one real issue I see (as mentioned in TFA) is that when you skip the second leg, they will wait at the gate until
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure that makes sense, from the airline's perspective.
If you bought a ticket NY-LA, you essentially bought two
Re: (Score:2)
The one real issue I see (as mentioned in TFA) is that when you skip the second leg, they will wait at the gate until they're sure you're not coming.
They may not know you're "not coming" until they do a seat count and see that you aren't there. Then they have to figure out who is missing and maybe pull your luggage. That's a significant delay.
They can't really delay the flights very long over this,
If you've checked a bag, they have to delay. Otherwise they won't delay very long over this and that may keep them from putting someone else in that seat -- costing them revenue.
In short, the airlines lose nothing,
Wrong. At worst they have an empty seat they could have sold at full price weeks in advance. Usually they can fill the seat with a stan
Re:'Hidden city' explanation (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you mean? They did sell that seat: to me, as part of a trip I paid for, and at the price they thought was fair. If I choose to not use part of what I paid for, well, I still paid for it.
The airline's complaint would be like me going to a restaurant, ordering the steak&potatoes but only eating the steak, and the restaurant complaining this should be illegal because they could've made more money selling the (wasted) potatoes to someone else.
Fuck 'em. If I've got to abide by the "fare" they (Score:3)
Need to get me to my destination on time and not bump me off the plane because they *OVERSOLD* it!
Re: (Score:3)
This seems bit like Coca-Cola selling 20oz bottles for $1.50, 2 liter bottles for $0.99, and then getting mad when the customer pays for a 2 liter, drinks 20 oz, and throws the rest away.
Boo-freaking-hoo. Somebody is getting paid to set up these pricing schemes, and part of their job is to take into account the consequences of non-obvious cost structures.
Re: (Score:3)
First, they get really bad press by leaving people stranded in the middle of no-where. In the case of people intentionally ducking the last leg, that leaves the airline in a quandry - do they blow their ontime percentages by waiting for the person and earn bad press, or do they leave the person in the middle of no-where and risk the bad press?
Second, moreso than how much they can price gouge the public, flying to hidde
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure he won (Score:2)
But they *already* sold the seat...to you (Score:2)
They *still* got paid for it. They can even resell it to a standby passenger when you don't show up. And even if they don't they save some fuel by flying a less-laden plane.
I'm completely at a loss as to why this is a problem for the airlines. Except that the "normal" fare is even higher.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't really make sense; there's nothing stopping them from reserving seats on the first leg for last-minute fares, the ticketing system would just have to know when two different routes make use of the same flight.
What they might not be able to do if they can't stop "hidden city" travelers is to pass on the full cost savings from not running a direct flight to those customers that are disadvantaged as a result.
Fair (Score:5, Insightful)
You're a fucking airline. You're going where I need to go and I bought a ticket. If I'm not on the plane for the second half of the trip, you've saved that much on fuel. Fuck off.
Re: (Score:1)
They offer a service at a price.
Their offer is to fly you to LA at one price, or to Chicago at another price. But not to fly you to Chicago at the LA price.
If you don't like their offer? Fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
If you buy a dozen apples from a farmer, does she have the right to dictate how you consume the apples? Can she sue you for telling others where and from whom you bought the apples?
But this is not a free market (Score:3)
Chicago and LA are bad examples because those are popular destinations.
An regional airport about an hour from where I live only gets four flights in and out a day, and the planes are usually 3/4 empty. The only reason the airport is open is because the government requires the airlines provide service to it; tickets on those flights are heavily subsidized - I read an estimate that each ticket sold represents a loss of about $600. I can get a ticket to fly into a major hub airport about 2 hours away or a tick
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't make sense. Surely the government doesn't actually force them to offer prices to obscure destinations that are lower than the prices to common destinations? (Or, for that matter, to use airplanes that are four times larger than necessary?)
I can see why the final leg might be free of charge, but I don't see why they would have to charge less than nothing for it.
(If they really do need to do that, though, why not do it via rebates, so they can verify that you really did arrive at your nominal d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you buy a dozen apples from a farmer, (...)?
Here's the right analogy. You want 8 apples. The farmer will sell you 8 apples at dollar each, or you can have a bag of 10 apples for 5 dollars. You buy the bag. Then you throw 2 apples away (for the birds), ending up with 8 apples for 5 dollars. The farmer will then sue you since you didn't pay 8 dollars for your 8 apples, and they can't sell the 2 apples you discarded to another customer.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me, or trying to one-up me here. The point is, once you've bought something, the seller has no right to dictate how you consume it.
Say a concert venue offers me VIP tickets at a price that is normally lower than what I'd pay for a nosebleed seat. I buy them, but then only stay for the opening act. Is that a better analogy for you? I mean, this isn't a difficult concept!
Re:Fair (Score:4, Informative)
Then they shouldn't land the plane and make you switch planes. As soon as they land the plane and make you disembark whether you board the second flight is up to you. Otherwise that other plane better not take off without you, you think they would hold the second plane for you?
These fairs are cheaper with layovers are games the airlines play with fairs to maximize revenue. No one should be under any obligation to play along if they don't want to. Suing someone that facilitates exploiting this loophole in their system is nothing more than attacking free speech.
Subsidies, not games (Score:2)
These fairs are cheaper with layovers are games the airlines play with fairs to maximize revenue
The airline is essentially paying you to fly on an unprofitable route in order to meet regulations that they provide service on that route.
Re: (Score:2)
Mars sells M&Ms in bags with a bunch of colors.
If Mars wants to sell a bag with no blue M&Ms at a premium then they can fuck off when I instead buy the normal one and simply don't eat the blue ones.
Then don't *EVER* bump me off a flight (Score:2)
They offered to fly me from point A to point B at a particular time for a particular price. They FUCK UP and over sell and force me off the plane. And don't make me late because of your "equipment problems". Can't have it both ways.
hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
For one thing, the tickets capture seats that will go unused, and an airline would have no way to sell those unused seats.
So they're arguing that because the customer doesn't use a seat they paid for thus preventing them from reselling it to someone else that they can't resell it to someone else.
What?
Re: (Score:3)
The root of the problem lies in lack of competition. Chicago is a United hub. So they control a plurality if not a majority of the flights to and from Chicago. That gives them quasi-monopoly powers when it comes to pricing. They've bought landing/takeoff rights for all those flights and control most of the
Occasionally they *do* wait (Score:2)
Perhaps they don't wait anymore. However, I do have a personal experience of a plane being held for me...
1992 -- I was flying from Dallas to Ottawa, with connecting flight in Toronto. The plane to Toronto was delayed 30min by storms in the Midwest. When I landed, an airline employee met me at the gate and said my connecting flight was being held for me and that I needed to hurry. I was rushed through customs, then told to run. I ran. Periodically along the way, they had personnel, saying "Run!". When
Re: (Score:2)
That is very unlikely to survive a legal challenge, because although statistically people doing what you are doing may be costing them money, (difficult to prove, but plausible) they would have a very hard time proving that not providing YOU the service caused them additional expenses that requires recovery.
Just because it's included in the contract doesn't gua
those are the cheap cases (Score:1)
I know of a specific airline that used to price KC -> Minn at $1200, but KC -> Chicago thru Minn (their hub) was $350. This is really the rape and pillage theory of pricing. I tend to fly southwest as they don't seem to be that bad about their pricing. Since this airlines hub was there they knew they had the direct flight market cornered and were obviously being stupid about it. Something that makes me direct my money to other companies that are less into raping and pillaging. Obviousl
Re: (Score:2)
Minn is special (like the special Olympics, but I digress). One airline figuratively owns (you know the one) the terminal and exerts monopoly pricing.
That's what happens when you are going somewhere all sane people are trying to leave.
Legal Fees (Score:3)
Re:Legal Fees (Score:5, Insightful)
wrong way (Score:2)
the best way to fix this problem would be to decrease the price of your normal tickets so that the hidden city tickets arent 50% cheaper.
Dear Airlines, (Score:2)
If you make the system operate like a game, don't whine like a baby when people play. And win.
Radical concept: quit dicking around with the pricing.
Airline price search is actually quite complicated (Score:2)
You would think that a simple search of a cheap fare would be a relatively easy task. It actually is quite difficult.
I recently read this article from ITA systems which makes this sort of software: [pdf warning]: here [demarcken.org]. Very interesting read and shows that airline pricing is not as simple as it sounds.
In the pricing of a ticket one has to take care of not only of fuel, food, personnel and aircraft, but also landing fees, luggage handling fees and the rest. It is no wonder that some pricing looks a little arc
F*ck Airlines; Play the game better than Airlines (Score:1)
I live in ATL. Needed to get to Düsseldorf last fall for a conference. ... going through ATL both ways.
ATL-DUS was $2300.
Ft. Meyers, FL to DUS was $800
Bought a $99 flight on a different airline to Ft. Meyers and flew to Düsseldorf. On the way home, did all carry-on and just walked off the plane in Atlanta.
Don't feel guilty at all. Paid for an entire trip, just didn't use it all. It is like throwing away half a soda if I'd had enough or not reading an entire newspaper/magazine after
Rebates (Score:2)
Simple solution: charge the full fare (i.e., the fare for whichever part of the route you're booking would cost most) but offer a rebate - which the passenger(s) can only claim if and when they actually arrive at the destination airport.