Ticket pricing - anyone explain?

[North Shore]

A relative has been living overseas for some time now, and is coming back to Canada. The round trip airfare is about $1k less than the one way ticket (middle of August travel date.) Does the airline honestly think that we are going to pay the one way fare, or just book the round trip, and not show up for the return leg?

Can anyone attempt to explain the logic behind this?

[porcsord]

If I were them, I'd plan on that, and then over sell the flight.

[photofly]

Some European airlines would bill your credit card the difference between the one way and (cheaper) return if you didn't show up for the return leg.

For instance they have an agreement with the airport operator to deliver a certain number of passengers a proportion of whom will buy duty free, meals, coffee, drinks etc, in return for a kickback to the airline, and you are depriving them of that revenue. That may not be the case here but airline economics are never straightforward.

Otherwise it's just yield management: passengers flying one way are willing to pay a higher price.

[North Shore]

That's interesting^ If I've paid for the seat, then I should be able to use (or not) it as I want?

[photofly]

That's interesting^ If I've paid for the seat, then I should be able to use (or not) it as I want?

No, not really. The airline has sold your presence to the airport operator as a milk cow. You are a commodity. Welcome to the twenty first century.

[CpnCrunch]

That's interesting^ If I've paid for the seat, then I should be able to use (or not) it as I want?

No, not really. The airline has sold your presence to the airport operator as a milk cow. You are a commodity. Welcome to the twenty first century.

It could be a violation of contract law, though. Unless you agreed to it somewhere, I don't think they can suddenly charge your credit card more just because you didn't show up for the return flight. If North Shore has the time, he could try taking them to the small claims court and get his 5 minutes of fame.

[photofly]

Good lord! Does anyone actually read airline ticket contracts? I've no doubt for airlines that do this (I don't think it has actually happened to NS) like Ryanair etc, they have it in the terms and conditions all watertight.

I've just been looking for a concrete example of someone being surcharged for "throwaway ticketing" and can't find one, so perhaps it's just urban legend. There's comment online about people who do it repeatedly getting ruse letters from the airline saying it breaches their terms and conditions though.

I remember booking YYZ to LHR and the cheapest AC ticket was via somewhere like Halifax. But if you wanted to actually fly direct to Halifax that was a whole lot more. Meanwhile the cheapest ticket to Halifax was via Montreal. Etc. Etc.

[CpnCrunch]

Good lord! Does anyone actually read airline ticket contracts? I've no doubt for airlines that do this (I don't think it has actually happened to NS) like Ryanair etc, they have it in the terms and conditions all watertight.

It sounds doubtful that it would enforceable. This article suggests that at worst BA might penalise you on future flights, but it doesn't say anything about charging your credit card if you don't show up:

http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/ ... ticketing/

If you do this, you should probably be prepared to never fly with that airline again.

[valleyboy]

I thought this was a thing of the past. It was very common to pay more for a one way than a return fifteen years ago. I know I have done the very thing between LHR and GLA with no issues. SAS use to charge "J' class fares on "go show" passengers even when there was lots of room in "Y" class

I would suggest Ice Air. they seem to charge by the leg and it's a good ride, no service but good seat pitch.

[AirFrame]

Back in the late 90's it used to be fairly common to buy back-to-back tickets at the tech company I worked for.

If anyone doesn't know how that works, what typically happens is that a business trip needs to happen midweek, for only a couple of days. Buying a ticket to fly out on Tuesday, and back on Thursday, was mucho expensive. Buying tickets that would put you away from home over a weekend was well under half the cost. So you buy one ticket that departs Saturday, returning Thursday, and a second ticket that departs Tuesday, returns Sunday. The Saturday night stayover was the key.

Two tickets for a total price near half the price of a single Tues-Thurs ticket. Then you abandon the Saturday departure ticket, use the Tuesday departure ticket, use the Thursday return ticket, and abandon the Sunday return ticket. If you regularly flew to the same destination, you could use the unused tickets as credits with the airline at a later date, so frequently one half of the next back-to-back ticket set for the next business trip would be bought with these credits.

Now of course this has been pretty much locked out I understand... If you don't use your initial departure ticket, your return ticket isn't allowed I hear. It's been a while since i've travelled a lot for work...

[valleyboy]

Last summer I booked a one way on Iceland Air, with the idea I would use my ID travel to come back. There was no issue, the price was the same each direction, I later changed my plans and decided not to risk standby on the way home so a month later I went online and purchased another one way ticket to come home. Round trip costs YYZ-GLA return about $800 round trip. So it's out there.

[CID]

Your contractual obligation is very real. The airlines can and sometimes will send you a bill if you don't show up for the return. They are more likely to send you a bill if you choose to book a connecting flight but fail to show up for the second leg.

For example, you find that it's cheaper to book a connecting flight "through" the city you want to go than it is to book direct and you figure you'll just get off on the first leg. They really don't like that.

There are good reasons for airlines to structure fares like this. It's quite complex and there are many factors. They aren't just out to screw you.

[photofly]

There are no operational reasons for doing so. They don't for instance need your body weight as ballast, nor have an environmental problem disposing of food with which they need your help by eating. The aircraft won't have to take more fuel because your shit can't be pumped to the engines in your absence and the passenger who would have sat next to you won't write to the chief executive to complain that she had to endure an empty seat beside her because you didn't show.

I think you can sum up the "good reasons" and "many factors" as simply being because they make more money that way. They are out to screw you out of as much money as you're prepared to pay, but I guess that's ok - you're out to screw them by getting from A to B as cheaply as possible and in the case of a throwaway ticket, cheaper than they're prepared to fly you on that route.

[trey kule]

Airlines have an amazing computer booking program. Tickets can be priced based on everything from the the time of day, if you checked for prices earlier, your location in the city and even if your booking from a mobile device. It is all designed to extract the most dollars.(maximize revenue)

In Canada, Air Canada recently agree to refund some of the Ft Mac evacuees money. Seems their computer noticed a spike in demand and some
Tickets from Ft McMurray to Edmonton were in the thousands of dollars. The computer does not understand gouging and has almost a lower ethical threshold than the typical airline CEO.

As to buying tickets and only using parts of them...they have closed alot of those loop holes.
For example, Hong Kong with a layover in Vancouver and then on to Calgary, round trip, was cheaper than HongKong return to Vancouver. That is a computer programmed type of pricing.
But if you buy the longer ticket, and stop in Vancouver, you will not be able to return without a huge price penalty.



The consumer is pretty much at the mercy of these practices, and particularily when we allow location sourcing?

Lets face it. They have gotten us used to paying to take baggage. Being charged for everything you could imagine. Standing in lines for an hour to check in when half the CSR counters are empty.
We are sheep. They are smart. Bitch as we might, we will fly. And there is almost no difference. As soon as one airline finds a way to discover another surcharge, they all follow.

Pretty soon we will see the flight crew being surcharged for priority early boarding, or alternatively accepting lower wages..

[Rookie50]

And still some of them will go BK / restructure (again) in the next downturn.

Why? Horrible, horrible management.

Blatant?

Sure. You airline dudes out there -- which if any airline when oil dropped below $30, hedged future fuel costs 5-10 years forward? Anyone?

How about (big) flight schools for that matter?

This isn't rocket science. Other industries do this all the time.

[photofly]

I suspect lots of airlines, but no flight schools.

[Rookie50]

I suspect lots of airlines, but no flight schools.

I would look at that if I ran a big one. What an opportunity to hedge forward using gasoline futures. Imagine a big flight school uses their share annually.

[photofly]

Yes, although the option isn't free. You're taking a gamble against the market opinion that the fuel price will drop further. If the market opinion is that the price has bottomed and will rise then your hedge will be costly up front. And if the market was wrong and the price does go down further you are stuck with a higher price than you could have got. It's only in retrospect that the best course of action becomes clear.

What you do buy for your money is certainty of fuel price, which has its own value for future planning of course.

[trey kule]

Since fuel prices dropped, has the cost of aircraft rental (wet) at flight schools dropped?

One doesnt need to hedge if they have a fuel surcharge if fuel goes up and hold the price if it goes down. Unless the competition does it there is simply no need.

Have aircraft rental costs gone down in the last year? It would be interesting to see some numbers posted. I have been told that FTU's are getting almost as creative as the airlines with fees and surcharges.

[CID]

There are no operational reasons for doing so. They don't for instance need your body weight as ballast, nor have an environmental problem disposing of food with which they need your help by eating. The aircraft won't have to take more fuel because your shit can't be pumped to the engines in your absence and the passenger who would have sat next to you won't write to the chief executive to complain that she had to endure an empty seat beside her because you didn't show.

I think you can sum up the "good reasons" and "many factors" as simply being because they make more money that way. They are out to screw you out of as much money as you're prepared to pay, but I guess that's ok - you're out to screw them by getting from A to B as cheaply as possible and in the case of a throwaway ticket, cheaper than they're prepared to fly you on that route.

Yah I guess you're right. That's why airlines are always rolling in cash. None of them ever have financial troubles and they are excellent investments. They all get together and develop new ways to "screw" us so they can sit back and light their cigars with ten dollar bills. It's a good thing that the market is so gullible and easy to snag. Hardly no competition especially on those high traffic routes. And fuel? Don't let anyone tell you that it takes extra fuel to carry extra weight. NASA already knows that. Since the rocket is already going in to space, fill that sucker right up to the walls.

So, lots of profit, no competition, compliant and easy customers, stable fuel prices and absolutely no other considerations. Sounds like a great business to get in to. I'm going to buy a 737 and wade in to this thing. Nothing but money.