Talk:Airline booking ploys

Notes

I could elaborate on this article. However, the issue is becoming moot in the last few years. Discount airlines in North America and Europe now sell one-way tickets, and other airlines match these policies in order to compete. Thus, there are fewer rules to circumvent. Does this make this article more or less relevant?

--Gglockner 19:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"Exceptions to this requirement [of only travelling with hand lugagge] are when re-entering a country where luggage must be processed by customs agents" Well, yes and no. If you are flying into the USA or Canada it works (example: Frankfurt-New York-Baltimore, you have to take your luggage through customs in New York and recheck it).

If you are flying into Europe you won't see/touch/come into contact with your luggage before you've reached the final destination where the customs check will happen. Example: You fly New York-Frankfurt-Munich: Your passport is stamped in Frankfurt but you won't see you luggage before you reach Munich where there is a customs agent anyway because there's no International Terminal because all the countries are so close together anyway...same scenario would happen for New York-Frankfurt-Vienna...I just don't know how to incorporate this info without elaborating too much...--Soylentyellow (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

United Airlines lawsuit

An anonymous editor has been trying to remove the reference to the United Airlines lawsuit which I argue helps add notability to a wikipedia article with questionable notability. Please stop deleting the reference and instead discuss your reasoning here so we can arrive at a consensus. [1] Lugevas (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that the lawsuit should remain based based on the increased awareness and notability of airline booking ploys. FirstDrop87 (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Airline's Perspective

Can some one outline the advantage to Airline that makes such ploys possible in the first place? Is Tahoe City/Business Association paying kickbacks (tax break/freebies?) to the airlines offering lower fare on New York to Tahoe tickets - however the airline wants to refuel at San Francisco, as it is the Airline's hub with cheaper gas/maintenance? Or lower airport fees at San Francisco for transit instead of destination? Also, any sample contract verbiage that penalizes such passenger (customer) behavior would be nice as well.

http://crankyflier.com/2015/01/05/why-airlines-need-hidden-city-ticketing-to-be-possible-but-they-also-cant-let-you-take-advantage-of-it/ is the best explanation I've been able to find. Would be good to integrate into the article more--but I don't have time right now.- Dan Eisenberg (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Problems for other travelers? Also, concern if the trip gets re-routed?

Ok, I see, for hidden-city ticketing:

"As a result, a flight between point A to point C, with a connection node at point B, might be cheaper than a flight between point A and point B. It is then possible to purchase a flight ticket from point A to point C, disembark at the connection node (B), and discard the remaining segment (B to C)."

I just discovered this hidden-city ticketing idea on-line today (Jan. 9, 2019). There is concern that if many people do this, it can lead to seat shortage and higher prices for travelers who are ACTUALLY planning to go from A to C (i.e. not disembarking at stopover point B).

I do see the concern in THIS article that the A-to-C trip can be re-routed, and if you were going to disembark at B, and B ends up being missed because of such re-routing, you've got a problem. Maybe reword that part of this Wikipedia article to refer to A,B,C -- do you understand what I am saying? Carlm0404 (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, am I correct in reading elsewhere that if there's no more room for carry-on items, your carry-on could be inserted in checked baggage? (In the example above, it would then be carried on to C even if you were disembarking at B.) Before I came across hidden-city ticketing today, I was aware of limits for carry-on, so that the last person to board a flight has room for carry-on. Carlm0404 (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

poorly explained

This article does not really explain why an airline would care. IF I buy a long distance ticket and get off anyway, then I reduce costs for the airline in fuel, transport, cleaning. Why should this be an issue? The empty seat has already been paid for whether I am on it or not.

Elsewhere I see it might be a form of cross subsidization - that there are higher prices charged at peak times for the hub that connects to connecting flight, which allows the hub to function. Does this mean the connecting flight is actually making a loss? Why would this benefit an airline? I think there is something missing here and it is not obvious as to what it is. Total speculation would be that frequent flyers pick an airline based on some kind of loyalty and they expect that a network is available to them. So this might be business customers that want to know they can get to a place by their particular airline, if their airline does not have a big range of flights then they pick another one that does.

I cannot see how this relates to budget airlines like Ryan Air or Air Baltic - the price on these always seems to be more to go bigger distances, even when passing through a hub it often works out cheaper to fly to the hub.

Overall I wonder about climate change - would their be fewer flights and lower emissions if this per distance rate was calculated for flights? Would it be significant or is the cost very dependent on customer numbers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.7.24 (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

This article's about ways people get around airline fare structures. Going into detail about why airlines structure their fares as they do would be a digression, I believe. Largoplazo (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Quote #13

Under EU transportation customer rights it is perfectly legal for the customer to do exactly this. https://web.archive.org/web/20160304201135/http://www.eu-verbraucher.de/de/verbraucherthemen/reisen-in-der-eu/reisen/flugzeug/gerichtsurteile/cross-ticketing/ The text of the wp article is totally americentric and thus not necessarily valid for other countries of the anglosphere. Mabye someone can improve the quality of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.141.39.208 (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The Southwest exception to hidden city ticketing is no more

There's no way to cite the removal of a fact, so I'm listing it here in support of my edit. Regarding hidden city ticketing, the previous version of the page stated "A notable exception is Southwest Airlines, whose fare rules do not specifically prohibit the practice," and cited to the Nate Silver 2011 article. Southwest's current contract of carriage, dated August 5, 2021, states in section 2.a.2.f.i.1., "Prohibited Booking Practices ... include ... Purchasing a Ticket without intending to fly all flights to gain lower fares (hidden cities)." See also this ZDNet article, regarding Southwest's lawsuit against Skiplagged.com for facilitating hidden city ticketing. travisl (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)