Page 7 of 8

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 11:42 pm
by Gulfstream500
nry wrote:
Loyal travelers aren't using hidden city ticketing. People using this trick by definition are chasing the cheapest fare. That is not the behavior of a loyal customer.

In any case, all this hot air is doing exactly what United wants - driving the travel hackers to other airlines. I'm sure they make incremental revenue from them, but it's not predictable nor a way to build a sustainable business. Let's put this announcement in context of the high-J 763s put on EWR-LHR-EWR. They know exactly what they're doing.

All this discussion about minutiae of CoC's really doesn't matter.


Right, but people tend to be loyal to a select few airlines. If a passenger is loyal to Southwest/Frontier/Spirit/Allegiant/JetBlue (which prices by the legs you take), they won’t do hidden city travel with them. However, if they have to take United because Southwest does not fly from point a to point b nonstop (loyalty points are almost never worth a stop), then they’ll go ahead and book on United, where they can’t delete your frequent flier miles.

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 11:44 pm
by Aliqiout
spudsmac wrote:
Recently I was on a ticket from HNL-CVG with routing HNL-SFO-DEN-CVG and the DEN leg canceled. I got off in SFO, went to a hotel and took Delta to CVG later that night instead of wait for the reroute. Wonder if they consider what I did to be an issue.

Why would that be an issue? The flight was canceled.

But why did you do that???? UA would have put you on the DL flight if there was a major difference in arrival time on their own dime.

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 1:01 am
by NYKiwi
So I have used this before not on UA dont think its illegal its all about airline fares and pricing. Last year i needed to get home but fares to AKL where high so i saved 500.00 by flying through AKL to SYD and then did return to AKL on next flight.....had to recheck my bag and added an extra AKL - SYD to my NYC- AKL but to save 500 id do it again and NZ website allowed

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 5:55 am
by usdcaguy
Aliqiout wrote:
usdcaguy wrote:
UpNAWAy wrote:
Amazing how many A.netter still don't understand a Market is point A to B only and that is a Unique market. Each one is a Unique and is priced according by passenger demand. If you don't notice this is an extremely price sensitive business. All produced at the store is not priced the same Avocados cost more than Apples just as Non Stop Market may cost more than a connection. They are completely different species so to speak.


Not really an apt comparison. Let's say the grocer was selling apples and oranges bundled together in red nets and not separately. You could pay the price for an apple and an orange and just eat the apple and throw the orange away in the trash. Another example would be buying a two-course prix fixe menu on special to get a main dish you cannot get a la carte. Asking the restaurant simply to remove the dessert because you don't want it isn't a crime and is just like buying a two-segment ticket and only using the first segment. If the carriers don't want you doing that, they shouldn't be offering the connection for sale in the first place.

Your comparison doesn't make any sence. The customer is always free to "dispose" of something after paying for it. There are no consequences, other than losing what you paid, for not showing up for a ticketed trip at all. The issue is that on a hidden city ticket you never paid for transportation to the hidden city. Just because the airline uses the same flight that higher cost product uses, doesn't change that.

Another good grocery store analogy is paying for a gallon of vanilla ice cream. You can't chose to take ingredients separately. The milk, cream sugar, and vanilla may cost more, or less than then the ice cream. They are different products and respond to different market pressures than the combined ingredients.


Except you can’t separate out ingredients from ice cream. But you can buy Cracker Jax and refuse to eat the peanuts. Same as using a hidden city ticket.

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 6:14 am
by dc10co
What’s funny to me is that even when United tries to create a policy of deescalation for front line agents and passengers they can still do no right. Whatever your stance on hidden city ticketing is the bottom line is that ALL three majors consider this to be a form of fraud. I personally know people who used hidden city ticketing on DL and stupidly checked a bag. DL flat out refused to return their bag. This used to be a common practice at UA as well, the bag would be held until the passenger paid either a change fee or add collect and then it would be returned to the customer. Additionally the previous guidelines were to void tickets and refuse transportation if it was discovered that a passenger was attempting to hidden city ticket. The new policy takes the policing aspect away from the front line and reduces friction between agents and would be hidden city ticket travelers. In my opinion this is actually an acknowledgement by UA that they cannot win every single hidden city ticket battle and instead they will focus their efforts on what UA considers to be egregious abusers of the loophole.

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 8:53 am
by chimborazo
Just say you feel nauseous and are feeling like you can’t breathe/pretend to pass out half an hour before landing. Magically get better on arrival but say you don’t feel well enough to fly again soon and you will rest up and buy another ticket later. Airlines set up these systems... play them

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 8:55 am
by chimborazo
dc10co wrote:
What’s funny to me is that even when United tries to create a policy of deescalation for front line agents and passengers they can still do no right. Whatever your stance on hidden city ticketing is the bottom line is that ALL three majors consider this to be a form of fraud. I personally know people who used hidden city ticketing on DL and stupidly checked a bag. DL flat out refused to return their bag. This used to be a common practice at UA as well, the bag would be held until the passenger paid either a change fee or add collect and then it would be returned to the customer. Additionally the previous guidelines were to void tickets and refuse transportation if it was discovered that a passenger was attempting to hidden city ticket. The new policy takes the policing aspect away from the front line and reduces friction between agents and would be hidden city ticket travelers. In my opinion this is actually an acknowledgement by UA that they cannot win every single hidden city ticket battle and instead they will focus their efforts on what UA considers to be egregious abusers of the loophole.


Holding a passengers bag when they don’t want to fly the next leg- and it’s none of the airlines business why you don’t take the next leg - IS theft.

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:49 am
by MIflyer12
chimborazo wrote:
Holding a passengers bag when they don’t want to fly the next leg- and it’s none of the airlines business why you don’t take the next leg - IS theft.


That could be another interesting court test - and I'm not so confident consumers could win this one. Some carriers have long had prohibitions on short-checking luggage in the C of C. One possible outcome is that passengers could be welcome to skip the last ticketed segment but carriers may not be obligated to provide checked bag service. That would significantly decrease the attractiveness of hidden-city use.

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:54 am
by jetmatt777
chimborazo wrote:
dc10co wrote:
What’s funny to me is that even when United tries to create a policy of deescalation for front line agents and passengers they can still do no right. Whatever your stance on hidden city ticketing is the bottom line is that ALL three majors consider this to be a form of fraud. I personally know people who used hidden city ticketing on DL and stupidly checked a bag. DL flat out refused to return their bag. This used to be a common practice at UA as well, the bag would be held until the passenger paid either a change fee or add collect and then it would be returned to the customer. Additionally the previous guidelines were to void tickets and refuse transportation if it was discovered that a passenger was attempting to hidden city ticket. The new policy takes the policing aspect away from the front line and reduces friction between agents and would be hidden city ticket travelers. In my opinion this is actually an acknowledgement by UA that they cannot win every single hidden city ticket battle and instead they will focus their efforts on what UA considers to be egregious abusers of the loophole.


Holding a passengers bag when they don’t want to fly the next leg- and it’s none of the airlines business why you don’t take the next leg - IS theft.


How is that theft? Why should any airline, at their own expense, fly your bag back to the city you purposefully got off in? So your bag flies TUL-DEN-PDX as you purchased but demand UA pay to fly the bag back to DEN and deliver it to you?

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 12:30 pm
by chimborazo
jetmatt777 wrote:
chimborazo wrote:
dc10co wrote:
What’s funny to me is that even when United tries to create a policy of deescalation for front line agents and passengers they can still do no right. Whatever your stance on hidden city ticketing is the bottom line is that ALL three majors consider this to be a form of fraud. I personally know people who used hidden city ticketing on DL and stupidly checked a bag. DL flat out refused to return their bag. This used to be a common practice at UA as well, the bag would be held until the passenger paid either a change fee or add collect and then it would be returned to the customer. Additionally the previous guidelines were to void tickets and refuse transportation if it was discovered that a passenger was attempting to hidden city ticket. The new policy takes the policing aspect away from the front line and reduces friction between agents and would be hidden city ticket travelers. In my opinion this is actually an acknowledgement by UA that they cannot win every single hidden city ticket battle and instead they will focus their efforts on what UA considers to be egregious abusers of the loophole.


Holding a passengers bag when they don’t want to fly the next leg- and it’s none of the airlines business why you don’t take the next leg - IS theft.


How is that theft? Why should any airline, at their own expense, fly your bag back to the city you purposefully got off in? So your bag flies TUL-DEN-PDX as you purchased but demand UA pay to fly the bag back to DEN and deliver it to you?


My comment was based on a layover of X amount of hours that gives time to not load your bag. America is unique I think in flying a bag domestically without the passenger on the plane (notwithstanding missed bags flying separately etc... out of interest are they more closely screened?)

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 12:44 pm
by incitatus
usdcaguy wrote:

Except you can’t separate out ingredients from ice cream. But you can buy Cracker Jax and refuse to eat the peanuts. Same as using a hidden city ticket.


The ice cream analogy is quite interesting because it does not hold. In the case of a trip with a connection, the ingredients come separate. For ice cream there is nearly a physical impossibility of separating the ingredients.

Wanting the separate the ice cream ingredients is akin to buying a trip from New York to Rome, and wanting to get off in London when the plane is overflying it. Just talk the crew into opening an exit and parachute.

While I do understand the airlines' logic, enforcement is difficult and comes across as bullying.

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 12:51 pm
by jetmatt777
chimborazo wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:
chimborazo wrote:

Holding a passengers bag when they don’t want to fly the next leg- and it’s none of the airlines business why you don’t take the next leg - IS theft.


How is that theft? Why should any airline, at their own expense, fly your bag back to the city you purposefully got off in? So your bag flies TUL-DEN-PDX as you purchased but demand UA pay to fly the bag back to DEN and deliver it to you?


My comment was based on a layover of X amount of hours that gives time to not load your bag. America is unique I think in flying a bag domestically without the passenger on the plane (notwithstanding missed bags flying separately etc... out of interest are they more closely screened?)


I won’t comment on screening procedures for luggage, however it requires manpower and the opportunity for costly delays to hunt for bags. We see quite a few hidden-city “bag requests” in Denver and often times we don’t pursue them due to time. They’ll have to wait for it to get to it’s final destination and file a claim. It’s unfortunate that people who use this loophole cost the company in lost revenue, and also cost the company in manpower and fuel to search for and fly the bag back. It’s a double whammy.

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 1:17 pm
by GalaxyFlyer
This might be Calvinist, but an honest man wouldn’t be buying tickets to a destination he had not intention of flying to.

GF

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 1:46 pm
by InsideMan
why on earth would any airline want to punish their customers for skipping the last leg?
I paid for the ticket, including the last leg and I reserve my right not to use it. You already have my money, what's the problem?

Everything else is making a you problem my problem.

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:06 pm
by jetmatt777
[twoid][/twoid]
InsideMan wrote:
why on earth would any airline want to punish their customers for skipping the last leg?
I paid for the ticket, including the last leg and I reserve my right not to use it. You already have my money, what's the problem?

Everything else is making a you problem my problem.


So you pay a photographer to take photos of you and your family. He has two rates, a personal rate and a commercial rate. The personal rate has the same exact quality photos as the commercial rate; however the personal rate includes a license that is only for personal use around the house or sharing on Facebook. You buy the personal license, but due to how amazing your haircut looks you approach SuperCuts and sell them the photos for their marketing material.

What’s the problem? It’s the same photos... the photographer should have just charged one rate? It’s dishonest.

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:24 pm
by chimborazo
jetmatt777 wrote:
chimborazo wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:

How is that theft? Why should any airline, at their own expense, fly your bag back to the city you purposefully got off in? So your bag flies TUL-DEN-PDX as you purchased but demand UA pay to fly the bag back to DEN and deliver it to you?


My comment was based on a layover of X amount of hours that gives time to not load your bag. America is unique I think in flying a bag domestically without the passenger on the plane (notwithstanding missed bags flying separately etc... out of interest are they more closely screened?)


I won’t comment on screening procedures for luggage, however it requires manpower and the opportunity for costly delays to hunt for bags. We see quite a few hidden-city “bag requests” in Denver and often times we don’t pursue them due to time. They’ll have to wait for it to get to it’s final destination and file a claim. It’s unfortunate that people who use this loophole cost the company in lost revenue, and also cost the company in manpower and fuel to search for and fly the bag back. It’s a double whammy.


Fair enough the security (on a side note, there are many people on here precious about these aspects which are easy to find out about- I know because I searched it).

Nevertheless, despite all the black and white “contracts of carriage” arguments... the whole premise of it being cheaper to fly 2 flights and longer distance versus point to point shorter flight being cheaper is a scam. The whole airlines pricing is a scam- and this from someone who loves nearly everything about aviation.

There are not many industries where two people with the same product can be sat next to each other, one paying X amount, the other person paying Xx5. I’m ready for a hail of you don’t understand it type comments.... I do get it. I understand. But why is it okay for airlines to charge 5x or 10x for the same thing because someone bought it close to the flight time, but it’s “wrong” when someone spots a way to make travelling cheaper...? The airlines are scamming folk, why can’t the customer play their game?

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:58 pm
by jetmatt777
It’s because nonstop flights inherently are more valuable to a traveler, thus the airline can charge a premium. A connecting flight is often longer, has a greater chance of being delayed in a hub, and is a lesser product than a nonstop. What do companies do with lower-quality product? They price them cheaper. So no, the two people sitting side by side aren’t using the same product. One is on a nonstop iteneray which they likely paid extra for, while the other is on a connection which wasn’t either the only practical way to get where they were going, or was cheaper.

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:12 pm
by chimborazo
jetmatt777 wrote:
It’s because nonstop flights inherently are more valuable to a traveler, thus the airline can charge a premium. A connecting flight is often longer, has a greater chance of being delayed in a hub, and is a lesser product than a nonstop. What do companies do with lower-quality product? They price them cheaper. So no, the two people sitting side by side aren’t using the same product. One is on a nonstop iteneray which they likely paid extra for, while the other is on a connection which wasn’t either the only practical way to get where they were going, or was cheaper.


Well no they wouldn’t would they... because someone on a two stop “cheap” won’t be on the same flights as a direct. So your argument is bogus.

I travel a lot... and have many conversations about pricing. It’s ridiculous the disparity and ticket prices. And no you are not buying something different... you are buying the same thing at a different time. Only the travel industry gets away with it.

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:15 pm
by jetmatt777
chimborazo wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:
It’s because nonstop flights inherently are more valuable to a traveler, thus the airline can charge a premium. A connecting flight is often longer, has a greater chance of being delayed in a hub,
and is a lesser product than a nonstop. What do companies do with lower-quality product? They price them cheaper. So no, the two people sitting side by side aren’t using the same product. One is on a nonstop iteneray which they likely paid extra for, while the other is on a connection which wasn’t either the only practical way to get where they were going, or was cheaper.


Well no they wouldn’t would they... because someone on a two stop “cheap” won’t be on the same flights as a direct. So your argument is bogus.

I travel a lot... and have many conversations about pricing. It’s ridiculous the disparity and ticket prices. And no you are not buying something different... you are buying the same thing at a different time. Only the travel industry gets away with it.


Yes they would. Traveler A in 11F is flying UA TUL-DEN, he paid for a nonstop flight, traveler B in 11E is flying UA TUL-DEN-SLC. He paid for a cheaper connecting flight despite of the available nonstop TUL-SLC on DL. Two travelers, same airplane: different levels of service.

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:17 pm
by chimborazo
Further, in my case, I get paid by the hour when travelling so no, a direct flight is not “inherently more valuable to a traveller”.

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:19 pm
by chimborazo
jetmatt777 wrote:
chimborazo wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:
It’s because nonstop flights inherently are more valuable to a traveler, thus the airline can charge a premium. A connecting flight is often longer, has a greater chance of being delayed in a hub,
and is a lesser product than a nonstop. What do companies do with lower-quality product? They price them cheaper. So no, the two people sitting side by side aren’t using the same product. One is on a nonstop iteneray which they likely paid extra for, while the other is on a connection which wasn’t either the only practical way to get where they were going, or was cheaper.


Well no they wouldn’t would they... because someone on a two stop “cheap” won’t be on the same flights as a direct. So your argument is bogus.

I travel a lot... and have many conversations about pricing. It’s ridiculous the disparity and ticket prices. And no you are not buying something different... you are buying the same thing at a different time. Only the travel industry gets away with it.


Yes they would. Traveler A in 11F is flying UA TUL-DEN, he paid for a nonstop flight, traveler B in 11E is flying UA TUL-DEN-SLC. He paid for a cheaper connecting flight despite of the available nonstop TUL-SLC on DL. Two travelers, same airplane: different levels of service.


Your words read as traveller A on a direct flight A to C versus traveller B on a flight A to C via B.

And I really hope they don’t have different levels of service in the same cabin.....

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:26 pm
by jetmatt777
Like it or not that pricing model allows cheaper travel to markets that can’t support nonstop service to anywherebut DEN, DFW, and ATL.

The whole argument that price should only reflect the cost to the airline is bogus. This would imply that at a Elton John and Billy Joel concert, the foldable seats in the front row should be the cheapest, while the stadium seats in the highest rows supported by thousands of tons of rebar and concrete should be the most expensive. It just doesn’t work that way. the seats at the front command the highest price because of the value to the buyer: seeing the performance up close. The seats which cost the most to construct cost the cheapest because they are further away. So, this example can be used to cover the airline argument - the nonstop is the most valuable to most people, who value their time and convenience. It’s proven people will pay more for a nonstop. The less desirable connecting flight is priced cheaper because it is not as valuable - despite the higher cost.

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:29 pm
by chimborazo
I’ve had it on business travels before where I’ve had to detour to a project elsewhere- after booking the first flight. So I’m on the way to X in 3 days time (for a 4 day stay) but something has come up in Y and I need to be there in 6 days. I ask the travel agent to book me a flight from X to Y in 6 days time. They say they can’t because I have a return from home to X and back and if I book the onward they will think I am trying to get a cheap rate single. But it’s not so. So I have to wait until I get to X, book an onward to Y and then back home. But I’ve paid for the X return. Theoretically all I should have to do is tell them I have to go somewhere else but no that’s not good enough for the airline- they will likely want the full-fare single rate because they think I am deliberately not taking the return to benefit from a cheaper ticket. Not so- I have honest intentions. But airlines always win. Just like scammers...

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:42 pm
by citationjet
77H wrote:
Name me one nonstop route or market that UA has a monopoly on ?


Some of the nonstop UA routes that are only served by UA, just from DEN:

DEN - ANC
DEN - FAI
DEN - NRT
DEN - LIH
DEN - KOA
DEN - OGG
DEN - GCC
DEN - ISN
DEN - DIK
DEN - MOT
DEN - DVL
DEN - JMS
DEN - PIR
DEN - ATY
DEN - LBF
DEN - EAR
DEN - GTF
DEN - FCA
DEN - HLN
DEN - COD
DEN - CPR
DEN - COS
DEN - PUB
DEN - HDN
DEN - RKS
DEN - VEL
DEN - GJT
DEN - CNY
DEN - DRO
DEN - SUN
DEN - EUR
DEN - OTH
DEN - MFR
DEN - RDM
DEN - ACV
DEN - STS
DEN - SGU
DEN - SAF
DEN - PRC
DEN - RIC
DEN - TVC
DEN - DAY
DEN - AMA
DEN - SHV
DEN - SBP

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 4:02 pm
by hongkongflyer
An interesting comparison, in a restaurant, ordering a set menu is always cheaper than ordering the same foods al la carte.
you can always order a set then not consuming part of the food, no one will argue that it is illegal and you must pay the price difference to the restaurant.

The same situation, I buy a set of air ticket which consists of two flights, which is cheaper than just the first leg.
Why I can't throw away the second flight and need to make compensation to the airline?

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 4:10 pm
by citationjet
hongkongflyer wrote:
An interesting comparison, in a restaurant, ordering a set menu is always cheaper than ordering the same foods al la carte.
you can always order a set then not consuming part of the food, no one will argue that it is illegal and you must pay the price difference to the restaurant.

The same situation, I buy a set of air ticket which consists of two flights, which is cheaper than just the first leg.
Why I can't throw away the second flight and need to make compensation to the airline?


The difference is that at the restaurant you have not agreed to a contracts of carriage, or its equivalent.

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 4:15 pm
by Ziyulu
What if you get kicked off your second flight? Do you still have to pay the penalty?

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 4:16 pm
by RobertS975
I have said this for years... we thought we were getting de-regulation, but what we really got was self-regulation. There are more "rules" now than there ever were when the airlines were "regulated". We all need to remember that the airline rules are not something that Moses brought down the mountain etched in stone. They are not laws of any state or country.

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 4:39 pm
by PatrickZ80
citationjet wrote:
The difference is that at the restaurant you have not agreed to a contracts of carriage, or its equivalent.


However there are limitations on what airlines are allowed to put in their contract of carriage and what not. The contract of carriage is not the highest legal document, the law is. Any text in the contract of carriage that is even the slightest bit at odds with the law does therefor not apply.

Therefor, it is very doubtful if airlines are allowed to charge passengers for the fare difference in case they get off early. A judge will have to decide if that part of the contract of carriage violates the law or not.

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 5:11 pm
by tlecam
citationjet wrote:
hongkongflyer wrote:
An interesting comparison, in a restaurant, ordering a set menu is always cheaper than ordering the same foods al la carte.
you can always order a set then not consuming part of the food, no one will argue that it is illegal and you must pay the price difference to the restaurant.

The same situation, I buy a set of air ticket which consists of two flights, which is cheaper than just the first leg.
Why I can't throw away the second flight and need to make compensation to the airline?


The difference is that at the restaurant you have not agreed to a contracts of carriage, or its equivalent.


And companies create contracts that end up not holding water when challenged in the courts. A common example is non-compete agreements that companies require employees to sign as part of their employment agreement.

The contract of carriage has not received any serious challenges in the courts and airlines do not want it challenged in court.

It will be very difficult for a carrier to prove damages in court for a flight that the passenger paid for at the price the carrier chose to sell it, when the passenger did not take the flight and did not ask for money to be returned. We're primarily dealing with opportunity costs, which are by their very nature theoretical. Proving that the airline could have sold the seat at a higher price will be challenging, if for no other reason than that the airline would have sold the seat for a higher price if it could.

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 6:19 pm
by bob75013
tlecam wrote:
It will be very difficult for a carrier to prove damages in court for a flight that the passenger paid for at the price the carrier chose to sell it, when the passenger did not take the flight and did not ask for money to be returned. We're primarily dealing with opportunity costs, which are by their very nature theoretical. Proving that the airline could have sold the seat at a higher price will be challenging, if for no other reason than that the airline would have sold the seat for a higher price if it could.


Given the preponderance of high load factors, I suspect that many of the "no show" seats are taken by standby travelers, helping the airline alleviate a different problem.

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 8:17 pm
by spudsmac
Aliqiout wrote:
spudsmac wrote:
Recently I was on a ticket from HNL-CVG with routing HNL-SFO-DEN-CVG and the DEN leg canceled. I got off in SFO, went to a hotel and took Delta to CVG later that night instead of wait for the reroute. Wonder if they consider what I did to be an issue.

Why would that be an issue? The flight was canceled.

But why did you do that???? UA would have put you on the DL flight if there was a major difference in arrival time on their own dime.


My company has duty time limitations and maximum connection time requirements and I would not have met either. So rebooked on Delta after going to a hotel. I actually arrived 8 hours later by taking the Delta flight.

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 8:59 pm
by sergegva
With the current environmentalist wave breaking through Europe, I am surprised not to see more criticism from these circles about the pricing methods of regular airlines. The current incentive to take flights with stopovers is clearly a disaster for the climate in terms of CO2 emissions. Fortunately, there still seems to be few aviation specialists in their ranks....

One other thing, it should not be forgotten that traditional airlines use and abuse their pricing system to achieve various objectives, including preventing the entry of a competitor into a market. In the case that Lufthansa brought to a German court (and lost!), the passenger took advantage of the extremely low prices offered by Lufthansa between Scandinavia and USA, to sink Norwegian's lines. In other words, one could almost say, in this case, that the passenger who respects the contract of carriage imposed by Lufthansa is an accomplice to a policy that borders on unfair competition :lol:

In my opinion, these two kind of "abuses" justify a change in the pricing model.

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 12:45 am
by CALMSP
just makes me wonder, would UA walk the walk/talk the talk if they decided to base the corporation in a state other than Delaware? Seems as though they are also looking for a cheaper spend as it relates to taxes.

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:06 am
by InsideMan
jetmatt777 wrote:
[twoid][/twoid]
InsideMan wrote:
why on earth would any airline want to punish their customers for skipping the last leg?
I paid for the ticket, including the last leg and I reserve my right not to use it. You already have my money, what's the problem?

Everything else is making a you problem my problem.


So you pay a photographer to take photos of you and your family. He has two rates, a personal rate and a commercial rate. The personal rate has the same exact quality photos as the commercial rate; however the personal rate includes a license that is only for personal use around the house or sharing on Facebook. You buy the personal license, but due to how amazing your haircut looks you approach SuperCuts and sell them the photos for their marketing material.

What’s the problem? It’s the same photos... the photographer should have just charged one rate? It’s dishonest.


what an absurd analogy! It's like comparing a Y ticket to an F ticket. Not the same!!

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 10:11 am
by InsideMan
InsideMan wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:
[twoid][/twoid]
InsideMan wrote:
why on earth would any airline want to punish their customers for skipping the last leg?
I paid for the ticket, including the last leg and I reserve my right not to use it. You already have my money, what's the problem?

Everything else is making a you problem my problem.


So you pay a photographer to take photos of you and your family. He has two rates, a personal rate and a commercial rate. The personal rate has the same exact quality photos as the commercial rate; however the personal rate includes a license that is only for personal use around the house or sharing on Facebook. You buy the personal license, but due to how amazing your haircut looks you approach SuperCuts and sell them the photos for their marketing material.

What’s the problem? It’s the same photos... the photographer should have just charged one rate? It’s dishonest.


what an absurd analogy! It's like comparing a Y ticket to an F ticket. Not the same!!


If you want to stick with the photographer analogy, here's one that works.

Photos at the church $500
Photos at the party $200
Current super bonus offer get both for just $400.

So after church you send the photographer home. Both should be happy. You get what you want for less than the regular price and the photographer has less work than originally agreed to.
No harm done to anyone and that's the point. What's the harm to the airline when you skip the last leg?

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:00 pm
by 77H
citationjet wrote:
77H wrote:
Name me one nonstop route or market that UA has a monopoly on ?


Some of the nonstop UA routes that are only served by UA, just from DEN:

DEN - ANC
DEN - FAI
DEN - NRT
DEN - LIH
DEN - KOA
DEN - OGG
DEN - GCC
DEN - ISN
DEN - DIK
DEN - MOT
DEN - DVL
DEN - JMS
DEN - PIR
DEN - ATY
DEN - LBF
DEN - EAR
DEN - GTF
DEN - FCA
DEN - HLN
DEN - COD
DEN - CPR
DEN - COS
DEN - PUB
DEN - HDN
DEN - RKS
DEN - VEL
DEN - GJT
DEN - CNY
DEN - DRO
DEN - SUN
DEN - EUR
DEN - OTH
DEN - MFR
DEN - RDM
DEN - ACV
DEN - STS
DEN - SGU
DEN - SAF
DEN - PRC
DEN - RIC
DEN - TVC
DEN - DAY
DEN - AMA
DEN - SHV
DEN - SBP


Honey, you’re missing the point. Great effort though.

Tell me how you would use hidden city ticketing to reach any of those destinations?

The point was that no routes that you can easily employ hidden city ticketing on are monopolies.

77H

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:13 pm
by 77H
InsideMan wrote:
InsideMan wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:
[twoid][/twoid]

So you pay a photographer to take photos of you and your family. He has two rates, a personal rate and a commercial rate. The personal rate has the same exact quality photos as the commercial rate; however the personal rate includes a license that is only for personal use around the house or sharing on Facebook. You buy the personal license, but due to how amazing your haircut looks you approach SuperCuts and sell them the photos for their marketing material.

What’s the problem? It’s the same photos... the photographer should have just charged one rate? It’s dishonest.


what an absurd analogy! It's like comparing a Y ticket to an F ticket. Not the same!!


If you want to stick with the photographer analogy, here's one that works.

Photos at the church $500
Photos at the party $200
Current super bonus offer get both for just $400.

So after church you send the photographer home. Both should be happy. You get what you want for less than the regular price and the photographer has less work than originally agreed to.
No harm done to anyone and that's the point. What's the harm to the airline when you skip the last leg?


The harm is that the photographer already has an established price point for photos at the church, an established price point for reception photos but offers a bonus if you book them for both.

If you book the photographer for both, with the express intent of only using them for the church photos at a cheaper price point than advertised, you are conning them.

There is likely a reason they offer a discount on both, that reason is unbeknownst to the consumer and really isn’t the consumers business.

If the photographer realizes this at the end... And only provides the consumer with half the pictures they took, are you okay with that?

77H

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:34 pm
by 77H
bob75013 wrote:
tlecam wrote:
It will be very difficult for a carrier to prove damages in court for a flight that the passenger paid for at the price the carrier chose to sell it, when the passenger did not take the flight and did not ask for money to be returned. We're primarily dealing with opportunity costs, which are by their very nature theoretical. Proving that the airline could have sold the seat at a higher price will be challenging, if for no other reason than that the airline would have sold the seat for a higher price if it could.


Given the preponderance of high load factors, I suspect that many of the "no show" seats are taken by standby travelers, helping the airline alleviate a different problem.


Except standby travelers are not the airlines “problem”. They are in most cases completely non rev representing no financial value add.

Every employee understands that standby travel is their sole responsibility as it relates to reporting back to duty on time and understands the penalties should they fail to.

There have been isolated instances where airlines have stepped in to assist with getting standbys home but it usually comes at a price for everyone.
I recall several years ago hundreds of UA employees got stranded in HNL. If memory serves, UA actually sent an extra section to HNL to uplift as many as employees as possible. There were so many employees stranded that it was impacting operations all around the system. UA subsequently started standby travel embargo’s to certain destinations at peak travel times to ensure people wouldn’t get themselves into a situation where they could get stranded.

77H

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 4:15 am
by hongkongflyer
dc10co wrote:
What’s funny to me is that even when United tries to create a policy of deescalation for front line agents and passengers they can still do no right. Whatever your stance on hidden city ticketing is the bottom line is that ALL three majors consider this to be a form of fraud. I personally know people who used hidden city ticketing on DL and stupidly checked a bag. DL flat out refused to return their bag. This used to be a common practice at UA as well, the bag would be held until the passenger paid either a change fee or add collect and then it would be returned to the customer. Additionally the previous guidelines were to void tickets and refuse transportation if it was discovered that a passenger was attempting to hidden city ticket. The new policy takes the policing aspect away from the front line and reduces friction between agents and would be hidden city ticket travelers. In my opinion this is actually an acknowledgement by UA that they cannot win every single hidden city ticket battle and instead they will focus their efforts on what UA considers to be egregious abusers of the loophole.


Instead of telling airline in advance, It can be easily solve by not show up / being significantly late to the gate.
They must offload your luggage and they are the people who delaying everyone else.

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 4:35 am
by jetmatt777
hongkongflyer wrote:
dc10co wrote:
What’s funny to me is that even when United tries to create a policy of deescalation for front line agents and passengers they can still do no right. Whatever your stance on hidden city ticketing is the bottom line is that ALL three majors consider this to be a form of fraud. I personally know people who used hidden city ticketing on DL and stupidly checked a bag. DL flat out refused to return their bag. This used to be a common practice at UA as well, the bag would be held until the passenger paid either a change fee or add collect and then it would be returned to the customer. Additionally the previous guidelines were to void tickets and refuse transportation if it was discovered that a passenger was attempting to hidden city ticket. The new policy takes the policing aspect away from the front line and reduces friction between agents and would be hidden city ticket travelers. In my opinion this is actually an acknowledgement by UA that they cannot win every single hidden city ticket battle and instead they will focus their efforts on what UA considers to be egregious abusers of the loophole.


Instead of telling airline in advance, It can be easily solve by not show up / being significantly late to the gate.
They must offload your luggage and they are the people who delaying everyone else.


In the USA for domestic flights there is no offloading of luggage for missed passengers - in fact we forward a lot of bags on earlier flights with or without the passengers.

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 4:37 am
by dc10co
chimborazo wrote:
dc10co wrote:
What’s funny to me is that even when United tries to create a policy of deescalation for front line agents and passengers they can still do no right. Whatever your stance on hidden city ticketing is the bottom line is that ALL three majors consider this to be a form of fraud. I personally know people who used hidden city ticketing on DL and stupidly checked a bag. DL flat out refused to return their bag. This used to be a common practice at UA as well, the bag would be held until the passenger paid either a change fee or add collect and then it would be returned to the customer. Additionally the previous guidelines were to void tickets and refuse transportation if it was discovered that a passenger was attempting to hidden city ticket. The new policy takes the policing aspect away from the front line and reduces friction between agents and would be hidden city ticket travelers. In my opinion this is actually an acknowledgement by UA that they cannot win every single hidden city ticket battle and instead they will focus their efforts on what UA considers to be egregious abusers of the loophole.


Holding a passengers bag when they don’t want to fly the next leg- and it’s none of the airlines business why you don’t take the next leg - IS theft.


It is absolutely not theft, you purchased transportation to a destination and the airline delivered the bag to this destination. They are under absolutely no obligation to send the bag to anywhere else than it’s ticketed destination.

hongkongflyer wrote:
dc10co wrote:
What’s funny to me is that even when United tries to create a policy of deescalation for front line agents and passengers they can still do no right. Whatever your stance on hidden city ticketing is the bottom line is that ALL three majors consider this to be a form of fraud. I personally know people who used hidden city ticketing on DL and stupidly checked a bag. DL flat out refused to return their bag. This used to be a common practice at UA as well, the bag would be held until the passenger paid either a change fee or add collect and then it would be returned to the customer. Additionally the previous guidelines were to void tickets and refuse transportation if it was discovered that a passenger was attempting to hidden city ticket. The new policy takes the policing aspect away from the front line and reduces friction between agents and would be hidden city ticket travelers. In my opinion this is actually an acknowledgement by UA that they cannot win every single hidden city ticket battle and instead they will focus their efforts on what UA considers to be egregious abusers of the loophole.


Instead of telling airline in advance, It can be easily solve by not show up / being significantly late to the gate.
They must offload your luggage and they are the people who delaying everyone else.


First of all that would be wholly unethical because you would be knowingly causing a large group of people to be delayed so that you could save a few dollars. Second of all the point is moot because there is no PPBM domestically and your bag would ride regardless of when/if you showed up to the gate.




The bottom line is that while people may personally not agree with how the airlines choose to price their product, most US airlines choose to view what they sell as transportation between two points and not as individual segments. Just because I don’t agree with how Walmart chooses to price their TVs doesn’t mean I just go pay what I think is fair and then take the TV anyways.

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 8:17 am
by InsideMan
77H wrote:
InsideMan wrote:
InsideMan wrote:

what an absurd analogy! It's like comparing a Y ticket to an F ticket. Not the same!!


If you want to stick with the photographer analogy, here's one that works.

Photos at the church $500
Photos at the party $200
Current super bonus offer get both for just $400.

So after church you send the photographer home. Both should be happy. You get what you want for less than the regular price and the photographer has less work than originally agreed to.
No harm done to anyone and that's the point. What's the harm to the airline when you skip the last leg?


The harm is that the photographer already has an established price point for photos at the church, an established price point for reception photos but offers a bonus if you book them for both.

If you book the photographer for both, with the express intent of only using them for the church photos at a cheaper price point than advertised, you are conning them.

There is likely a reason they offer a discount on both, that reason is unbeknownst to the consumer and really isn’t the consumers business.

If the photographer realizes this at the end... And only provides the consumer with half the pictures they took, are you okay with that?

77H


Except that the photographer decided to price the three different items accordingly and he decided to sell you said service for this price.
in fact the photographer is stupid for not lowering his standard rate for "church" photos during the period the promotion for both runs as that will promp everybody to do the same.

Where's the harm for the airline or the photographer in that case? He made the price, he got the money and he had to work less than anticipated to earn that money.

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:20 pm
by 77H
InsideMan wrote:
77H wrote:
InsideMan wrote:

If you want to stick with the photographer analogy, here's one that works.

Photos at the church $500
Photos at the party $200
Current super bonus offer get both for just $400.

So after church you send the photographer home. Both should be happy. You get what you want for less than the regular price and the photographer has less work than originally agreed to.
No harm done to anyone and that's the point. What's the harm to the airline when you skip the last leg?


The harm is that the photographer already has an established price point for photos at the church, an established price point for reception photos but offers a bonus if you book them for both.

If you book the photographer for both, with the express intent of only using them for the church photos at a cheaper price point than advertised, you are conning them.

There is likely a reason they offer a discount on both, that reason is unbeknownst to the consumer and really isn’t the consumers business.

If the photographer realizes this at the end... And only provides the consumer with half the pictures they took, are you okay with that?

77H


Except that the photographer decided to price the three different items accordingly and he decided to sell you said service for this price.
in fact the photographer is stupid for not lowering his standard rate for "church" photos during the period the promotion for both runs as that will promp everybody to do the same.

Where's the harm for the airline or the photographer in that case? He made the price, he got the money and he had to work less than anticipated to earn that money.


The photographer has their reasons for pricing as such. Maybe they are a reputable photographer for wedding ceremonies or baptisms or whathaveyou (church) and is trying to build a following outside of that. By linking both together at a lower price they are hoping to be hired for events outside of the church.

So someone who only wants to use them for their services at the church, for which they already have a reputation is willfully deceiving the photographer by signing up for both and dropping the latter part of the service.

I think DC10CO put it best. Just because you don’t like the price of Walmart’s TVs, doesn’t mean you get to decide what price you’ll pay and take the TV.

If you don’t like how the airlines price, don’t use their service. Attempting to exploit their pricing model for your gain makes you no better than what you accuse the airline of doing.

They have the freedom to price their service how they see fit and you, the consumer has the freedom to choose whether or not you use their service.

The excuses for doing so just seem like rationalizations for bad behavior.

77H

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:30 am
by afcjets
tlecam wrote:
Proving that the airline could have sold the seat at a higher price will be challenging, if for no other reason than that the airline would have sold the seat for a higher price if it could.


Exactly, and based on that logic why stop there? Let United sue someone for taking their flight if a higher fare passenger comes along later they can't accommodate because they already sold it already to you at a lower price and you actually showed up for your flight.

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:46 am
by afcjets
77H wrote:

I think DC10CO put it best. Just because you don’t like the price of Walmart’s TVs, doesn’t mean you get to decide what price you’ll pay and take the TV.

If you don’t like how the airlines price, don’t use their service. Attempting to exploit their pricing model for your gain makes you no better than what you accuse the airline of doing.

They have the freedom to price their service how they see fit and you, the consumer has the freedom to choose whether or not you use their service.

The excuses for doing so just seem like rationalizations for bad behavior.

77H



You can't tell United what you want to pay for a routing and take it. UNITED alone sets the price and routing and you purchase it or you don't. If United wants to maintain a premium at their hub yet still compete on lower priced markets connecting over that hub, that is United's decision. Just as you can't force United to fly a nonstop that bypasses their hub, United can't detain you in their hub if you decide for whatever reason you don't want to complete your trip (as long as you're not opening a closed door on one of their jets, either in flight or on the ground) and if United forced you to board a flight against your will or pay one penny extra not to, that would be the equivalent of kidnapping you and holding you for ransom, which actually IS illegal. United can charge and do whatever they want, (cancel your ff miles, refuse to intercept your luggage or fly it back to the hub where you deplaned, cancel your remaining itinerary and refuse a refund if you don't know what you're doing and try it on the outbound of a roundtrip) but they are NOT above the law, period.

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 8:38 am
by 77H
afcjets wrote:
77H wrote:

I think DC10CO put it best. Just because you don’t like the price of Walmart’s TVs, doesn’t mean you get to decide what price you’ll pay and take the TV.

If you don’t like how the airlines price, don’t use their service. Attempting to exploit their pricing model for your gain makes you no better than what you accuse the airline of doing.

They have the freedom to price their service how they see fit and you, the consumer has the freedom to choose whether or not you use their service.

The excuses for doing so just seem like rationalizations for bad behavior.

77H



You can't tell United what you want to pay for a routing and take it. UNITED alone sets the price and routing and you purchase it or you don't. If United wants to maintain a premium at their hub yet still compete on lower priced markets connecting over that hub, that is United's decision. Just as you can't force United to fly a nonstop that bypasses their hub, United can't detain you in their hub if you decide for whatever reason you don't want to complete your trip (as long as you're not opening a closed door on one of their jets, either in flight or on the ground) and if United forced you to board a flight against your will or pay one penny extra not to, that would be the equivalent of kidnapping you and holding you for ransom, which actually IS illegal. United can charge and do whatever they want, (cancel your ff miles, refuse to intercept your luggage or fly it back to the hub where you deplaned, cancel your remaining itinerary and refuse a refund if you don't know what you're doing and try it on the outbound of a roundtrip) but they are NOT above the law, period.


I agree with you ? Not sure what you’re going on about ?

77H

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 1:50 pm
by InsideMan
77H wrote:
afcjets wrote:
77H wrote:

I think DC10CO put it best. Just because you don’t like the price of Walmart’s TVs, doesn’t mean you get to decide what price you’ll pay and take the TV.

If you don’t like how the airlines price, don’t use their service. Attempting to exploit their pricing model for your gain makes you no better than what you accuse the airline of doing.

They have the freedom to price their service how they see fit and you, the consumer has the freedom to choose whether or not you use their service.

The excuses for doing so just seem like rationalizations for bad behavior.

77H



You can't tell United what you want to pay for a routing and take it. UNITED alone sets the price and routing and you purchase it or you don't. If United wants to maintain a premium at their hub yet still compete on lower priced markets connecting over that hub, that is United's decision. Just as you can't force United to fly a nonstop that bypasses their hub, United can't detain you in their hub if you decide for whatever reason you don't want to complete your trip (as long as you're not opening a closed door on one of their jets, either in flight or on the ground) and if United forced you to board a flight against your will or pay one penny extra not to, that would be the equivalent of kidnapping you and holding you for ransom, which actually IS illegal. United can charge and do whatever they want, (cancel your ff miles, refuse to intercept your luggage or fly it back to the hub where you deplaned, cancel your remaining itinerary and refuse a refund if you don't know what you're doing and try it on the outbound of a roundtrip) but they are NOT above the law, period.


I agree with you ? Not sure what you’re going on about ?

77H


my guess....
a) the walmart tv analogy doesn't work and
b) United can't punish you for dropping the last leg of your trip if they decide to fly that route through their hub instead of directly

so whatever reasons United may have to price the way they do (and other airlines) you can't fault customers taking advantage of that.

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 7:52 pm
by afcjets
77H wrote:
I think DC10CO put it best. Just because you don’t like the price of Walmart’s TVs, doesn’t mean you get to decide what price you’ll pay and take the TV.

If you don’t like how the airlines price, don’t use their service. Attempting to exploit their pricing model for your gain makes you no better than what you accuse the airline of doing.

They have the freedom to price their service how they see fit and you, the consumer has the freedom to choose whether or not you use their service.

The excuses for doing so just seem like rationalizations for bad behavior.

77H

77H wrote:
I agree with you ? Not sure what you’re going on about ?


It doesn't sound like it, it sounds like you agree with DC10CO. You also said don't use their service if you don't like their pricing model, you didn't say only use the service you want. You also said it's bad behavior. So unless you've changed your mind since your last post and/or based on what I said, we don't agree.
Nonetheless a bunch of posters here don't agree with me so the post is still relevant even if you do.

Re: United going after hidden-city travellers

Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 8:16 pm
by AEROFAN
LAXintl wrote:
PatrickZ80 wrote:

Did they? Some maybe, but by far not all of them. There are also a lot of customers who would love distance-based pricing, I'm one of them. I mean, what can be simpler? Each leg has a certain price. Add more legs and the price goes up. Leg price is cost price for the airline. It's totally fool-proof and eliminates the problem of hidden cities.

But like it or not, distance-based pricing is the future. I can see more and more airlines adapting it.


Distance-based pricing, or as some tried zone pricing was a flop in the U.S. because it made things like key and popular transcons more expensive. Gone were the sub $299 round trips.

Seat pricing should always be dynamic and should be based on more important factors like market supply vs demand and inventory management than rigid one-dimensional Soviet price model.


Zonal pricing was never a flop for airline staff travel. The industry moved to ZED fares quite some time ago and it has worked. All the airlines need to do is to structure the zonal fares at reasonable price points rather than the gouging they like to do.