I don't understand how someone can be barred from an airline because they got a better deal on it. At a certain point there must be an individual who would've been barred from every airline due to this at which point it becomes some sort of cruel punishment on an individual from a whole industry for really doing nothing illegal or wrong or causing a nuisance.
Airlines shouldn't be allowed to barr people simply for skipping a leg on a flight, no matter how much it may annoy someone in management.
>I don't understand how someone can be barred from an airline because they got a better deal on it.
Because they cause a truly stupid amount of inefficiencies and hassle with their desire to save a buck at the cost of everyone else.
I think American Airlines's marketing and legal teams dropped the ball as far as how they impressed the court of public opinion, as demonstrated by this very thread. "We couldn't make more money" will almost never speak to the common man.
But speaking as someone who's familiar with the aviation industry and flies very often, shenanigans like this cause tremendous losses of time and money when margins are razor thin.
A missing passenger means lost time trying to find that passenger which leads to flight delays. Once a passenger is deemed missing, their checked luggage if any needs to be offloaded which causes additional checks of the flight manifest and the cargo bay, leading to even more lost time and flight delays.
A seat unoccupied-but-occupied means that seat couldn't have been used to deadhead the crew for another flight, which can include crews from other airlines. This makes scheduling logistics even harder than it needed to be, leading to inefficiencies and in the worst case flight cancellations.
This all causes problems for people on the ground: The ground crew at the airports, the flight crew on the plane, the logistics team scheduling everything, and more. It's not just middle management that everyone here likes to flip off.
Also a coup de grace for the audience here: Someone skiplagging means the airline flies an empty seat that should have been occupied, wasting fuel. Skiplagging is bad for the environment.
I am very happy American Airlines won this, and I will say the same with any other airline. If you want to fly somewhere, buy a ticket specifically for that. If you engage in skiplagging, you are sincerely a greedy fucking bastard and deserve every blacklisting you get.
I get your point. I've watched the enlightening presentation given at MIT by an airline economist where he explains that for any route, there's no single fare that would make the route profitable. To have the convenience of modern air travel, we seemingly have to put up with the pricing games that make it possible.
I've never intentionally skiplagged, but there was one time the first leg of my journey was late, I missed my connection and I was going to be in the airport for 8 or 10 hours to catch my 1 hour flight to my final destination. I decided not to, and instead minimized my misery and bought a ticket for the 3.5 hour train ride home.
If an airline looked at that behavior and blacklisted me for not using the service I paid for, then they are the greedy fucking bastards.
>there was one time the first leg of my journey was late, I missed my connection and I was going to be in the airport for 8 or 10 hours to catch my 1 hour flight to my final destination. I decided not to, and instead minimized my misery and bought a ticket for the 3.5 hour train ride home.
Two things:
1. That connection miss is strictly on the airline and they did the best they could to make ends meet. An airline worth their salt will bend backwards to make sure you are made whole as practicality allows if things like delays mess up the plans.
2. If you choose to not take them up on the rebookings, that's fine. You should at least let them know you won't be showing up, though.
I have skipped a last leg in India when I had a meeting in India during a stop-over. It was cheaper to skip it and fly home via an additional small vacation via Sri Lanka.
Nobody who is skiplagging is checking bags. If someone is a no-show the plane should not be held back to wait for them. The ground crew can call out their name a few times but when it is time to leave close the doors and leave.
The part about skipplagging causing scheduling issues for deadhead is irrelevant as it doesn’t actually cause scheduling issues, the crew will deadhead on the path they were always planned to do and skiplagging does not affect that.
Airlines could make these problems go away if they charged a consistent fee for each hop, but they decide to instead hang super shitty itineraries over your head hoping you will shell out more money so you don’t have to sleep on a bench in JFK.
Maybe air travel should be treated like a utility where you pay for transit between locations and the airlines need to offer a fixed cost for those transits. The prices can of course fluxuate based upon demand and other external factors like fuel prices, wages. But the airline should not be able to charge different prices based upon where you are coming from and where you are going, or what IP address you bought the tickets from, or your nationality, etc.
I understand that this will most likely make multi hop travel more expensive and single hop travel less expensive, and I think that is a worthwhile tradeoff.
Speaking of the environment, imagine if people could take single hop flights more often because they are cheaper than shittier multi hop itineraries. Right now people will take routes which are much less fuel efficient and much worse for the environment because the tickets are cheaper.
“As someone familiar with the aviation industry” you should know people “skiplagging” won’t check bags, which destroys your whole argument since that’s where all the inefficiencies lie.
Now you just have a no-show at the gate (P>50% ? something they’re surely used to handle efficiently) giving them some slack to fly their overbook flight without having to bump anyone. Truly a win-win
>you should know people “skiplagging” won’t check bags
The point is that a no-show still causes hassle, and in this case hassle that didn't have to happen.
Shit happens, if you turn into a no-show due to factors outside your control nobody's gonna be angry. But if you are a deliberate no-show? All because you wanted to shave some cost? Sincerely fuck you.
Airlines choose these ticketing policies and customers react to them rationally. If the airlines allowed customers to notify them that they won't be taking the final flight without any extra costs, then they wouldn't have to worry about no-shows like this (they could even resell the seat).
The airlines are choosing their pricing mechanisms and can live with the consequences.
There is nothing rational about maliciously misleading someone in a business transaction.
>If the airlines allowed customers to notify them that they won't be taking the final flight without any extra costs,
You absolutely can: Just walk up to the nearest ticketing counter on your way out the airport and let them know you won't be flying. Simple, done. You might still get blacklisted, but you are presumably okay with the consequences.
> There is nothing rational about maliciously misleading someone in a business transaction.
Honestly at this point I think you're just being purposefully obtuse. Of course it's rational for customers to but a ticket A -> B -> C if they want to fly A -> B and the ticket A -> B -> C is cheaper than the ticket A -> B. What's irrational is for airlines to price their tickets that way.
> You absolutely can: Just walk up to the nearest ticketing counter on your way out the airport and let them know you won't be flying. Simple, done. You might still get blacklisted, but you are presumably okay with the consequences.
Once again you seem to just be willfully obtuse here. Being blacklisted is quite obviously a cost. Passengers being blacklisted means that _rational_ customers doing this won't tell the airline. If the airline didn't want passengers to skip the final leg of their flight without telling them, they could simply allow the customer to notify them without extra costs. They choose blacklisting (or charging to to "change" your ticket to not take the final flight) and this is the result.
I mean I get that you work in the airline industry and hence align your arguments to those that profit the airlines, but you really should accept that the airlines are knowingly creating this environment and that customers are just reacting exactly as you'd expect.
Merchants can price their products however they want, and they have no obligation to sell to you. Customers can purchase a product if it suits them, including the price, and they have no obligation to buy from them.
The rational thing to do if buying a ticket from A to B is too expensive is to not buy it, let alone buy a ticket that flies to C.
>Being blacklisted is quite obviously a cost.
Don't break contracts you've signed if you don't want to get penalized.
>Passengers being blacklisted means that _rational_ customers doing this won't tell the airline.
Rational customers will tell the airline that their plans need changing/cancelling. This is just common decency as a human being, my dude.
>If the airline didn't want passengers to skip the final leg of their flight without telling them, they could simply allow the customer to notify them without extra costs. They choose blacklisting (or charging to to "change" your ticket to not take the final flight) and this is the result.
Sure, because airlines (and merchants overall) don't like it when customers try to change the deal on short or no notice. That said, if it's due to outside factors most airlines will try to accomodate you.
If you want to change the deal for unjustifiable personal reasons, of course you will get penalized.
>I mean I get that you work in the airline industry and hence align your arguments to those that profit the airlines,
I'm not, and I'm not sure where you drew that conclusion from. I am familiar with the aviation industry because I have family and friends who work(ed) in it (pilots, ATC, etc.) and I am a very frequent flyer myself.
>you really should accept that the airlines are knowingly creating this environment and that customers are just reacting exactly as you'd expect.
Most customers by and large are reasonable, they buy tickets that take them to their desired destination and the airline honors it. It's not a super power to be a decent human and conduct yourself professionally.
They PAID for their tickets. They are under no obligation to consume the service they PAID for.
What you are not willing to admit that the decent three don't do this stupid shit(Southwest, Alaska, Jetblue).
The fucked up three are the ones pushing it: Delta, AA, United. I truly hope they go bankrupt.
>> I don't understand how someone can be barred from an airline because they got a better deal on it.
> Because they cause a truly stupid amount of inefficiencies and hassle with their desire to save a buck at the cost of everyone else.
This is almost entirely self-inflicted. If the airlines stopped treating people who attempt to cancel a single leg of an itinerary like borderline criminals and instead actually gave an incentive (even a small one) to cancel in advance, this problem would mostly go away.
Seriously, I’ve replaced a leg in the middle of a trip with ground transportation due to a delay, and, if I try to call the airline and tell them I’ll be missing that leg, I (a) get yelled at, (b) am threatened with cancellation of the next leg, and (c) have a heck of a time getting the airline not to follow through with (b).
If I were flying a hidden city route under these terms, I would fully understand the desire to simply no-show.
If I were involved in making regulation, I wound seriously consider requiring airlines to allow passengers to cancel single legs, with one hour notice, without penalty. Let the airlines figure out how to make it work. Charge $200 to reroute bags if needed. And, damn it, require the airline to give a partial refund if the passenger is skipping a leg because it was late (or because the previous leg was late).
Skipping a queue in traffic is an asshole thing to do, but we in a society give them the benefit of the doubt because we don't know what they're going through. It inconveniences literally everyone, yet it would be weird for the driver to be blocked from that road for doing so.
We shouldn't accept arbitrary restrictions from stupid megacorps.
I studied Aviation engineering with Pilot studies and am also a frequent flyer, idgaf if someone skiplags.
If a seat on a plane is empty it literally doesn't make a difference to my life as my ass is on another seat. If the empty seat is next to mine then actually that's amazing.
> This all causes problems for people on the ground
As much as delayed connection or missing passenger, they're trained to do this and it's their job to do so. They're not especially annoyed or insulted if it's due to skiplags. Also your assumption is that the person skiplagging checked in baggage which is beyond idiotic to do and to assume.
> logistics team scheduling
ops doesn't sit there and cry waiting for 1 single skiplagger with no checked bags. You know what the solution to this is actually? The airlines to allow it so then they are informed of no-shows beforehand. Simple.
> means the airline flies an empty seat that should have been occupied, wasting fuel
As I said before, if airlines allowed people to be open about their intentions to skiplag then that can be taken into account during W&B. Also 1 or 2 people skiplagging doesn't make a significant dent in fuel burn throughout the flight. Wait till you learn about how aircraft have enough fuel on board to divert - further wasting fuel!! Safety factors are destroying the environment!
> If you engage in skiplagging, you are sincerely a greedy fucking bastard and deserve every blacklisting you get.
Have you considered that people may have legitimate reasons to skiplag? i.e they cannot afford the full fare, they cannot make the following flight for other reasons?
Skip laggers are not uniquely annoying pax, most of your complaints can be made of people who fly for cheap using points - probably an even more collective nuisance. Being on a megacorps side against consumers is strange behaviour.
>legitimate reasons to skiplag? i.e they cannot afford the full fare,
Air travel is a privilege, not a right. If you can't afford a ticket, don't fucking buy it.
>they cannot make the following flight for other reasons?
Sure, but that's not skiplagging.
>Being on a megacorps side against consumers is strange behaviour.
I am siding with common decency. If you lie in the course of business just to save some pretty pennies, costing everyone else in the process, you are a scumbag and you deserve whatever comes your way.
If skiplagging becomes more common, airlines will ultimately raise prices for everyone to make up for the inefficiency and everyone loses. Screw that noise.
> Air travel is a privilege, not a right. If you can't afford a ticket, don't fucking buy it.
They did buy the ticket. Legally.
> Sure, but that's not skiplagging.
That literally is the same as skiplagging. Skiplagging is only determined on intentions, not actions as it is the same action.
> If skiplagging becomes more common, airlines will ultimately raise prices for everyone to make up for the inefficiency and everyone loses. Screw that noise.
You should be more mad about people flying for cheap with credit card points, that literally DOES raise prices for everyone. But I'm sure you do that all the time so it magically makes it okay.
Yes, that ticket is a binding contract for both sides.
If you sign a contract fully aware you don't intend to honor it, you are an asshole.
>Skiplagging is only determined on intentions,
...Yes?
I'm not sure if you're being daft. It is skiplagging to buy something with the intent to not honor the deal, it is not skiplagging if you cannot honor the deal due to factors outside your control.
>You should be more mad about people flying for cheap with credit card points, that literally DOES raise prices for everyone.
The airlines receive compensation from the banks so it's a non-issue.
Not surprised, you wouldn't be able to recognize daft if it were staring at you through the mirror.
> The airlines receive compensation from the banks so it's a non-issue.
Yeah bro the banks give out credit card points out of the kindness of their hearts, it's not like they charge merchants fees to make up for it which then get paid for by everyone in society because some cheap bozos think they're mining free amex points sitting in business class having not actually paid for it.
> If skiplagging becomes more common, airlines will ultimately raise prices for everyone to make up for the inefficiency and everyone loses. Screw that noise.
How would everyone lose? Bans against skiplagging allow airlines to divorce their ticket prices from the costs of the underlying service. If airlines were say not allowed to ban skiplagging, they would be forced to price their tickets more in line with the underlying costs (on competitive routes anyway) so we should expect some routes' ticket costs to decrease.
Here's an idea: the airline could, you know, charge the price that the skiplagged flight would cost?
If this is impacting their margins so dearly, they should incentivize for optimizing against it: nobody would ever take a skiplagged flight if there were no pricing penalty.
> If you engage in skiplagging, you are sincerely a greedy fucking bastard
But the airline isn't greedy for this type of pricing, right?
Airlines shouldn't be allowed to barr people simply for skipping a leg on a flight, no matter how much it may annoy someone in management.