The article looks at common sense from the passenger point of view, but in fact if you look at it from an airline point of view you can sometimes see a very dif

The article looks at common sense from the passenger point of view, but in fact if you look at it from an airline point of view you can sometimes see a very different picture. For example, take the following 2 principles, each of which make sense individually: 1. A non-stop product from A to B is a superior to a one-stop product from A to B. Therefore, A to B non-stop is priced higher. 2. If only one airline has a non-stop product from A to B, they will price it higher than if multiple airlines have a non-stop product from A to B. Let's see how this can play out in practice: If many airlines can offer a one-stop product from A->B, your airline will offer it cheaply to compete. It may just so happen, as an implementation detail, that your product happens to connect at C since that's your hub. Now, if you look at the A->C market, you may have the only non-stop product, and thus you price it high. Result, your price for an itinerary (remember the actual itinerary is an implementation detail of the A->B one-stop product you purchased) from A->C->B is priced much lower than the person sitting next to you that is travelling from A->C only, even though the direct fuel cost to the airline of A->C->B is clearly higher than A->C only.