4 ms·

Can anyone explain to me why these flights end up being cheaper in the first place? I know that airline pricing can be quite odd, but charging less for two fli

Can anyone explain to me why these flights end up being cheaper in the first place? I know that airline pricing can be quite odd, but charging less for two flights than for one just seems to defy logic. What am I missing?

gsnedders 8y ago
> I know that airline pricing can be quite odd, but charging less for two flights than for one just seems to defy logic. What am I missing? This is quite common: in this case, Seattle to Frankfurt has a limited number of direct flights (Lufthansa and Condor only), and people are willing to pay a premium for direct flights; Seattle to Oslo has no direct flights, so Lufthansa is in competition with every other airline that has a hub along a reasonable route (at the very least: KLM/Air France, BA, SAS, Icelandair), and as such there's more competition there.
- noneeeed 8y ago
  Aah, right, that makes a lot of sense.
tibbon 8y ago
I don't know for certain. However, I recently read about the Freedoms of the Air, which define international airline abilities to move about in various ways; and some of that includes where you can stop temporarily (fuel planes, etc) and pick up passengers. I wonder if some of this has to do with a cost structure that comes out of that? I'm also totally willing to believe that it's not a fully rational system and is more about demand/profit for certain routes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedoms_of_the_air https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedoms_of_the_air
peeters 8y ago
Basically because ticket prices have no relation to the airline's cost, only to supply and demand. So when a multi-leg journey happens to serve an underserved route along the way, airlines want to be able to charge that leg according to its own supply and demand, even though it's a component of a route that has higher supply. IMO it should be illegal. A company can't stop you from buying a car for its parts. They shouldn't be able to do this.
monksy 8y ago
When you buy flights, you never buy how you get there, you buy your starting point to your final point. (That's how they're priced) The starting or final point may have discounts or taxes associated with it.
mchannon 8y ago
Demand-based pricing and monopolistic practices. Say SFO to DEN has the big four carriers, each coming in suspiciously close to the exact same price ($199 one week out). Then Frontier decides to run that route, charging ~$99 one week out. Three or four of the big carriers will magically drop their fares to match Frontier's. Frontier, the most mercurial of airlines, will then drop their SFO-DEN route because it's no longer profitable (or shut down completely as they've done a couple times). The big four go back to their old fares or higher. Now if I wanted to go SFO-SLC to see the Jazz play, that might be $299 one way. If I book the SFO-DEN on Delta, whose hub is in SLC, I get the benefit of the Denver fare. Most people would not think to do that (because they check bags and don't have time as cheap as I do). Alternatively, one of the cheapest destinations is often Cleveland (go figure). Maybe SFO-CLE is $99 for the few people (and Skiplagged) who go looking for it. That might get you the ability to go to a dozen US cities for $99, all of which are way more expensive when booked directly.
Operyl 8y ago
It’s kind of like bundling cable and internet I guess? Or perhaps considering it like buying “in bulk” in a way.
howlin 8y ago
Certain airlines have near monopolies on certain airports. These airports are called hubs. The airline uses these hubs as points of connection for multilegged flights. It also means that someone who actually wants to use the airline's hub airport as their final destination can be charged more due to lack of competition from other airlines.
SilasX 8y ago
Don't know if you're still following, but I think I grok the logic and explained it in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19153704 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19153704 In addition to those comments, I should add, this may be socially-efficient in some non-trivial sense of the word: 1) There is legit value in a direct flight between two cities to people who "really" want to go between them. 2) You may not be able to fill up the planes for the A-B routes and B-C routes. 3) It is legitimately lower value, and thus should cost less, to provide carriage from A to C by putting someone on A-B then B-C, (vs a direct A-C route). 4) So, for an airline to capture the full value of the flights it provides, it needs to charge a high premium to people who really want to fly A-B or B-C, and, if it can't find enough people to fill the planes, to charge a discount to someone using the seats merely for a longer A-C trip. In this scenario, with hidden city pricing: 1) People who get the direct routes pay more. 2) People who get an indirect route pay less. 3) All seats are utilized. That coincides with our (or at least my) intuitive notion of what efficiency looks like. So, who are you hurting when you get off at B with your cheap ticket? You're not paying your "fair[1] share", and thus making it harder to justify running that specific direct A-B route because it's harder to capture the full economic value of the route. [1] yes, yes, "is a four-letter word" and all...

gsnedders 8y ago

> I know that airline pricing can be quite odd, but charging less for two flights than for one just seems to defy logic. What am I missing? This is quite common: in this case, Seattle to Frankfurt has a limited number of direct flights (Lufthansa and Condor only), and people are willing to pay a premium for direct flights; Seattle to Oslo has no direct flights, so Lufthansa is in competition with every other airline that has a hub along a reasonable route (at the very least: KLM/Air France, BA, SAS, Icelandair), and as such there's more competition there.

noneeeed 8y ago
Aah, right, that makes a lot of sense.

tibbon 8y ago

I don't know for certain. However, I recently read about the Freedoms of the Air, which define international airline abilities to move about in various ways; and some of that includes where you can stop temporarily (fuel planes, etc) and pick up passengers. I wonder if some of this has to do with a cost structure that comes out of that? I'm also totally willing to believe that it's not a fully rational system and is more about demand/profit for certain routes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedoms_of_the_air https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedoms_of_the_air

peeters 8y ago

Basically because ticket prices have no relation to the airline's cost, only to supply and demand. So when a multi-leg journey happens to serve an underserved route along the way, airlines want to be able to charge that leg according to its own supply and demand, even though it's a component of a route that has higher supply. IMO it should be illegal. A company can't stop you from buying a car for its parts. They shouldn't be able to do this.

monksy 8y ago

When you buy flights, you never buy how you get there, you buy your starting point to your final point. (That's how they're priced) The starting or final point may have discounts or taxes associated with it.

mchannon 8y ago

Demand-based pricing and monopolistic practices. Say SFO to DEN has the big four carriers, each coming in suspiciously close to the exact same price ($199 one week out). Then Frontier decides to run that route, charging ~$99 one week out. Three or four of the big carriers will magically drop their fares to match Frontier's. Frontier, the most mercurial of airlines, will then drop their SFO-DEN route because it's no longer profitable (or shut down completely as they've done a couple times). The big four go back to their old fares or higher. Now if I wanted to go SFO-SLC to see the Jazz play, that might be $299 one way. If I book the SFO-DEN on Delta, whose hub is in SLC, I get the benefit of the Denver fare. Most people would not think to do that (because they check bags and don't have time as cheap as I do). Alternatively, one of the cheapest destinations is often Cleveland (go figure). Maybe SFO-CLE is $99 for the few people (and Skiplagged) who go looking for it. That might get you the ability to go to a dozen US cities for $99, all of which are way more expensive when booked directly.

Operyl 8y ago

It’s kind of like bundling cable and internet I guess? Or perhaps considering it like buying “in bulk” in a way.

howlin 8y ago

Certain airlines have near monopolies on certain airports. These airports are called hubs. The airline uses these hubs as points of connection for multilegged flights. It also means that someone who actually wants to use the airline's hub airport as their final destination can be charged more due to lack of competition from other airlines.

SilasX 8y ago

Don't know if you're still following, but I think I grok the logic and explained it in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19153704 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19153704 In addition to those comments, I should add, this may be socially-efficient in some non-trivial sense of the word: 1) There is legit value in a direct flight between two cities to people who "really" want to go between them. 2) You may not be able to fill up the planes for the A-B routes and B-C routes. 3) It is legitimately lower value, and thus should cost less, to provide carriage from A to C by putting someone on A-B then B-C, (vs a direct A-C route). 4) So, for an airline to capture the full value of the flights it provides, it needs to charge a high premium to people who really want to fly A-B or B-C, and, if it can't find enough people to fill the planes, to charge a discount to someone using the seats merely for a longer A-C trip. In this scenario, with hidden city pricing: 1) People who get the direct routes pay more. 2) People who get an indirect route pay less. 3) All seats are utilized. That coincides with our (or at least my) intuitive notion of what efficiency looks like. So, who are you hurting when you get off at B with your cheap ticket? You're not paying your "fair[1] share", and thus making it harder to justify running that specific direct A-B route because it's harder to capture the full economic value of the route. [1] yes, yes, "is a four-letter word" and all...