5 ms·

Bait and switch

33 points by terpua 18y ago

philipcristiano 18y ago
I was checking flights recently and found that a one-way trip to London would cost $950. For both flights of a round-trip it would cost $750. Both plus taxes of course. It is cheaper for me to book a round trip and just not take the return flight then to fly one way. Huh?
- cconstantine 18y ago
  Airline pricing is all kinds of wacky. A friend of mine was trying to get round trip tickets from city A to city B recently. He found that it was significantly cheaper to purchase flights from city Z to B with a layover in A. All the flights between A and B were the same, but for some reason adding an extra destination of Z made it cheaper. Airlines are in huge trouble from factors outside their control. They failed at being in control of their own destiny, and allowed other people/companies to control them.
- yummyfajitas 18y ago
  It's an attempt at price discrimination by the airlines. If you are moving to London for the long term, you'll pay $950 without thinking about it. If you are going on vacation, you might be price sensitive. It worked much better before the internet.
- fallentimes 18y ago
  To add to what other commenters have already stated: the largest proportional purchasers of one way tickets are business travelers. Not coincidentally, business travelers are also the least price sensitive.
- maw 18y ago
  Sometimes, but be careful. If you skip the first flight intending to only take the return flight, some (all? just Mexicana?) airlines won't honor your ticket, and they won't return your money either. That's stealing.
ilamont 18y ago
One of the worst thing about airline fees is that online searches on travel sites don't always reflect required fees, such as international fuel surcharges. This makes price rankings suspect, is unfair to airlines which are up-front about these costs or build them into the ticket price, and adds a burden to ordinary people, who have to hunt through the conditions to make sure the price is as advertised.
ckinnan 18y ago
The government is a big part of the problem. The airlines can't do much to control the ground experience in government airports. That's where the security hassles, bag delays, long lines, and uncomfortable waits occur. The airlines could better differentiate themselves if they had more control over the total travel experience. Also, did you know that the US blocks foreign ownership of airlines? That capital and competition would help too.
- ajross 18y ago
  Except that the example given was Air Canada, which the last time I checked was indeed a foreign-owned airline. This is a global problem right now, and it's based on fundamental economics. Airlines are selling a commodity product in a competitive market at a time where operation costs are rising steeply. You can't "compete" your way out of that. Things won't stabilize until flight pricing comes to equilibrium again.
  - derefr 18y ago
    It seems to me that, for one reason or another, airlines that fly to the US have to adopt the US' draconian pre-flight policies in order to be allowed to make the trips.
  - ckinnan 18y ago
    Foreign airlines can fly to the US but they can't compete on domestic routes.
OneSeventeen 18y ago
I had a pretty horrible experience with an airline recently (I won't regale y'all) and it has had me thinking about ways to fix air travel in the US. I had a few ideas on how an outside company might help, but I don't think they're actually tenable. Will it take the collapse of several major airlines for someone on the "inside" to fix stuff? The article posted here a while ago about Alaskan was pretty heartening.
utnick 18y ago
Is there any research being done into electric/hybrid airplanes? In 20 years oil costs could make flying very unpractical.
- evgen 18y ago
  "Hybrid" is a non-starter for an airplane. It spends 99% of its time running in the "sweet spot" of the turbine performance envelope, there are no starts and stops for which regenerative braking or a switch from the turbine to some sort of electrical propulsion would help. Electrical power is problematic because batteries and other forms of electrical energy storage still suck. There are solar-electric planes being developed for long-term station-keeping tasks, but they are slow and have almost no payload capacity. Turbine jets are basically the best thing we know of for performing this specific task. We might be able to improve the fuel they are burning, but nothing is going to replace them for the next couple of decades at least.
  - ajross 18y ago
    The first paragraph is spot on, but the second is just wrong. Turbojets fly much faster than needed, for the convenience of the passengers. Drag goes as the square of speed, so per-distance fuel economy scales as the inverse of the trip time. One certainly can do much better than a turbojet simply by swapping the fan for a larger geared propeller and flying at half the speed.
    - cdr 18y ago
      And in fact, there have been news stories recently about airlines adding a few minutes per flight in this way to save fuel.
      - marvin 18y ago
        Airlines in Norway openly and publicly reduced the speed of their routes by 10%, while attempting to make up for the lost time by improving their pre-flight routines.
    - 18y ago
ricree 18y ago
The best way to get the fees under control would be for the major online ticket finders to start delisting airlines that were not upfront about their fees. It's a risky choice on their part, but as it stands the travel sites have the most to lose. Any way you look at it, a lot of people are still going to fly regardless of the hidden fees, so there is little incentive there for the airlines to back down. Travel sites, on the other hand, depend on providing consumers with convenience and value. If consumers can no longer trust the ticket prices that they find there, then they simply won't bother with them anymore. In short, consumer behavior isn't going to change, and airlines have no reason to change. Travel sites have the most to lose from these fees and the greatest ability to cause a change. If this trend is going to reverse, it has to come from them.
edw519 18y ago
OP overlooks one critical counterexample: Southwest Airlines. They are excellent. They pretty much blow everyone else away. I won't fly anyone else anymore. Why? - I can buy one way tickets and get full credit back anytime - They are very often on time - Customer service is excellent, they are upbeat and positive - The website is excellent - Their prices are very competitive - I can choose my own seat away from the children and talkers My advice to any other airline: Figure out what Southwest is doing and do that too. Stop complaining and looking for government bailouts. If one airline can be successful (60+ consecutive profitable quarters, growth, and raving fans), more than one can do it.
- blogimus 18y ago
  Up to now, it has not hurt them in their fuel hedging: http://www.247wallst.com/2007/04/southwest_airli.html http://www.247wallst.com/2007/04/southwest_airli.html
  - bprater 18y ago
    Yep, enjoy it while it lasts. A good chunk of their profits comes from that hedging, so when they have to redo their agreements, the belt will probably tighten.
    - deleted 18y ago
      [deleted]
    - fallentimes 18y ago
      I wouldn't be so sure. Even after 9/11, Southwest had minimal layoffs. Source: http://tinyurl.com/5mbq9y http://tinyurl.com/5mbq9y While I certainly agree that fuel hedging has played a large role in their current short-term profitability, there's a lot more at work than well timed utilization of financial derivatives.
- pchristensen 18y ago
  Even though the prices are great, #1 and to a lesser extent #3 are why I will ONLY fly SouthWest.
cjh 18y ago
What I don't understand about the airlines is the completely arbitrary weight limit/fee structure. Why is it that if I have two bags, one weighing 60 lbs. and one weighing 40 lbs. do I get charged an excess weight fee; yet if both those bags weighed 50 lbs. I would incur no penalty. One ticket agent explained the issue was related to fuel consumption, but charging me for my bag does not make the bag weigh less (and let's not mention my above point that the total weight of the bags -- if distributed evenly -- would cost me nothing extra). Another has explained it as being an issue with weight distribution, but I'm sure if they put one heavy bag on the left (or front) for two light bags on the right (or back) that the overall weight would distribute fairly even (not exact, but this is a jet airliner not a game of Jenga). Truly its sad that the airlines have to resort to such penny-pinching measures.
- lutorm 18y ago
  The thing that drives me mad is that if my bag is over 50lbs, I have to pay. Yet someone who weighs 200lbs (60 more than I do) can fly for the same price. You should be charged for total weight of the stuff you put on the airplane!
  - maw 18y ago
    The thing that drives me mad is that if I want legroom, I have to pay. Yet someone who's short (feet shorter than I am) can get legroom for the same price. You should be charged for the total amount of legroom you get!
- soundsop 18y ago
  My understanding is that heavier luggage requires special handling (and is thus more expensive) due to concern for safety of the people who handle them.
  - cjh 18y ago
    Well again its an arbitrary distinction, Is that 51 lb. bag that much more dangerous than the 50 lb. bag. A baggage handler could easily throw their back out improperly lifting a 49 lb. bag, but at least I won't get charged for it.
mattmaroon 18y ago
It's funny that he mentions the TSA. It's true that the negative experience with them makes you think less of the airlines, even though logically you know it isn't their fault, in the same way that you blame Windows when an app bugs out. But it doesn't make you think any less of any particular airline relative to their competition, because they all suffer from the same thing. Unless there's some legal way for an airline to circumvent the security lines (and I have to think there isn't or we'd already have that) there's no competitive disadvantage there.

33 points by terpua 18y ago

I was checking flights recently and found that a one-way trip to London would cost $950. For both flights of a round-trip it would cost $750. Both plus taxes of course. It is cheaper for me to book a round trip and just not take the return flight then to fly one way. Huh?

cconstantine 18y ago
Airline pricing is all kinds of wacky. A friend of mine was trying to get round trip tickets from city A to city B recently. He found that it was significantly cheaper to purchase flights from city Z to B with a layover in A. All the flights between A and B were the same, but for some reason adding an extra destination of Z made it cheaper. Airlines are in huge trouble from factors outside their control. They failed at being in control of their own destiny, and allowed other people/companies to control them.
yummyfajitas 18y ago
It's an attempt at price discrimination by the airlines. If you are moving to London for the long term, you'll pay $950 without thinking about it. If you are going on vacation, you might be price sensitive. It worked much better before the internet.
fallentimes 18y ago
To add to what other commenters have already stated: the largest proportional purchasers of one way tickets are business travelers. Not coincidentally, business travelers are also the least price sensitive.
maw 18y ago
Sometimes, but be careful. If you skip the first flight intending to only take the return flight, some (all? just Mexicana?) airlines won't honor your ticket, and they won't return your money either. That's stealing.

ilamont 18y ago

One of the worst thing about airline fees is that online searches on travel sites don't always reflect required fees, such as international fuel surcharges. This makes price rankings suspect, is unfair to airlines which are up-front about these costs or build them into the ticket price, and adds a burden to ordinary people, who have to hunt through the conditions to make sure the price is as advertised.

ckinnan 18y ago

The government is a big part of the problem. The airlines can't do much to control the ground experience in government airports. That's where the security hassles, bag delays, long lines, and uncomfortable waits occur. The airlines could better differentiate themselves if they had more control over the total travel experience. Also, did you know that the US blocks foreign ownership of airlines? That capital and competition would help too.

ajross 18y ago
Except that the example given was Air Canada, which the last time I checked was indeed a foreign-owned airline. This is a global problem right now, and it's based on fundamental economics. Airlines are selling a commodity product in a competitive market at a time where operation costs are rising steeply. You can't "compete" your way out of that. Things won't stabilize until flight pricing comes to equilibrium again.
- derefr 18y ago
  It seems to me that, for one reason or another, airlines that fly to the US have to adopt the US' draconian pre-flight policies in order to be allowed to make the trips.
- ckinnan 18y ago
  Foreign airlines can fly to the US but they can't compete on domestic routes.

OneSeventeen 18y ago

I had a pretty horrible experience with an airline recently (I won't regale y'all) and it has had me thinking about ways to fix air travel in the US. I had a few ideas on how an outside company might help, but I don't think they're actually tenable. Will it take the collapse of several major airlines for someone on the "inside" to fix stuff? The article posted here a while ago about Alaskan was pretty heartening.

utnick 18y ago

Is there any research being done into electric/hybrid airplanes? In 20 years oil costs could make flying very unpractical.

evgen 18y ago
"Hybrid" is a non-starter for an airplane. It spends 99% of its time running in the "sweet spot" of the turbine performance envelope, there are no starts and stops for which regenerative braking or a switch from the turbine to some sort of electrical propulsion would help. Electrical power is problematic because batteries and other forms of electrical energy storage still suck. There are solar-electric planes being developed for long-term station-keeping tasks, but they are slow and have almost no payload capacity. Turbine jets are basically the best thing we know of for performing this specific task. We might be able to improve the fuel they are burning, but nothing is going to replace them for the next couple of decades at least.
- ajross 18y ago
  The first paragraph is spot on, but the second is just wrong. Turbojets fly much faster than needed, for the convenience of the passengers. Drag goes as the square of speed, so per-distance fuel economy scales as the inverse of the trip time. One certainly can do much better than a turbojet simply by swapping the fan for a larger geared propeller and flying at half the speed.
  - cdr 18y ago
    And in fact, there have been news stories recently about airlines adding a few minutes per flight in this way to save fuel.
    - marvin 18y ago
      Airlines in Norway openly and publicly reduced the speed of their routes by 10%, while attempting to make up for the lost time by improving their pre-flight routines.
  - 18y ago

ricree 18y ago

The best way to get the fees under control would be for the major online ticket finders to start delisting airlines that were not upfront about their fees. It's a risky choice on their part, but as it stands the travel sites have the most to lose. Any way you look at it, a lot of people are still going to fly regardless of the hidden fees, so there is little incentive there for the airlines to back down. Travel sites, on the other hand, depend on providing consumers with convenience and value. If consumers can no longer trust the ticket prices that they find there, then they simply won't bother with them anymore. In short, consumer behavior isn't going to change, and airlines have no reason to change. Travel sites have the most to lose from these fees and the greatest ability to cause a change. If this trend is going to reverse, it has to come from them.

edw519 18y ago

OP overlooks one critical counterexample: Southwest Airlines. They are excellent. They pretty much blow everyone else away. I won't fly anyone else anymore. Why? - I can buy one way tickets and get full credit back anytime - They are very often on time - Customer service is excellent, they are upbeat and positive - The website is excellent - Their prices are very competitive - I can choose my own seat away from the children and talkers My advice to any other airline: Figure out what Southwest is doing and do that too. Stop complaining and looking for government bailouts. If one airline can be successful (60+ consecutive profitable quarters, growth, and raving fans), more than one can do it.

blogimus 18y ago
Up to now, it has not hurt them in their fuel hedging: http://www.247wallst.com/2007/04/southwest_airli.html http://www.247wallst.com/2007/04/southwest_airli.html
- bprater 18y ago
  Yep, enjoy it while it lasts. A good chunk of their profits comes from that hedging, so when they have to redo their agreements, the belt will probably tighten.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - fallentimes 18y ago
    I wouldn't be so sure. Even after 9/11, Southwest had minimal layoffs. Source: http://tinyurl.com/5mbq9y http://tinyurl.com/5mbq9y While I certainly agree that fuel hedging has played a large role in their current short-term profitability, there's a lot more at work than well timed utilization of financial derivatives.
pchristensen 18y ago
Even though the prices are great, #1 and to a lesser extent #3 are why I will ONLY fly SouthWest.

cjh 18y ago

What I don't understand about the airlines is the completely arbitrary weight limit/fee structure. Why is it that if I have two bags, one weighing 60 lbs. and one weighing 40 lbs. do I get charged an excess weight fee; yet if both those bags weighed 50 lbs. I would incur no penalty. One ticket agent explained the issue was related to fuel consumption, but charging me for my bag does not make the bag weigh less (and let's not mention my above point that the total weight of the bags -- if distributed evenly -- would cost me nothing extra). Another has explained it as being an issue with weight distribution, but I'm sure if they put one heavy bag on the left (or front) for two light bags on the right (or back) that the overall weight would distribute fairly even (not exact, but this is a jet airliner not a game of Jenga). Truly its sad that the airlines have to resort to such penny-pinching measures.

lutorm 18y ago
The thing that drives me mad is that if my bag is over 50lbs, I have to pay. Yet someone who weighs 200lbs (60 more than I do) can fly for the same price. You should be charged for total weight of the stuff you put on the airplane!
- maw 18y ago
  The thing that drives me mad is that if I want legroom, I have to pay. Yet someone who's short (feet shorter than I am) can get legroom for the same price. You should be charged for the total amount of legroom you get!
soundsop 18y ago
My understanding is that heavier luggage requires special handling (and is thus more expensive) due to concern for safety of the people who handle them.
- cjh 18y ago
  Well again its an arbitrary distinction, Is that 51 lb. bag that much more dangerous than the 50 lb. bag. A baggage handler could easily throw their back out improperly lifting a 49 lb. bag, but at least I won't get charged for it.

mattmaroon 18y ago

It's funny that he mentions the TSA. It's true that the negative experience with them makes you think less of the airlines, even though logically you know it isn't their fault, in the same way that you blame Windows when an app bugs out. But it doesn't make you think any less of any particular airline relative to their competition, because they all suffer from the same thing. Unless there's some legal way for an airline to circumvent the security lines (and I have to think there isn't or we'd already have that) there's no competitive disadvantage there.