I've been all worked up about this story since I first read it, but yours is the first comment to make me actually understand a potential, non-bullshit argument

I've been all worked up about this story since I first read it, but yours is the first comment to make me actually understand a potential, non-bullshit argument from the airline side of things. Thank you. That said, I think I'm still grumpy at the airlines for doing it. The basic issue they're trying to resolve is that they want the LAX-SFO-PDX flight to compete only with the other airlines' LAX-PDX direct flights, which justifies their weird pricing. In reality, though, their LAX-SFO-PDX flight is also competing with their own LAX-SFO flights, because, unless they're locking people in the planes, they're equivalent products for anybody trying to get to SFO. You're saying "You don't want to lose the business of people flying from LAX->PDX, but also don't want to alter your routes," which makes sense as a business. But as a consumer, it seems pretty screwed up that "I don't want to change my routes" is enough of a reason for businesses to sue people and businesses who take advantage of your refusal to fly where they want to go. It's using litigation instead of just flying to PDX.