Lufthansa is cracking down on a way for airline passengers to get cheaper fares—with a lawsuit that brings fresh attention to the practice. Airlines put a premium on nonstop flights, and "skiplagging" passengers exploit that practice by booking flights with a layover, and then skipping the last leg of the flight. The German airline is suing a passenger who booked a Seattle-Frankfurt-Oslo flight, then saved money by skipping the last leg of the flight and taking another flight to his real destination, Berlin, CNN reports. Lufthansa, which is seeking $2,385 compensation, says the passenger violated terms and conditions.
The terms and conditions of some airlines state that passengers who buy a ticket have agreed to complete their journeys. The Telegraph reports that there are some ways the strategy, also known as "hidden city" flying, can backfire. If passengers miss the first leg of a flight, the entire journey is canceled—and unless they restrict themselves to carry-on baggage only, their luggage will go to the wrong city. The Lufthansa passenger's case was dismissed by a court in Berlin last year, but an airline spokesperson tells CNN that the company has decided to appeal. (United Airlines sued a website that took advantage of the trick in 2014, but the case was thrown out of court the following year.) |
Dead horse, meet Joey.
And the airline has its money so how did they lose out?0
That said, there's hidden expenses to this on the airlines end, I would imagine. If there are rules about bumping passengers or cancelling flights based on a certain percentage of the plane being full, this could mess with that equation. Doesn't make it right, but I think there's more naunce to this.
That said, there's hidden expenses to this on the airlines end, I would imagine. If there are rules about bumping passengers or cancelling flights based on a certain percentage of the plane being full, this could mess with that equation. Doesn't make it right, but I think there's more naunce to this.
Zero hidden expenses. They want to sell wen many segments as the can for as much as they can. By not using that segment they can’t sell it and are losing that revenue. Again. His ticket. They can just sell all tickets as direct. Hard to see how they have a legal right to sue him.
I could almost see a lawsuit the other way. Airline sells a ticket to passenger to go from A to C, with a layover in B. Due to weather or other extreme event, they change the layover location to D, or simply chooses to fly directly to C. Skiplagger gets burned and sues, and actually has a case imo because the flight was sold with a planned layover in B.
Quote:
because the multi stop flights are being used as direct flights. I'm not siding with the airlines but I understand why they would want to fight this. I also would do it as a user if I was able, so I really don't blame either party.
That said, there's hidden expenses to this on the airlines end, I would imagine. If there are rules about bumping passengers or cancelling flights based on a certain percentage of the plane being full, this could mess with that equation. Doesn't make it right, but I think there's more naunce to this.
Zero hidden expenses. They want to sell wen many segments as the can for as much as they can. By not using that segment they can’t sell it and are losing that revenue. Again. His ticket. They can just sell all tickets as direct. Hard to see how they have a legal right to sue him.
Yeah I think that's obvious, but there are other factors as well. What if the flight got cancelled, would the passenger who had no intent on taking the flight get reimbursed for "free"?
If its in their T's and C's that you can't do this than I don't know what else there is to say. I think its stupid too, but if that's their policy, than the rest doesn't matter.
I did this a few years ago with American - for whatever reason it was cheaper to fly from Grand Cayman through Philly to NYC, but stay over in Philly the night before the flight to LGA the next afternoon... than to go direct from GC to LGA.
We simply flew into Philly and drove home after Customs...
That American was essentially paying me to take their flight from Philly to LGA the next afternoon is not my problem or contractual duty.
Makes no sense.
- Airlines have done this before and lost EVERY TIME. Most of the time they are thrown out and in some countries I think it's been declared perfectly legal
I agree with many posters - it's your ticket do with it what you want. terms or no terms I don't see the airlines ever winning this argument
Makes no sense.
well they know you need to come home lol...rather grab you for something as opposed to having a bad flight experience and choosing a diff airline for way back.
Makes no sense.
It’s because business travelers are much more likely to book one way tickets, and they are (or were) less price sensitive.
Domestically, the round trip/one way disparity has largely diminished. Still a big difference on international trips.
How many times do they have ads that say "Fly to Miami for $49" only to read the fine print and they mean one-way. So in reality it is at least $98, and more like $135 or higher after taxes.
I did this a few years ago with American - for whatever reason it was cheaper to fly from Grand Cayman through Philly to NYC, but stay over in Philly the night before the flight to LGA the next afternoon... than to go direct from GC to LGA.
We simply flew into Philly and drove home after Customs...
That American was essentially paying me to take their flight from Philly to LGA the next afternoon is not my problem or contractual duty.
This
It's the intent part that is difficult to demonstrate; that is, to show that the ticketing behavior was deliberately undertaken with the purpose of circumventing the airline's pricing. Airline pricing is an incredibly complex beast that practically takes a Ph.D. to comprehend.
The important thing to understand, from a pricing standpoint, is that the airline doesn't consider you a passenger from Newark-Atlanta-Cancun; you're a Newark-Cancun passenger and the pricing for that itinerary reflects the Newark-Cancun market. Similarly, the pricing on Newark-Atlanta (even if it's a nonstop flight) is reflective of pricing in that market, which in some cases can be higher on the nonstop sector than a one-stop itinerary with a routing that encompasses a higher-priced nonstop (e.g. EWR-ATL-CUN with a more expensive EWR-ATL segment if sold individually). Nonstop flights tend to attract a premium over multi-stop flights.
It's a consequence of the hub-and-spoke model, which developed to consolidate traffic over a single airport to create viable itineraries on routes that could never sustain nonstop service in their own right. For instance, Charlotte is a big local market, but without connecting traffic, it could never sustain an airline operation with 700+ daily flights (AA). The majority of passengers transiting these hubs are only there to change planes.
Anyway, if airline pricing were to be revised into what some might consider a more "logical" scheme (e.g., more transparent pricing on a segment-by-segment basis), which would theoretically eliminate the hidden-city ticketing loophole, the hub-and-spoke model would collapse. I could get into the specifics as to why, but that would be a post completely irrelevant to a football message board and would be way too long for anyone to actually want to read.
Suffice to say that hidden-city ticketing, for this reason, is historically viewed by US carriers as "cost of doing business." As time went on, airlines got wise to the practice and started canceling downline segments in an itinerary after a flight is "skipped", or refused to check bags to intermediate stops absent extended layovers.
Now, more sophisticated software makes it easier to track repeat offenders, and prohibiting the practice in the terms of the contract of carriage establishes a legal predicate for airlines to ban passengers, cancel frequent flyer accounts and even pursue other avenues to recover what the airline considers "lost revenue." Some of these commercial measures, especially booting people from membership in frequent flyer programs, have been explicitly protected under the law, all the way up to the Supreme Court.
IMO, the whole point of the Lufthansa lawsuit and the present appeal is to create awareness and generate media attention in the hope it will deter passengers from engaging in the practice. In all likelihood, LH won't be suing anyone else (partly because I don't think they'll win their appeal) but if it causes some people to avoid hidden-city ticketing in the future, then it will have achieved the desired effect.
Quote:
Can't break tackles either.
Dead horse, meet Joey.
You have to admit, you've earned it. How many times did you talk about Barkley not being able to break tackles? 50? Talk about beating a dead horse.
What am I missing? What money did they lose? The seat was paid for. Are they saying they could have charged more money for the seat on each leg so that the combined fares for both legs was significantly higher than the complete one way fare? Sounds like they have a pricing problem.
What am I missing? What money did they lose? The seat was paid for. Are they saying they could have charged more money for the seat on each leg so that the combined fares for both legs was significantly higher than the complete one way fare? Sounds like they have a pricing problem.
I just heard about this practice "skip-lagging" over dinner with friends last week. Apparently there's now an app (of course) to help you find deals this way.
That's exactly what the airlines are trying to stem the tide of. Essentially, smart consumers found a way to take advantage of a quirk in their pricing methods.
As others have said, I don't see how airlines could actually win in court (they can't claim you're required to get back on a plane), but if there's an electronic paper trail showing travelers booked their ticket for this specific reason, maybe they have grounds.
The friend who was telling me about it regularly flies from NY to Miami for a significant discount by booking flights to the Bahamas that connect in Miami, which apparently is often half the price of a direct flight to Miami.
The rub is of course you can't check bags, or they'll go through to final destination. You have to deal with the risk of getting your carry-on bag "gate-checked" bc overhead bins are full...so anyone doing this has to commit to the aggressive jockeying for position at the boarding gate
What am I missing? What money did they lose? The seat was paid for. Are they saying they could have charged more money for the seat on each leg so that the combined fares for both legs was significantly higher than the complete one way fare? Sounds like they have a pricing problem.
And I think you're essentially right - the airlines figure they could have sold the connecting seat for the cost of a direct ticket.
This happening on occasion has likely been chalked up to cost of doing business, but now that it's becoming more common the airlines are reacting.
Man, those casino buses were awesome! In the 90's, there was one casino bus that offered $15 and lunch voucher on a $17 ticket to Atlantic City every Wednesday. They also offered another $5 voucher on the way back (to entice another future visit).
In effect, I was getting paid $3 with a free lunch just to hang around Atlantic City every Wednesday as a teenager during the summer months.
$125 for the flight with $125 in casino vouchers. I was in my mid-20's at the time, the youngest person on the plane - BY FAR, and made a crapload playing poker. It was essentially a free day trip
Quote:
the airline sold a ticket to a man who then decided not to use (part of) it? Now they want to sue him for not using his full ticket?
What am I missing? What money did they lose? The seat was paid for. Are they saying they could have charged more money for the seat on each leg so that the combined fares for both legs was significantly higher than the complete one way fare? Sounds like they have a pricing problem.
And I think you're essentially right - the airlines figure they could have sold the connecting seat for the cost of a direct ticket.
This happening on occasion has likely been chalked up to cost of doing business, but now that it's becoming more common the airlines are reacting.
But what about the gas that’s being saved by the airline for having a “lighter” cabin?
Isn’t that the rationale they rely on for charging for overweight bags?
She tells me that when she needs quinoa, she will instead select steel-cut oats at the scale, which look exactly like quinoa but are 1/2 the price. It’s her little form of protest over what she perceives to be extortionate pricing (yet still shops there). The cashiers can’t tell the difference and she feels better about saving a buck or two.
Hidden city ticketing is the same concept. The airline’s inventory controls are much more complex than XXX > YYY + YYY > ZZZ, so if you buy a ticket with the express purpose of circumventing published pricing, it’s in violation of your contract with the airline. Equity aside, a breach is breach, and airline passengers implicitly agree to the contract or carriage with each ticket purchase.
Like I said, most airlines look the other way (or don’t even notice), but people can and do get in trouble when the practice is taken to excess.
Quote:
the airline sold a ticket to a man who then decided not to use (part of) it? Now they want to sue him for not using his full ticket?
What am I missing? What money did they lose? The seat was paid for. Are they saying they could have charged more money for the seat on each leg so that the combined fares for both legs was significantly higher than the complete one way fare? Sounds like they have a pricing problem.
I just heard about this practice "skip-lagging" over dinner with friends last week. Apparently there's now an app (of course) to help you find deals this way.
That's exactly what the airlines are trying to stem the tide of. Essentially, smart consumers found a way to take advantage of a quirk in their pricing methods.
As others have said, I don't see how airlines could actually win in court (they can't claim you're required to get back on a plane), but if there's an electronic paper trail showing travelers booked their ticket for this specific reason, maybe they have grounds.
The friend who was telling me about it regularly flies from NY to Miami for a significant discount by booking flights to the Bahamas that connect in Miami, which apparently is often half the price of a direct flight to Miami.
The rub is of course you can't check bags, or they'll go through to final destination. You have to deal with the risk of getting your carry-on bag "gate-checked" bc overhead bins are full...so anyone doing this has to commit to the aggressive jockeying for position at the boarding gate
I wouldn't say "smart". Or maybe I would add "unethical" rather than use it to replace "smart". But either way...
She tells me that when she needs quinoa, she will instead select steel-cut oats at the scale, which look exactly like quinoa but are 1/2 the price. It’s her little form of protest over what she perceives to be extortionate pricing (yet still shops there). The cashiers can’t tell the difference and she feels better about saving a buck or two.
Hidden city ticketing is the same concept. The airline’s inventory controls are much more complex than XXX > YYY + YYY > ZZZ, so if you buy a ticket with the express purpose of circumventing published pricing, it’s in violation of your contract with the airline. Equity aside, a breach is breach, and airline passengers implicitly agree to the contract or carriage with each ticket purchase.
Like I said, most airlines look the other way (or don’t even notice), but people can and do get in trouble when the practice is taken to excess.
Now, if she went into a clothing store and took the ticket off of a designer dress and replaced it with a ticket from a clearance rack dress, is that an acceptable protest too?
Anyway, it seems the airlines have an easy fix for this. Why do they feel the need to publish the locations of their layovers? What are they worried would happen if they simply told their passengers that they were providing service from A to B and that it includes a 2 hour layover in C, without disclosing the location of C?
Also, Lufthansa may be doing a disservice, as by highlighting the practice they are possibly educating even more passengers on a loophole in their pricing structure? Do they feel the cat is already out of the bag so to speak?
Anyway, it seems the airlines have an easy fix for this. Why do they feel the need to publish the locations of their layovers? What are they worried would happen if they simply told their passengers that they were providing service from A to B and that it includes a 2 hour layover in C, without disclosing the location of C?
Also, Lufthansa may be doing a disservice, as by highlighting the practice they are possibly educating even more passengers on a loophole in their pricing structure? Do they feel the cat is already out of the bag so to speak?
They have to tell you the flight numbers of each leg. From that info you can find out where its going even if the airlines try to hide it.
Quote:
thanks for your explanations. What you're wife is doing reminds me of a kid I know who, back in the 80's, would take price stickers off one thing and put it on another, then buy it for profit. Does she ever feel wrong about doing that?
Anyway, it seems the airlines have an easy fix for this. Why do they feel the need to publish the locations of their layovers? What are they worried would happen if they simply told their passengers that they were providing service from A to B and that it includes a 2 hour layover in C, without disclosing the location of C?
Also, Lufthansa may be doing a disservice, as by highlighting the practice they are possibly educating even more passengers on a loophole in their pricing structure? Do they feel the cat is already out of the bag so to speak?
They have to tell you the flight numbers of each leg. From that info you can find out where its going even if the airlines try to hide it.
Why do they have to tell you the flight numbers prior to purchase?
Quote:
thanks for your explanations. What you're wife is doing reminds me of a kid I know who, back in the 80's, would take price stickers off one thing and put it on another, then buy it for profit. Does she ever feel wrong about doing that?
Anyway, it seems the airlines have an easy fix for this. Why do they feel the need to publish the locations of their layovers? What are they worried would happen if they simply told their passengers that they were providing service from A to B and that it includes a 2 hour layover in C, without disclosing the location of C?
Also, Lufthansa may be doing a disservice, as by highlighting the practice they are possibly educating even more passengers on a loophole in their pricing structure? Do they feel the cat is already out of the bag so to speak?
They have to tell you the flight numbers of each leg. From that info you can find out where its going even if the airlines try to hide it.
There’s nothing to hide. If you buy a ticket from Newark to Chicago to Green Bay, you’re getting transportation from Newark to Green Bay. The transfer point is immaterial. If one treats it as a flight from Newark to Chicago with an option to continue to Green Bay, solely for the purpose of avoiding a higher fare on Newark to Chicago (if priced individually), then that’s a breach of the contract of carriage, and the passenger doing so proceeds at his own risk. The odds of the airline noticing are extremely remote, and more remote still is the possibility of the airline taking action. In this case, Lufthansa is simply attempting to enforce the contract of carriage, much like any other kind of commercial dispute. It just happens to be extraordinarily rare in this context.
Still, whether right or wrong, fair or unfair, it’s written into the contract. I’m just trying to illustrate the basis for the airline’s claim.
Quote:
My wife shops at a Wegman’s from time to time, and they let you scoop grains into a bag, weigh them and print a label for checkout. When printing the label, you select your particular grain, and away you go.
She tells me that when she needs quinoa, she will instead select steel-cut oats at the scale, which look exactly like quinoa but are 1/2 the price. It’s her little form of protest over what she perceives to be extortionate pricing (yet still shops there). The cashiers can’t tell the difference and she feels better about saving a buck or two.
Hidden city ticketing is the same concept. The airline’s inventory controls are much more complex than XXX > YYY + YYY > ZZZ, so if you buy a ticket with the express purpose of circumventing published pricing, it’s in violation of your contract with the airline. Equity aside, a breach is breach, and airline passengers implicitly agree to the contract or carriage with each ticket purchase.
Like I said, most airlines look the other way (or don’t even notice), but people can and do get in trouble when the practice is taken to excess.
Now, if she went into a clothing store and took the ticket off of a designer dress and replaced it with a ticket from a clearance rack dress, is that an acceptable protest too?
I think you underscore exactly what I’m trying to say.
Her practice is wrong and I don’t condone it, nor do I engage in it. But she’s an adult and if she wants to proceed with that course of conduct, she’s free to. It’s also a form of theft. Taken to an extreme, as in your example, it’s a far more egregious Such that nobody would disagree with the notion.
That illustration is also the functional equivalent of hidden-city ticketing with airlines. The passenger is intentionally engaging in deceptive conduct to secure a more favorable price for a good or service, in this case, air travel.
It’s not a criminal offense per se, but it’s a direct breach of the contract between the airline and the passenger.
Quote:
In comment 14296423 Dan in the Springs said:
Quote:
thanks for your explanations. What you're wife is doing reminds me of a kid I know who, back in the 80's, would take price stickers off one thing and put it on another, then buy it for profit. Does she ever feel wrong about doing that?
Anyway, it seems the airlines have an easy fix for this. Why do they feel the need to publish the locations of their layovers? What are they worried would happen if they simply told their passengers that they were providing service from A to B and that it includes a 2 hour layover in C, without disclosing the location of C?
Also, Lufthansa may be doing a disservice, as by highlighting the practice they are possibly educating even more passengers on a loophole in their pricing structure? Do they feel the cat is already out of the bag so to speak?
They have to tell you the flight numbers of each leg. From that info you can find out where its going even if the airlines try to hide it.
There’s nothing to hide. If you buy a ticket from Newark to Chicago to Green Bay, you’re getting transportation from Newark to Green Bay.
If we agree that the transfer point is immaterial, why would they have to publish it prior to the purchase of the ticket? Doing so would seem to enable the kind of manipulation they are complaining about.
Wish I could get an answer to that question. Not satisfied with the response from ron mexico - I don't know why the fare has to include all details - why can't they simply post destinations and prices prior to purchase and not include flight numbers and other details?
Anyway the routes are standard and the capabilities for data scrapping and analysis today are so strong it would be very difficult to hide the info.
But it could just as easily be a regulation that it needs to be provided.
A lot of times, I make a choice in flights based on what the connecting airport is, especially if there is weather predicted. Plus, what if you have contacts you'd like to meet at a connecting airport?
A passenger shouldn't be spinning the wheel of uncertainty just getting to the final destination. No more so that if you took a bus route from Charlotte to NY without an itinerary and ended up going through Chicago to loop back around.
Quote:
There’s nothing to hide. If you buy a ticket from Newark to Chicago to Green Bay, you’re getting transportation from Newark to Green Bay.
A lot of times, I make a choice in flights based on what the connecting airport is, especially if there is weather predicted. Plus, what if you have contacts you'd like to meet at a connecting airport?
A passenger shouldn't be spinning the wheel of uncertainty just getting to the final destination. No more so that if you took a bus route from Charlotte to NY without an itinerary and ended up going through Chicago to loop back around.
I feel like that would be similar to my response to your gender neutral thread. Rather than tackling the actual problem, whether it be sexist stereotypes or cheating flyers, you do stupid workaround that impact a vastly larger number of people.
So the solution seems to be the airlines can fix their pricing practices or go pound sand.
Quote:
My wife shops at a Wegman’s from time to time, and they let you scoop grains into a bag, weigh them and print a label for checkout. When printing the label, you select your particular grain, and away you go.
She tells me that when she needs quinoa, she will instead select steel-cut oats at the scale, which look exactly like quinoa but are 1/2 the price. It’s her little form of protest over what she perceives to be extortionate pricing (yet still shops there). The cashiers can’t tell the difference and she feels better about saving a buck or two.
Hidden city ticketing is the same concept. The airline’s inventory controls are much more complex than XXX > YYY + YYY > ZZZ, so if you buy a ticket with the express purpose of circumventing published pricing, it’s in violation of your contract with the airline. Equity aside, a breach is breach, and airline passengers implicitly agree to the contract or carriage with each ticket purchase.
Like I said, most airlines look the other way (or don’t even notice), but people can and do get in trouble when the practice is taken to excess.
Now, if she went into a clothing store and took the ticket off of a designer dress and replaced it with a ticket from a clearance rack dress, is that an acceptable protest too?
You’re absolutely right and I think you underscore my point. I don’t condone the practice, nor do I engage in it, but she’s an adult and if she chooses to do so, it’s at her own risk. Your example takes the concept to an extreme, but it’s still theft.
Put differently, it’s intentionally engaging in a deceptive practice to obtain certain goods (or services) for a different price than what the merchant charges.
The airline example isn’t a criminal offense per se, but it’s in violation of s contract a passenger enters when a ticket is purchased. It’s breach, whether the airline chooses to enforce it or not. In a similar vein, if the practice I illustrated in my example were to cause significant losses to Wegman’s, would anyone object to cashiers inspecting such self-weighed/labeled items to make sure they are consistent with customer representations? And if they weren’t, would Wegman’s be within their rights to insist the customer pay the published price for what they intended to buy? If the customer refused, what would be their grounds for doing so?
As a corollary to that, I’d pose this question to the group: how is the scenario I give (as an example) fundamentally different from hidden-city ticketing?
She buys the two boxes and promptly throws the second box out. The store claims she should have to buy the 16 oz. box.
That's sort of what I see. The passenger has paid a specific price for a flight and only uses part of it. It has been paid for and should be up to the passenger what to do with it.
Quote:
There’s nothing to hide. If you buy a ticket from Newark to Chicago to Green Bay, you’re getting transportation from Newark to Green Bay.
A lot of times, I make a choice in flights based on what the connecting airport is, especially if there is weather predicted. Plus, what if you have contacts you'd like to meet at a connecting airport?
A passenger shouldn't be spinning the wheel of uncertainty just getting to the final destination. No more so that if you took a bus route from Charlotte to NY without an itinerary and ended up going through Chicago to loop back around.
Correct, but even if you’re choosing to transfer at a specific airport (how I like connecting at Denver, while I avoid O’Hare in the winter and DFW in the summer) it’s still within the context of travel to a final destination. It’s immaterial insofar as your ticket is a continuous transit from your origin to destination.
If you book travel to a final destination with the express purpose of terminating travel at an intermediate stop to circumvent published pricing (i.e., to secure a cheaper fare), it’s breach. If the airline can prove it by a preponderance or evidence, then damages can be awarded.
The reason why many of these cases have been dismissed is because *proving* intent is the difficult part. So airlines more frequently will just cancel frequent flyer program membership, or engage in other commercial measures, rather than pursue legal remedies. Courts routinely uphold that airlines are within their rights to cancel memberships and ban passengers, so it’s a much more effective punishment with little to no burden of proof, and far less costly in terms of money and bad PR, than suing a passenger. That’s why this Lufthansa case is somewhat unique.
She buys the two boxes and promptly throws the second box out. The store claims she should have to buy the 16 oz. box.
That's sort of what I see. The passenger has paid a specific price for a flight and only uses part of it. It has been paid for and should be up to the passenger what to do with it.
I know what you’re saying, and to the average person outside of the airline industry, the pricing model is counterintuitive, irrational and arcane. There’s really no way to manipulate that scenario perfectly to fit the airline business because of the nature of the product, so there will be holes in the logic no matter how it’s laid out.
Still, the airline looks at systemwide ASM (available seat-miles) as its product and uses complex revenue management software to assign prices to that inventory across the whole network, rather than on a segment-by-segment basis in order to enable the entire hub-and-spoke model. As we see that model has certain weaknesses, one of which is hidden-city ticketing, and that weakness is relatively easy to exploit. So, the airlines have instituted certain business practices to discourage gaming the system to the detriment of revenue generation.
There’s also a slightly more complex economic argument that I’ll try to make later once I’m behind a keyboard rather than sitting on a train with my phone. Stand by...