I appreciate that frustration of having to account for someone on a flight they have no intention of boarding, but airlines routinely do much worse by overbook flights and letting that chaos exist, so they have no dignity to say anything about skiplagging as far as I'm concerned.
Overbooking is a pain for sure, but look at it this way. People will book a flight for 6am lets say, then miss it, and expect to be rebooked on a later flight. Now their seat went empty at 6am, wasting the time/fuel for that seat that could have carried someone. Overbooking wouldn't have become a thing if passengers actually kept to their travel plans, but plans change and things come up in life. It's a tricky thing to manage.
@@Commentcritic36 If I understand the term "skiplagging" correctly (as described in the video), there is no rebooking whatsoever. In which case, that seat that you consider "wasted" has been fully paid for. With or without an actual a$$ in the seat, the money for the fuel and time has been paid. So I fail to see the airlines' problem.... If your comment refers to the general practice of overbooking (and is therefore unrelated to the video), that is a very poor excuse used by the airlines to squeeze every single cent possible at the expense of their customers. I live in Europe, where overbooking is very rare, and I was truly surprised the first time I heard that it is possible to be kicked out of the seat that you FULLY PAID FOR....
Exactly. The companies make a lot of people flying around undesired routes / longer journeys for profit, it's a clownery, and it's hugely unsustainable.
Wish I could thumbs up this twice. While I don't do it, airlines really have no footing to stand on to whine about it when they overbook and bump people all the time
Think of it this way: a restaurant offers a set 2-course lunch which is cheaper than buying a single course from the a la carte menu. Should the guest be punished if they eat their main course, but not their dessert? I don't think so!
a perfect analogy! you aren't costing the airline any extra, you are just proving that their current pricing system is flawed. would be like booking a 3 day weekend deal at a hotel, checking in Friday, checking out Saturday and then the hotel being mad at you for the inconvenience of not filling the room on Sunday! even though you still payed for the full deal and didn't ask for any refund.
@@Locutus and that would be silly and really easy for the guest to deal with. "Never mind then" and then just leave and call to check out on the actual checkout day.
Exactly. It's only possible because of the pricing structures that THEY set and THEY have full and sole control over. If they don't want passengers skiplagging, don't set pricing that makes it worthwhile.
I did this last week, the direct flight was 350 euros while the skipleg version was only 100 euros. I asked the check in lady that I would like to receive my luggage at the first airport due to "luggage problems lately at european airports". I walked out the airport and did not hear anything from the airline. So worth the risk.
@@canyonoverlook9937 I think you meant to ask if they *booked* a return ticket. If they had booked one there is a still a good chance they did not have return flight.
If airlines hate it so much, why don't they just normalize the ticket prices so that there is no incentive for passengers to use the technique? Oh maybe because they want to squeeze out extra profit when they have an artificially high demand route.
Just like someone can rent your house for three months, trash it at the end of month two and vacate, and that, by your logic, is “okay” because that final month is already “paid-for”. Got it.
@@rontiemens2553 bad logic Ron. There is no additional cost to airline for not using final leg. In fact, there is a minimal savings on fuel for lower weight.
Airlines are themselves to blame. The reason is just another attempt at creating artificial price differences, just like with when people book their flights. But this time they don't fully control all parameters, and thus it's unreasonable to blame passengers for an artificial problem the airlines create for themselves and their passengers. If you can't offer a direct flight, and are forced to offer a connecting flight cheaper to compete, accept the skip-lagging or just don't offer the competing flight.
in the example for Air Canada, the airlines also pay exorbitant air improvement fees to the local Airport Authority that are then passed directly to the consumer, which never happens anywhere else in the world. Canada has some of the worst airline fees in the world added to our tickets making things sooo much more expensive. hence why most people prefer to drive over the border to fly to Sun Destinations or anywhere in the States.
@@mississaugaicedogs oh boo hoo, flying is a quite polluting mode of travel anyway. Higher costs means people fly less. But i really wish north america had better trains, including across the US-CAN border
@@mississaugaicedogs In Canada airlines break out all taxes and fees. That is not true in many countries. The fees are usually there but hidden. I admit that there are some places where tourists are the number one industry and airport improvements are subsidized by the local government to make it cheaper to arrive. In those places you are paying for the airport with taxes on attraction tickets and hotel rooms.
What if I told you that the alternative to this pricing structure is ridiculously high pricing on lesser demand routes, or simply not having those routes at all? The system as is works to essentially subsidize other destinations, to better serve more consumers. It's a net win for consumers, who get more destinations, and the airline, who get more loyal customers when they can fly to more locations at reasonable costs.
@@LowJSamuel extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Claiming the pricing structure is a net-win for airlines, I can easily accept that. They control the pricing structure and have a profit motive. Claiming it's a net win for customers, that requires proving that on average the customers benefit more from this then it costs them. Your argument only proves that it benefits some customers, but not by how much value, which part of the customers benefit, and at what cost to the remaining customers?
Yes, I've done this before. What I don't get, is why should the airline care if the seat is physically empty? You already paid for the ticket, so they got their fare. Besides, less passengers means less weight, so more fuel savings for the airline
i think you nailed it. This channel must be running out of things to talk about. seems to be non issue to me. like you said. the airlines received their money and did not even have to fulfill their part of the contract. no one has had any financial damage at all.
@@eurobrowarriormonk7182 not necessarily true, the time it takes to offload a single bag once the airline notices a passenger hasn’t boarded a flight could be a lot depending on when the bag was loaded. if the plane has to stay on the ground for an extra 30 minutes to offload a bag that was one of the first on the plane, that’s an extra 30 minutes of airport fees that the airline has to pay when you have several of these situations happening at an airport, happening at several airports, it adds up quickly
@@eurobrowarriormonk7182 SF are discussing it because A; it’s something interesting about the airline industry which many aviation enthusiasts have never heard of, B; it is in the news due to lawsuits from airlines, and C; participation in such an activity by an uninformed traveller may result in unexpected consequences.
@@PS-zw4yc I also don’t like paying what I consider to be unnecessary premiums but the fact is we all do that. Just imagine the actual cost of a perfume (or medicine) vs what you pay for it.
@@vondahe I definitely have. If, however, those rules of "supply and demand" lead to airlines supplying certain itineraries at rates they would prefer not to supply them at, doesn't that mean that there is some design flaw in the way the product is supplied or priced?
@@kisstune - that's the real problem. Airlines are super competitive. They're offering the lowest prices they can. If they didn't, they'd lose business
@@UserNameAnonymous But the flip side of offering “lowest possible”, also means highest possible. It’s about finding the right ticket price equation at the right time to maximize profits for that flight. However, in the long run, I believe that this system hurt the airline industry because it frustrates consumers and creates an antagonistic relationship with the customer. This is the big problem of Capitalism that is slowly being fixed. People prefer stability to the occasional cheap ticket.
@@Fractured_Unity - the point of everything I just said: they probably do it for a reason. It's much easier for a business to align prices with cost. They go through a lot of trouble to do it differently.
They can and do though. At least in the US they can overbook seats and sell it at the last minute(for a premium) if no one shows up and they aren't already overbooked. It's completely ethical to skip any part of a flight you're paying for.
They literally don't care about the empty seat. It's more about how they subsidize the cheaper, lesser demand destination with the fares from the higher demand destination. They're able to make more destinations viable with this type of pricing structure, in order to serve more people. It is very selfish to game the system, as if everyone did it, it would ultimately mean that many smaller locations would be underserved, or priced far too high for anyone there to fly.
@@LowJSamuel that makes absolutely no sense. It's selfish to not bank roll a corporation getting paid for a service to a smaller community? Isn't that what taxes are for? Doesn't the government already subsidize these small communities? Why wouldn't the price to fly to the smaller community simply be higher, with profits they already make from other operations subsidizing the remainder? This is what happens when you use planes in place of trains. Tortured reasoning to justify prices to some random hodunk. Maybe stop going there in the most expensive mode of travel, or leave it to small charters.
The danger of this is when the airline has to re-book your flight last minute or for weather. They're only obligated to fly you to your intended destination on your ticket. It could connect in another city or be a non-stop.
But you aren't obligated to accept their itinerary. Just tell them you are rebooking on a different airline for a more direct route, earlier arrival time, better seat, whatever your excuse. If your original flight is canceled you will be refunded.
Also remembered reading of an economy passenger upset when SIA switched him to a non-non-stop flight from SIN-JFK (after he'd paid for his ticket) because the airline was planning to remove economy class seats from its A345s (the only aircraft it had at the time that had the range to fly non-stop between those 2 cities)
Lol it’s funny they are willing to schedule flights they know they can’t staff and then try their best to not refund the tickets. But when people take advantage of the airline it’s wrong! No sympathy from me on people taking advantage of the companies that have no problems taking advantage of them!
You are soooooo right..they want to offer you a credit for a future flight because the flight time you chose, they never intended to fly but just let you buy to get your money knowing full well the time you chose is always cancelled due to lack of passengers!
I’ve never heard the term, but knew of the practice. I haven’t done it but have bought a return ticket and not used the return leg. The return was cheaper than a one way on the route.
I wonder how that happened. Was it one of those low cost airline where to need to pay for everything extras? If their profit is in the extras, maybe the actual ticket is a "loss leader" and a two way ticket is twice as profitable as a one way? Does anyone *know*? (The comments on this video are full of BS. )
during covid, I needed to meet someone who was stranded in istanbul airport airside (long story) but I didn't have the right covid documents to meet the entry criteria for Turkey, so I booked a flight to Ukraine via turkey and was able to meet and them and we flew back to the UK together. I had no clue it was skiplagging or that it was controversial!!
I once "skiplagged" many years ago, but it wasn't for the purpose of getting a cheaper fare - I had a change in plans, the savings I could have gotten by changing the ticket were eliminated by the fees charged by the airline to do said change.
Seems like airlines can stop the practice altogether by pricing their fares correctly. It should never be more expensive to fly one leg than it is to fly two.
The fare for the high demand destination subsidize the fares for the lower demand destination. This makes more destinations viable. Otherwise, the airline would have to charge far more for destinations people are not willing to pay much to go to, so nobody would fly them, so they would cancel the whole route. Good for consumers because we get more routes. The benefit to the airline is they amass a more loyal customer base who find they can rely on the airline to take them anywhere they need to go.
@@niconico3907 The route may end up being slightly profitable for them, or maybe not. But having more routes available means more people will be loyal to your airline, whereas if you were missing a bunch of destinations, customers would be loyal elsewhere. This is beneficial in two ways: 1) they're more likely to select your airline when they fly to a profitable destination and 2) most of the profit from airlines nowadays comes from their loyalty programs and selling frequent flyer miles to credit card companies for rewards and such.
@@LowJSamuel I don't think people are loyals to any airline, they just go with the cheapest, best service, best time of departure, most direct route they can find.
I do this by booking a flight to the U.S. but with a final destination in Canada, this works anytime I connect through the U.S. as all passengers, even if their connecting have to recheck their bags. So I usually just grab my bags and go.
This is genius and probably the first time I've heard anyone using US Customs to their advantage. 😅😆 I guess it's easier if you have a strong passport too.
I did this once, when I had a flight MEM - CLT - IAD but had a change of plans and wanted to fly MEM - CLT - MCO instead. The airline refused to change my ticket, insisting there wasn't a seat available on the MEM - CLT leg, even though I would have been occupying it either way (brain dead booking system). So I simply booked CLT - MCO on another airline and didn't check any luggage in order to get where I wanted to go.
@@Skylane_Pilot I highly doubt it is a consequence of that alone. Even if it were, skiplagging is a consequence of how airlines price their tickets so in most cases they could easily get rid of it by offering a reasonable deal.
Both of these practices (overbooking and disallowing skiplagging) keep prices down for consumers. When you get kicked off an overbooked flight, you almost always bought a ticket at less than cost (basic economy or equivalent) and knew the risk.
Airlines have no right to be offended or to cancel the return ticket. They shouldn't charge more for a single flight then a linking flight. They shouldn't over book. They basically do this to themselves. If two flights are cheaper then just one flight.... that's an issue.
@@UserNameAnonymous that's not exactly true though, those lower demand destinations just have a lower margin of profit, they're not running at a loss. In essence the airline is grumpy over a loss of profit margin.
@@luipaardprint - You're right that my statement isn't completely true, but it's not completely false either. If the airlines weren't making the big profit off the high demand routes, they would have to increase prices on the smaller routes to maintain the same level of profitability.
Yea. Sort of done it once and the airport staff was incredibly helpful about it. Although, we hadn’t booked the tickets with this intention, that is essentially what we did. So, we were trailing in a group from Billund, Denmark to Sweden. The host of the event we’ve attended in Denmark had booked the tickets and had us all going to Arlanda airport. However. All of us where living in the south of Sweden and had already endured a five hour long train journey to get to Stockholm. So at Billund we just explained the situation and asked to have our bags just checked for Copenhagen. There we took a half an hour train ride over the bridge.
This explains something that happened to me that I couldn't make sense of. I was flying from DFW to Grand Rapids via Chicago a few years ago. Turbulence on the flight into Chicago was so bad that after landing, I was throwing up in an ORD bathroom. I couldn't bear the thought of boarding another flight two hours later, so I called the airline and told them I wouldn't be flying -- I'd rent a car or take a train. They were insistent -- I HAD to fly that next leg. It made no sense to me. Why did it matter so much to them? I couldn't understand why they cared whether or not I was on that last flight. I wasn't even asking for a refund. Here's the kicker -- I was flying as the spouse of an airline employee and wasn't paying for the flights anyway. Obviously I wasn't skiplagging. Maybe the customer service people I talked to were trained to say no to things like that because of people who were.
I had no idea this was a thing that airlines frowned upon. Ages ago my travel agent booked me a flight to Narita in Japan, but the flight actually was to Hong Kong with a stop over in Narita as i was told it was significantly cheaper than a direct flight to Narita. I just gathered my bags and remained in Japan. Never received any notification from the airline... it was a one way ticket so I didn't have to worry about inserting myself on the homeward flight.....
This is a consequence of the pricing practices that they employ. If they don’t like it, they should figure out the root of the problem instead of trying to make the practice illegal
I was on a flight Johannesburg-Paris-LHR because that was the return ticket I had, and then had a non-connecting flight to Brussels for a meeting I couldn't afford to miss. In CDG we ended up in a 3 hour delay and in the de-icing queue, by which time my onward flight from LHR was departing. I explained this to the CC, and asked if I could de-plane. The FO came back, checked my story and that I was hand baggage only, then arranged for an air stairs and a follow-me car to come out and collect me from the apron. I caught a TGV train to Brussels and made it on time. In this case AF facilitated my skiplegging and I thank them for it!
This is not a problem in trains where you can even resell your ticket for une remaining portion of travel. After all, the seat is booked and sold, there is no prejudice.
I almost did the opposite of this. Company paid for flight from a Medicine Hat airport to Calgary and then onto Heathrow. Wanted to spend a couple of nights in Calgary before flying back so asked if it would be ok if we just boarded at Calgary instead. The airline told us no....but then some other people did it anyway with no consequences
This is risky because if you don't board for the first leg they can cancel your whole ticket and in case they overbook the flight from Calgary to Heathrow they can put another passenger in your previously assigned seat...
@@tomstravels520 it should happen. If they called and offered to pay the difference in taxes and the change fee then I can see the change being done, but they usually won’t just delete the first leg without reissuing the whole ticket. But, it’s possible. Could be you spoke to different agents/ some went to the small medecine hat airport and were told one thing and those who showed up in Calgary spoke to someone else/who knew how to recover the tickets. Or, if the flight is short enough that they arrived at check in in Calgary before the flight from medicine hat departed, the first flight wouldn’t have been missed yet so the ticket would still be okay
American Airlines effectively forced us to do this, and as a consequence, skiplag on the flight back. It took them four hours to check us in at at the first airport by which time we had missed our flight by 30 minutes. However, the layover was long enough that we were able to drive to the second airport and catch the second leg to our destination. As our car was now at the wrong airport, we had to skip the second leg of the return flight.
if airlines dont like it then dont make the ticket substantially cheaper to take a connection. like the example of YYZ to SEA via YVR if i am only going to vancouver but its cheaper to pay for a further flight but not go on it thats the airlines problem because clearly they can charge less for the direct flight from YYZ to YVR since they are already charging less for that service plus another flight
For the record, you can do this with checked baggage if you need to clear customs since you’ll need to collect your baggage there and re check before boarding your next connection. I’ve done this at least 3 times this year for international travel. One time delta actually called my phone to make sure I wasn’t going to board. They had no problem with this.
I have. Flew United IAD-ATL, then return flight was ATL-IAD-PHI. Had my then 10yo kid with me, and had them play sick. Went to the gate for second leg, told the gate staff that kid wasn't going to be able to avoid vomiting, so we would drive the rest of the way, as we were staying in a town in between anyhow. Not sure if they bought it, but it was at least enough of an excuse to allow us to skip the flight with no repercussions. Saved about US$120 for the two of us. Which isn't much, but for a short flight the difference between $280 and $400 (for both of us) was significant. No checked bags, so didn't have to worry about that. And never heard a thing, still got full FF miles for the trip.
Hey. If the airline wants to charge less for a longer flight, it's their cross to bear, not mine. If their fares were rational, this wouldn't be a problem, for either them or me.
They're rational, you just don't understand them. They use the high fares for the higher demand locations to subsidize the lower fares for the lower demand locations. If they didn't do this, they simply wouldn't be able to serve those lower demand locations as nobody would pay the actual price to get there. They only keep these routes because they want customers to be loyal to their airline, but it is still better for consumers as more destinations are available.
@@baylinkdashyt They're not irrational. They're rational once you get past the superficial "paying more for going less distance" question. The rationale behind them is to serve underserved destinations at a price point that people will actually pay to go to those destinations.
Back in the dark ages of travel (before baggage and seat assignment fees), the practice that was far more prevalent was 'hidden city' ticketing. That was when the airline made a stop enroute to your chosen destination (the hidden city) and you'd get off at that point. Southwest used to run these types of flights all the time (kinda like a Greyhound bus of the sky). This is just the same practice except with a change of plane/flight number. I heard the term about 15 or so years ago when Southwest (and smaller carriers) moved toward the hub and spoke. Probably originated in Europe, where you still have lots of hidden city opportunities.
I've done it a two times on Delta over the course of 3 years, once going home, and once leaving home. The second time I got a less-than-nice letter telling me to knock it off.
It's not financially or environmentally ethical to pay less for A-B B-C than just for A-B. Skip lagging is not only justifiable but it should also be the norm. In the end the passenger paid for a service, and if they choose to use it or not its their problem, but they already paid. Same as if you book a hotel and never show up but still paid, it's the customers problem
It is environmentally ethical because the seats would be empty otherwise. Essentially what is happening is they are subsidizing the flights to lesser demand locations with the fares from the higher demand locations. If they priced them normally, many people would not be willing to pay that much for the lower demand destination, so the plane would run mostly empty. If the airline cancels the route then that area becomes underserved. May be better for the environment then, but screws over those communities.
I can't even begin to think about the ethics of this because the word "overbooking" is still ringing in my ears, years after I learned about it. Morally, airlines don't have a wing to fly with.
I recently kind of skiplagged. Flew from Melbourne to Seattle via Sydney and Vancouver. My original plan was to start my holiday in Vancouver but that was too expensive. Booked through to Seattle and saved 500 dollars, booked a hotel for a few days and a bus to Vancouver and still saved money.
If airlines weren't so greedy to over-price their flights. This wouldn't be happening. It doesn't make sense that a longer flight is cheaper than a shorter one where the aircraft actually lands for a stopover
You're accusing them of overpricing their flights because a longer flight is CHEAPER than a shorter flight? Have you considered that they're underpricing the longer flight because fewer people are willing to pay the higher, more appropriate price, for that destination?
While not skipjacking another practice was of courier companies during the1980's. Frequently the 10pm departure to New York would have 2 LD-3 containers stuffed with 35lb courier bags. One company took advantage of a $20 fare to send a courier on that flight. Normally there would be as much as 12000lbs of courier bags for the one hour flight down the coast. The problem they had was frequently no body to make the flight. The carrier had a simpler solution, call up a name from the standby list and assign that person as the "courier". For the carrier this represented many hundreds of dollars in "excess baggage" fees. The beginning of the end of On Board Couriers was PA103 in Lockerbie. My company had 3 containers of courier cargo on board. Checked in as baggage. My company spent 6 months with the authorities identifying exactly who the shippers and receivers were, and then having the authorities do background checks on them.
I once did this on a UA flight with an international component and checked luggage. I had to tell them about the checked luggage and pay a penalty to hav the bags rerouted to be able to pick up the bags. The airline staff seemed genuinely angry with me and acted like I did something morally repugnant, it seemed like quite an overreaction. I was worried about UA banning me but I have since flown with them many times and without issue.
I did that twice. Once Aruba-Amsterdam-Dusseldorf and came off in Amsterdam (KLM) I had no checked luggage with me and I didn't use my frequent flyer number. Second time was Brussels-Amsterdam-Kuala Lumpur | Bangkok-Amsterdam-Brussels. The first Brussel leg was with plane, so I had to start my journey in BRU (I live in The Netherlands). On my way back to NL, I came off in Amsterdam and could get my checked bags without problems, because I booked AMS-BRU with Thalys train. I did that specifically becaise I knew I was getting off at Schiphol. Got all my miles. Note: even if your first leg is with a train, you do need a stamp proving that you took the train to Amsterdam Schiphol. If not, you will not be checked-in and they will cancel your complete ticket,... or you have to pay a penalty. I saved €550,-
I've skip lagged before, and I'm about to do it again in about 2 weeks. The excuse that I used was that I came into contact with someone who has covid. 😁 It's true that it's a delicate balance, but the savings are significant if you're only traveling with carry on luggage. Understandably, airlines would sue someone in order to discourage other people from doing it, but it's always going to be a PR nightmare for them. Also, I doubt they would risk alienating a loyal customer to their competition by canceling their elite status over a few hundred dollars. That would cost them a lot more in the long run considering how much a customer spends to achieve elite status. Ultimately, airlines should hate it, but there's not much they can do about it unless it becomes a widely used strategy by the general public.
We thought about skiplagging the exact route you mentioned YYZ->YVR->SEA. But found it still cheaper to fly all the way to Seattle and then take the ferry back to Vancouver. So we enjoyed a day in Seattle as an addition to the trip.
I guess I technically skiplagged once, but it wasn't voluntary. It was a work trip to a Oshkosh (not an aviation related job, just a coincidence), during tornado season. We had a connection in Chicago to get to either Green Bay or Appleton, I forget which, but on arrival in Chicago the entire route was blocked with storms. So the flight got delayed, then cancelled. Since we were on a schedule, we were told to get a rental car and drive the rest of the way. Job done, time to go home. The bean counter that held the purse strings for the trip decided that the fee for returning the car to a different airport was unacceptable so we were instructed to take it back to Chicago and pick up our flight from there... We got on the right flight, but it was a huge hassle, we basically had to fly standby for our own seats.
I live in the Seattle area and for years it's been a well-known trick that if you're flying to Eastern Canada you'll want to drive up to Vancouver and fly from there. It's only a 3-hour drive and it can save you several hundred dollars off the airfare. The same can be done when flying to the eastern US. You'll want to drive the 3-hour trip south to Portland, Oregon and leave from there. The flight can often be cheaper and for some reason frequently flies through Seattle to get where you're going.
'The Airline Passenger's Guerrilla Handbook' (1989) by George Albert Brown explains all sorts of similar tricks. I once converted a company-bought air ticket back and forth to Toronto, into one that merely stopped at Toronto and continued on to include a side trip to Bermuda. The price delta was less than $2. Unfortunately, something came up and I never did get to Bermuda (the Toronto-Bermuda legs were never used). But I was able to use the return trip (4th leg) without any issue. I think I merely had to explain that my plans changed. This was decades ago.
Once had to skip legging on an transatlantic flight due stomach problems, I did however inform the airline that I wanted medical aid, they (Iberia as Madrid partner of American and operation of the next leg) advised me of an English speaking doctor, took me from the flight list offloaded my luggage and (!!!) gave my a ( not time limited) voucher for a train to my last leg, since I were not going to make it for their last flight at this day. At the end of planed stay in Madrid I took the train to France, went to the airport and flew back with BA/AA as planned. Saved a few hundred bucks, could ride TGV/AVE train and staffed at a smaller airport without any hassle. Only disadvantage travelling through Heathrow…
As a retired economics professor it's always fascinating to me when social discourse deploys the word 'should' in conversations like this. A guy with two chainsaws *will* sell one of them for a lot more than it's worth in the hours and days after a hurricane. People will save money by skiplagging. Should has nothing to do with it, any more than it would make sense to say that solid water should sink in liquid water because the opposite is unfair to students trying to learn the rules.
That would be true if humans were robotically unable to see any benefits beyond monetary. Monetary incentives are but one consideration the sentient human being can make. The laws of physics you compared the chainsaw scenario to are inevitable. Human decisions are not mindless reactions in the way that something heavy sinks. We have judgment, empathy and morals, not just self interest.
@@brianarbenz7206 That was an impressively erudite and condescending reply, except for the small problem that the observable data reveals it to be false. A guy with two chainsaws *WILL* sell one of them for a lot more than he paid, in the hours and days after a hurricane. It's not that the words 'should' and 'shouldn't' should or shouldn't enter into it; it's that they DON'T. Observably, and objectively. Which has the effect of decoding your erudite and condescending reply down to, "Well yeah, the guy could sell the chainsaw for an exorbitant price, but he SHOULDN'T because he's got morals and ... um ... judgement, and stuff." Far from the superiority that you'd so convinced yourself was yours before you replied, what you actually did is disqualify yourself form those very kinds of respect by answering in a way that was overtly non-responsive. You're a child if you think that observable data is superseded by shared morals. Literally. That's *exactly* what children think, tough-guy.
Usually the air stewardess would suggest I claim that I’m ‘under the weather’ to finish the second lag. And most check-in clerk would understand and allow bag only checked to the stopover and not all the way to the destination.
A couple of years ago Australian airlines jacked up thier airfares between Perth and Melbourne nearly 100% for the AFL Grand Final. People worked out it was cheaper to book a flight from Perth to New Zealand with a stop over in Melbourne. They never did see New Zealand, but they did see the Grand Final
When I skiplagg, I check in at the desk of the flight I'm not going to take and explain I feel a fever and a sore throat coming on, and don't want to take the additional flight. Never had a problem.
My question is this: How is leaving you're PAID seat empty costing the airline ANY additional money?? After all they will save slightly on fuel and as an added bonus the other passengers sitting next to the empty seat will simply have more room, which anyone can appreciate.
Yes I have skip lagged on a return flight with a layover. The layover was in Dallas and the final destination was Austin. I lived in Waco at the time about equidistant from both airports so the drive was the same. The trip was arranged by the company so was working for at the time . It was a return flight from a company convention. I had my wife and in-laws pick me up in Dallas and we drove home from there. I never told my coworkers what I was doing.
If the fare is paid the airline still get the same amount of revenue, they may even save on fuel depending on the weight of the people doing this. Another comment mentions that airlines constantly over book, so they should wind their necks in.
So, an airline may penalize you for skipping the last leg of your flight, calling it a breach of contract ... but it's ok for them to overbook a flight and bump passengers? How is them deliberately selling a ticket not a contract, itself? And selling a ticket they intentionally won't be able to honor seems like a breach of contract too.
*My fellow travelers, please try not to inconvenience the airlines.* Their money and money is important to them. Please be as considerate to them, as they are to you.
Does anyone else notice that one way tickets are sometimes equal to round trip price? If you want to go to A->B->C it's often cheaper to do A-B-A round trip with a B-C-B round trip squashed in the middle. For a total itinerary of ABCBA. Why? It's literally less money if you pay them to fly you 4 legs instead of 3
So get your act together, airlines. Having recently booked a flight from the Canada to the US, West Coast to East Coast, the price variations were ridiculous and as always, increasing as I returned to a previous search.
If the ticket for the trip is paid in full, they have been compensated for what they sold. It’s up to me as a traveler to use it how I wish. They are manipulating prices to compete passengers can manipulate tickets for real market rates.
With the random number generator (yield management) used by Airlines, they found out at start of Covid that their fancy software would lower prices to way below cost because they were programmed to lower fares to fill empty seats. (but instead of a few empty seats per flight, this time it was all seats). The ability of yield management to offer below cost fares means that if they wish to compere on YYZ-SEA, they will offer YYZ-YVR-SEA to price match competition if there is some spare capacity on each flight since not selling the ticket means 0 revenus for that seat so greater loss than selling ticket at very low price.
On international flight, inter-government agreements may apply. The airline might be fined by the (stopover) government for unauthorized de-planements. And, as stated in the video, there are airport fees.
Like many have said, the passenger paid the fare given, so it’s fair game. One thing to add is that if the flight is full, employee stand by will appreciate the empty seat given up lol
I've never skiplagged but I did once purchase a round trip ticket booked backwards and only used the 1st ticket. This was because the Round trip excursion fare was almost 1/2 off the One Way Ticket! (a rare event but it happens sometimes). Example: I wanted to travel only one way from Chicago to Los Angeles and I'm in Los Angeles. I bought a Round trip Chicago-Los Angeles-Chicago. When I arrived in Chicago by car, I then flew back using the Chicago Los Angeles outbound ticket and threw the return ticket away and still saved 45% over a 1way. I could also check luggage since I was actually flying that 1st leg.
Another useful hack is that business travellers are willing to pay more, therefore transatlantic return flights are more expensive when the stay duration is shorter at your destination. If you travel often on business, then you can book A -> B leaving on day W, B -> A returning on day Z, B -> A leaving on day X, and A -> B returning on day Y. The trick is that the chronological order is W-X-Y-Z, and you book W and Z with one airline, while X and Y is another return ticket booked with a different airline.
I'd never heard of an airline suing passengers for this? I am surprised they would waste their money and attorneys time for only hundreds of dollars in fare difference.
I've done it before but it was unintentional. I had scheduled a series of flights that was supposed to go through a particular city and the airlines changed the routes on me, and so I was left with a first leg of a multi-leg trip that I was unable to take because the changed route had sent me to the second city on the multi-stop flight, so I got on at that intermediate airport and continued the rest of the trip. Airlines really only have themselves to blame if they screw customers on their flights, though, so I felt no guilt about it whatsoever.
the international is tricky, because US-international does not allow deep discount on one way. For US domestic, one way deep discount is available. Years ago, I traveled IAD to Denver and Durango frequently. The IAD direct to DEN was usually expensive unless booked well in advance, while IAD-Dur was cheap booked even a few days before. So I think is possible for me to book IAD-Dur one way, skip the DEN-DUR portion. Summer afternoon in DEN frequently have thunderstorms and flight delays, or a short connection and make the excuse that I missed and did my work in DEN. Presumably for the return trick, I would book DEN to some city that connects through IAD. Never tried this. There was one year end, I was just short of 1K, booked IAD-ORD-MCO both ways because IAD-MCO round trip was not sufficient, though I only needed the connection for one direction of the trip. Not sure if this was cheaper than direct, but it was cheapest option to make 1k. On the return MCO-ORD was overbooked and their computer automatically rebooked me direct.
Atlanta is a business destination and a lot of flyers are flying on the company dime. Orlando is a tourist destination so people flying there are on vacation and do not have the same amount of money as a business traveler. I saw a flight from Sacramento to Atlanta for about $800.00 Sacramento to Orlando through Atlanta was about $500.00. And it was the same flight to Atlanta that cost $800.00
_We’re not leaving until All the seats are full kids._ *What do they call it when someone else uses second leg of the trip rather than going to waist?* _Or do they have to go through screening check for same name on ticket?_
I ran a business. I know there are times you have to set things up cockeyed in order to turn a profit. But if a customer discovers the inequity, and the customer takes advantage, you don't go telling them they're the bad guy. Not if you care about your customer. Not if you care about repeat business. Unless you're an airline, apparently!
seems to me if airlines wanna be mad about this they need to fix the not-uncommon failure mode for connecting flights (you don't make the connection or it's canceled due to weather ect) and the overly complex ticket pricing. this is just people seeing how the system works and using it the way it works then the bean counters getting mad because they found out real life is more complected then their excel spreadsheet said it was. this would be something like booking a 3 day hotel deal, only using 2 and not expecting compensation for the day you didn't use, what does the hotel have to complain about? or ordering a meal deal but not taking the fries, renting a car and returning it a day early, i could go on and on.
Look airline companies were bailed out after countless stock buybacks basically making sure their top got an extra pay day meanwhile their whole company had to be saved by taxpayers. They have very little room to complain. This is like hospitals saying people shouldn’t have the right to shop around multiple “quotes” while they charge 1000% over cost for simple things.
It's difficult for me to shed a tear on behalf of airlines. They feel cheated, but what passenger doesn't feel cheated having to pay an extra fee for a seat assignment or checked bag?
Before I retired, I was quite a frequent flyer - particularly in Australia. I for over 20 years, I had a Club Louge membership, with both British Airways and QUANTAS. Therefore usually flew Business or Club cass - sometimes Frst. It would have been very foolish to put any of these benefits at risk. I might add that Itravelled when possible, without checked in luggage, It is surprising how much you can fit into one of those portable ‘carryo on’ hand luggage which has been specifically designed for this purpose, and as lap-top computers (aka notebooks) became
Started skip lagging in the 1990s. Got one-ways in both directions for a round trip that cost less than a round trip ticket. Given the number of round trip flights I’ve been bumped off, I have no qualms using skip lagging if available.
Back in the 90s I lived in Dallas and wanted to travel to Indianapolis. Booking a flight from Tulsa to Indianapolis with a Dallas layover (each way) was so much cheaper than Dallas to Indianapolis (same plane for that leg) that I saved a bunch of money flying one way to Tulsa then on the way home I had only carry on, and de-planed in Dallas. At that time I don't think it was called Skiplagging. It was called stickin it to the man.
I skiplagged one time from Vancouver to Dallas with a connection to Austin, getting off at Dallas. It saved me around 500USD on the round trip, but when I got to the airport for the return trip they made me buy a new ticket for the flight at 800USD so I overall lost 300. Wouldn't recommend unless booking a 1 way
I appreciate that frustration of having to account for someone on a flight they have no intention of boarding, but airlines routinely do much worse by overbook flights and letting that chaos exist, so they have no dignity to say anything about skiplagging as far as I'm concerned.
extremely similar to the thought I had
Overbooking is a pain for sure, but look at it this way. People will book a flight for 6am lets say, then miss it, and expect to be rebooked on a later flight. Now their seat went empty at 6am, wasting the time/fuel for that seat that could have carried someone. Overbooking wouldn't have become a thing if passengers actually kept to their travel plans, but plans change and things come up in life. It's a tricky thing to manage.
@@Commentcritic36 If I understand the term "skiplagging" correctly (as described in the video), there is no rebooking whatsoever. In which case, that seat that you consider "wasted" has been fully paid for. With or without an actual a$$ in the seat, the money for the fuel and time has been paid. So I fail to see the airlines' problem....
If your comment refers to the general practice of overbooking (and is therefore unrelated to the video), that is a very poor excuse used by the airlines to squeeze every single cent possible at the expense of their customers. I live in Europe, where overbooking is very rare, and I was truly surprised the first time I heard that it is possible to be kicked out of the seat that you FULLY PAID FOR....
Exactly. The companies make a lot of people flying around undesired routes / longer journeys for profit, it's a clownery, and it's hugely unsustainable.
Wish I could thumbs up this twice. While I don't do it, airlines really have no footing to stand on to whine about it when they overbook and bump people all the time
Think of it this way: a restaurant offers a set 2-course lunch which is cheaper than buying a single course from the a la carte menu. Should the guest be punished if they eat their main course, but not their dessert? I don't think so!
a perfect analogy! you aren't costing the airline any extra, you are just proving that their current pricing system is flawed.
would be like booking a 3 day weekend deal at a hotel, checking in Friday, checking out Saturday and then the hotel being mad at you for the inconvenience of not filling the room on Sunday! even though you still payed for the full deal and didn't ask for any refund.
I have heard of hotels charging extra for early checkouts, if the guests purchased a special deal (e.g. 7 nights for 5). But it's rare!
I’d eat the dessert….
@@Locutus and that would be silly and really easy for the guest to deal with.
"Never mind then" and then just leave and call to check out on the actual checkout day.
@@ARockRaider Daily housekeeping can check if anyone is in the room.
It's the airlines' pricing algorithms that make skiplagging possible. They have no right to be unhappy.
Always makes me smile when airlines get beat at their own game
Exactly, it’s an issue entirely of their own making
Exactly. It's only possible because of the pricing structures that THEY set and THEY have full and sole control over. If they don't want passengers skiplagging, don't set pricing that makes it worthwhile.
Airlines greed and passengers greed is a hurricane meets a volcano.
Preach!!!
I did this last week, the direct flight was 350 euros while the skipleg version was only 100 euros. I asked the check in lady that I would like to receive my luggage at the first airport due to "luggage problems lately at european airports". I walked out the airport and did not hear anything from the airline. So worth the risk.
Did you have a return flight?
@@canyonoverlook9937 I did not
@@canyonoverlook9937 I think you meant to ask if they *booked* a return ticket. If they had booked one there is a still a good chance they did not have return flight.
If airlines hate it so much, why don't they just normalize the ticket prices so that there is no incentive for passengers to use the technique? Oh maybe because they want to squeeze out extra profit when they have an artificially high demand route.
The answer is in the video.
That’s why I fly Private.
@@MamacitaBonita ok trust fund baby
@@truedarklander trust fund baby?
@@sargechurch1 IT SUGGESTS THAT THEY WERE BORN INTO WEALTH.
I think it is okay to leave that seat empty to the final leg, because it is, after all, already paid-for.
Just like someone can rent your house for three months, trash it at the end of month two and vacate, and that, by your logic, is “okay” because that final month is already “paid-for”. Got it.
@@rontiemens2553 bad logic Ron. There is no additional cost to airline for not using final leg. In fact, there is a minimal savings on fuel for lower weight.
@@rontiemens2553 how are they trashing the plane lmao
Just like someone can pay for and rent your home for 3 months but only stay in it for 2.
There fixed it.
@@rontiemens2553 What? It’s nothing like that. There is NO additional cost to the airline here. None. Nada. Zilch.
Airlines are themselves to blame. The reason is just another attempt at creating artificial price differences, just like with when people book their flights. But this time they don't fully control all parameters, and thus it's unreasonable to blame passengers for an artificial problem the airlines create for themselves and their passengers. If you can't offer a direct flight, and are forced to offer a connecting flight cheaper to compete, accept the skip-lagging or just don't offer the competing flight.
in the example for Air Canada, the airlines also pay exorbitant air improvement fees to the local Airport Authority that are then passed directly to the consumer, which never happens anywhere else in the world. Canada has some of the worst airline fees in the world added to our tickets making things sooo much more expensive. hence why most people prefer to drive over the border to fly to Sun Destinations or anywhere in the States.
@@mississaugaicedogs oh boo hoo, flying is a quite polluting mode of travel anyway. Higher costs means people fly less. But i really wish north america had better trains, including across the US-CAN border
@@mississaugaicedogs In Canada airlines break out all taxes and fees. That is not true in many countries. The fees are usually there but hidden.
I admit that there are some places where tourists are the number one industry and airport improvements are subsidized by the local government to make it cheaper to arrive. In those places you are paying for the airport with taxes on attraction tickets and hotel rooms.
What if I told you that the alternative to this pricing structure is ridiculously high pricing on lesser demand routes, or simply not having those routes at all?
The system as is works to essentially subsidize other destinations, to better serve more consumers. It's a net win for consumers, who get more destinations, and the airline, who get more loyal customers when they can fly to more locations at reasonable costs.
@@LowJSamuel extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Claiming the pricing structure is a net-win for airlines, I can easily accept that. They control the pricing structure and have a profit motive.
Claiming it's a net win for customers, that requires proving that on average the customers benefit more from this then it costs them. Your argument only proves that it benefits some customers, but not by how much value, which part of the customers benefit, and at what cost to the remaining customers?
Yes, I've done this before. What I don't get, is why should the airline care if the seat is physically empty? You already paid for the ticket, so they got their fare. Besides, less passengers means less weight, so more fuel savings for the airline
i think you nailed it. This channel must be running out of things to talk about. seems to be non issue to me. like you said. the airlines received their money and did not even have to fulfill their part of the contract. no one has had any financial damage at all.
@@eurobrowarriormonk7182 not necessarily true, the time it takes to offload a single bag once the airline notices a passenger hasn’t boarded a flight could be a lot depending on when the bag was loaded. if the plane has to stay on the ground for an extra 30 minutes to offload a bag that was one of the first on the plane, that’s an extra 30 minutes of airport fees that the airline has to pay
when you have several of these situations happening at an airport, happening at several airports, it adds up quickly
@@eurobrowarriormonk7182 SF are discussing it because A; it’s something interesting about the airline industry which many aviation enthusiasts have never heard of, B; it is in the news due to lawsuits from airlines, and C; participation in such an activity by an uninformed traveller may result in unexpected consequences.
@@eurobrowarriormonk7182 stop watching then and then we don't have to read your nonsensical comments
They care that they did not squeeze as much money from you as they hoped for (or as their pricing algorithm said they could have)
Gotta love airlines doing anything other than acknowledging that their fare systems are flawed
When I see same flight be 49-450$ Based on the day there is a problem
None of you have heard of “supply and demand”, I take it?
@@vondahe for sure but I don’t agree with gouging
@@PS-zw4yc I also don’t like paying what I consider to be unnecessary premiums but the fact is we all do that. Just imagine the actual cost of a perfume (or medicine) vs what you pay for it.
@@vondahe I definitely have. If, however, those rules of "supply and demand" lead to airlines supplying certain itineraries at rates they would prefer not to supply them at, doesn't that mean that there is some design flaw in the way the product is supplied or priced?
It is ethical. If the system wasn't so greedy, passengers wouldn't have to go down that route.
Yup if airports themselves too weren't so greedy on their fees we wouldn't have this problem either.
@@kisstune - that's the real problem. Airlines are super competitive. They're offering the lowest prices they can. If they didn't, they'd lose business
@@UserNameAnonymous But the flip side of offering “lowest possible”, also means highest possible. It’s about finding the right ticket price equation at the right time to maximize profits for that flight. However, in the long run, I believe that this system hurt the airline industry because it frustrates consumers and creates an antagonistic relationship with the customer. This is the big problem of Capitalism that is slowly being fixed. People prefer stability to the occasional cheap ticket.
@@Fractured_Unity - the point of everything I just said: they probably do it for a reason. It's much easier for a business to align prices with cost. They go through a lot of trouble to do it differently.
@@UserNameAnonymous I see their reasoning, but I’m arguing that it’s flawed logic and their models aren’t complete.
"They're unable to fill a physically empty seat for one flight."
Oh, boo-hoo, can't charge twice for the same seat.
This. This. This.
They actually sell seats twice. Overbooking is normal for airlines.
They can and do though. At least in the US they can overbook seats and sell it at the last minute(for a premium) if no one shows up and they aren't already overbooked. It's completely ethical to skip any part of a flight you're paying for.
They literally don't care about the empty seat.
It's more about how they subsidize the cheaper, lesser demand destination with the fares from the higher demand destination. They're able to make more destinations viable with this type of pricing structure, in order to serve more people. It is very selfish to game the system, as if everyone did it, it would ultimately mean that many smaller locations would be underserved, or priced far too high for anyone there to fly.
@@LowJSamuel that makes absolutely no sense. It's selfish to not bank roll a corporation getting paid for a service to a smaller community? Isn't that what taxes are for? Doesn't the government already subsidize these small communities? Why wouldn't the price to fly to the smaller community simply be higher, with profits they already make from other operations subsidizing the remainder?
This is what happens when you use planes in place of trains. Tortured reasoning to justify prices to some random hodunk. Maybe stop going there in the most expensive mode of travel, or leave it to small charters.
The danger of this is when the airline has to re-book your flight last minute or for weather. They're only obligated to fly you to your intended destination on your ticket. It could connect in another city or be a non-stop.
true. risk accepted!
Yes, and this is a risk some people are willing to accept.
@@RockitFX1 Indeed. I do it often, and at great savings.
But you aren't obligated to accept their itinerary. Just tell them you are rebooking on a different airline for a more direct route, earlier arrival time, better seat, whatever your excuse. If your original flight is canceled you will be refunded.
Also remembered reading of an economy passenger upset when SIA switched him to a non-non-stop flight from SIN-JFK (after he'd paid for his ticket) because the airline was planning to remove economy class seats from its A345s (the only aircraft it had at the time that had the range to fly non-stop between those 2 cities)
Lol it’s funny they are willing to schedule flights they know they can’t staff and then try their best to not refund the tickets. But when people take advantage of the airline it’s wrong!
No sympathy from me on people taking advantage of the companies that have no problems taking advantage of them!
You are soooooo right..they want to offer you a credit for a future flight because the flight time you chose, they never intended to fly but just let you buy to get your money knowing full well the time you chose is always cancelled due to lack of passengers!
I’ve never heard the term, but knew of the practice. I haven’t done it but have bought a return ticket and not used the return leg. The return was cheaper than a one way on the route.
This is the craziest one of all!
I wonder how that happened. Was it one of those low cost airline where to need to pay for everything extras? If their profit is in the extras, maybe the actual ticket is a "loss leader" and a two way ticket is twice as profitable as a one way? Does anyone *know*? (The comments on this video are full of BS. )
during covid, I needed to meet someone who was stranded in istanbul airport airside (long story) but I didn't have the right covid documents to meet the entry criteria for Turkey, so I booked a flight to Ukraine via turkey and was able to meet and them and we flew back to the UK together. I had no clue it was skiplagging or that it was controversial!!
Totally justified in your case, for sure. You weren't exactly cheating the airline, just helping out a friend. How'd you get home?
totally acceptable for your case
You also violated Turkey's Covid precautions/restrictions and snuck into the country.
@@vincent412l7 They didn't leave the airport, so technically never entered into the country. No different than if they had a layover for a few hours.
Totally acceptable in EVERY case. (correction of the comments of some others here)
I once "skiplagged" many years ago, but it wasn't for the purpose of getting a cheaper fare - I had a change in plans, the savings I could have gotten by changing the ticket were eliminated by the fees charged by the airline to do said change.
The public perspective on an airline pursing penalty against a person for doing this would be their downfall. Thanks for the idea :D
It all depends on whether the media wants to cover it and how they cover it.
Airline: plays games
Paying passenger: also plays games
Airline: THAT'S NOT FAIR!
Seems like airlines can stop the practice altogether by pricing their fares correctly. It should never be more expensive to fly one leg than it is to fly two.
The fare for the high demand destination subsidize the fares for the lower demand destination. This makes more destinations viable. Otherwise, the airline would have to charge far more for destinations people are not willing to pay much to go to, so nobody would fly them, so they would cancel the whole route.
Good for consumers because we get more routes. The benefit to the airline is they amass a more loyal customer base who find they can rely on the airline to take them anywhere they need to go.
@@LowJSamuel I don't think its true. Why would an airline keep doing a route that is not profitable for them? Thats just bad business practice.
@@niconico3907 The route may end up being slightly profitable for them, or maybe not. But having more routes available means more people will be loyal to your airline, whereas if you were missing a bunch of destinations, customers would be loyal elsewhere. This is beneficial in two ways: 1) they're more likely to select your airline when they fly to a profitable destination and 2) most of the profit from airlines nowadays comes from their loyalty programs and selling frequent flyer miles to credit card companies for rewards and such.
@@LowJSamuel I don't think people are loyals to any airline, they just go with the cheapest, best service, best time of departure, most direct route they can find.
@@niconico3907 There definitely is loyal customers.
The part that seems to be missing is they can’t physically force someone to stay on a plane lol.
Don't give United any ideas...
@@elcheapo5302 😂😂😂
@@elcheapo5302 you don’t think that every airline understands this
I do this by booking a flight to the U.S. but with a final destination in Canada, this works anytime I connect through the U.S. as all passengers, even if their connecting have to recheck their bags. So I usually just grab my bags and go.
This is genius and probably the first time I've heard anyone using US Customs to their advantage. 😅😆 I guess it's easier if you have a strong passport too.
That’s gangsta 😎
I did this once, when I had a flight MEM - CLT - IAD but had a change of plans and wanted to fly MEM - CLT - MCO instead. The airline refused to change my ticket, insisting there wasn't a seat available on the MEM - CLT leg, even though I would have been occupying it either way (brain dead booking system). So I simply booked CLT - MCO on another airline and didn't check any luggage in order to get where I wanted to go.
If airlines can overbook, passengers should also be allowed to skip lag
Overbooking is a consequence of skiplagging. People skipping that flight opens the seat up for the a second paying customer. Airline profits off both.
@@Skylane_Pilot I highly doubt it is a consequence of that alone. Even if it were, skiplagging is a consequence of how airlines price their tickets so in most cases they could easily get rid of it by offering a reasonable deal.
@@Skylane_Pilot Are you sure that airlines would not over book if this stopped existing? Doubt.
Both of these practices (overbooking and disallowing skiplagging) keep prices down for consumers.
When you get kicked off an overbooked flight, you almost always bought a ticket at less than cost (basic economy or equivalent) and knew the risk.
@@LowJSamuel Can you provide evidence on how both of those things keep prices down?
Airlines have no right to be offended or to cancel the return ticket. They shouldn't charge more for a single flight then a linking flight. They shouldn't over book. They basically do this to themselves. If two flights are cheaper then just one flight.... that's an issue.
The passengers on the big popular routes subsidize the people flying to lower-demand destinations.
@@UserNameAnonymous that's not exactly true though, those lower demand destinations just have a lower margin of profit, they're not running at a loss.
In essence the airline is grumpy over a loss of profit margin.
@@luipaardprint - You're right that my statement isn't completely true, but it's not completely false either. If the airlines weren't making the big profit off the high demand routes, they would have to increase prices on the smaller routes to maintain the same level of profitability.
@@UserNameAnonymous doesn't make it right. It's literally stealing from one to give to another.
@@UserNameAnonymous haha yeah that works for me too, in that sense it is a subsidy.
Yea. Sort of done it once and the airport staff was incredibly helpful about it. Although, we hadn’t booked the tickets with this intention, that is essentially what we did.
So, we were trailing in a group from Billund, Denmark to Sweden. The host of the event we’ve attended in Denmark had booked the tickets and had us all going to Arlanda airport.
However. All of us where living in the south of Sweden and had already endured a five hour long train journey to get to Stockholm. So at Billund we just explained the situation and asked to have our bags just checked for Copenhagen. There we took a half an hour train ride over the bridge.
This explains something that happened to me that I couldn't make sense of. I was flying from DFW to Grand Rapids via Chicago a few years ago. Turbulence on the flight into Chicago was so bad that after landing, I was throwing up in an ORD bathroom. I couldn't bear the thought of boarding another flight two hours later, so I called the airline and told them I wouldn't be flying -- I'd rent a car or take a train. They were insistent -- I HAD to fly that next leg. It made no sense to me. Why did it matter so much to them? I couldn't understand why they cared whether or not I was on that last flight. I wasn't even asking for a refund.
Here's the kicker -- I was flying as the spouse of an airline employee and wasn't paying for the flights anyway. Obviously I wasn't skiplagging. Maybe the customer service people I talked to were trained to say no to things like that because of people who were.
I had no idea this was a thing that airlines frowned upon. Ages ago my travel agent booked me a flight to Narita in Japan, but the flight actually was to Hong Kong with a stop over in Narita as i was told it was significantly cheaper than a direct flight to Narita. I just gathered my bags and remained in Japan. Never received any notification from the airline... it was a one way ticket so I didn't have to worry about inserting myself on the homeward flight.....
This is a consequence of the pricing practices that they employ. If they don’t like it, they should figure out the root of the problem instead of trying to make the practice illegal
I was on a flight Johannesburg-Paris-LHR because that was the return ticket I had, and then had a non-connecting flight to Brussels for a meeting I couldn't afford to miss. In CDG we ended up in a 3 hour delay and in the de-icing queue, by which time my onward flight from LHR was departing. I explained this to the CC, and asked if I could de-plane. The FO came back, checked my story and that I was hand baggage only, then arranged for an air stairs and a follow-me car to come out and collect me from the apron. I caught a TGV train to Brussels and made it on time. In this case AF facilitated my skiplegging and I thank them for it!
This is not a problem in trains where you can even resell your ticket for une remaining portion of travel. After all, the seat is booked and sold, there is no prejudice.
I almost did the opposite of this. Company paid for flight from a Medicine Hat airport to Calgary and then onto Heathrow. Wanted to spend a couple of nights in Calgary before flying back so asked if it would be ok if we just boarded at Calgary instead. The airline told us no....but then some other people did it anyway with no consequences
This is risky because if you don't board for the first leg they can cancel your whole ticket and in case they overbook the flight from Calgary to Heathrow they can put another passenger in your previously assigned seat...
@@MarceloTrindade1 That's exactly why I asked the airline first as I thought that may happen
@@tomstravels520 it should happen. If they called and offered to pay the difference in taxes and the change fee then I can see the change being done, but they usually won’t just delete the first leg without reissuing the whole ticket. But, it’s possible.
Could be you spoke to different agents/ some went to the small medecine hat airport and were told one thing and those who showed up in Calgary spoke to someone else/who knew how to recover the tickets.
Or, if the flight is short enough that they arrived at check in in Calgary before the flight from medicine hat departed, the first flight wouldn’t have been missed yet so the ticket would still be okay
American Airlines effectively forced us to do this, and as a consequence, skiplag on the flight back. It took them four hours to check us in at at the first airport by which time we had missed our flight by 30 minutes. However, the layover was long enough that we were able to drive to the second airport and catch the second leg to our destination. As our car was now at the wrong airport, we had to skip the second leg of the return flight.
if airlines dont like it then dont make the ticket substantially cheaper to take a connection. like the example of YYZ to SEA via YVR if i am only going to vancouver but its cheaper to pay for a further flight but not go on it thats the airlines problem because clearly they can charge less for the direct flight from YYZ to YVR since they are already charging less for that service plus another flight
That’s how Southwest Airlines thinks
For the record, you can do this with checked baggage if you need to clear customs since you’ll need to collect your baggage there and re check before boarding your next connection. I’ve done this at least 3 times this year for international travel. One time delta actually called my phone to make sure I wasn’t going to board. They had no problem with this.
I have. Flew United IAD-ATL, then return flight was ATL-IAD-PHI. Had my then 10yo kid with me, and had them play sick. Went to the gate for second leg, told the gate staff that kid wasn't going to be able to avoid vomiting, so we would drive the rest of the way, as we were staying in a town in between anyhow. Not sure if they bought it, but it was at least enough of an excuse to allow us to skip the flight with no repercussions. Saved about US$120 for the two of us. Which isn't much, but for a short flight the difference between $280 and $400 (for both of us) was significant. No checked bags, so didn't have to worry about that. And never heard a thing, still got full FF miles for the trip.
Hey. If the airline wants to charge less for a longer flight, it's their cross to bear, not mine. If their fares were rational, this wouldn't be a problem, for either them or me.
They're rational, you just don't understand them. They use the high fares for the higher demand locations to subsidize the lower fares for the lower demand locations. If they didn't do this, they simply wouldn't be able to serve those lower demand locations as nobody would pay the actual price to get there. They only keep these routes because they want customers to be loyal to their airline, but it is still better for consumers as more destinations are available.
@@LowJSamuel I'm well aware of what they're doing, but that does not justify the definition rational. They are purposefully irrational.
@@baylinkdashyt They're not irrational. They're rational once you get past the superficial "paying more for going less distance" question. The rationale behind them is to serve underserved destinations at a price point that people will actually pay to go to those destinations.
Although I have heard of this practice, this is first time I have heard the term "skip lagging"!
Back in the dark ages of travel (before baggage and seat assignment fees), the practice that was far more prevalent was 'hidden city' ticketing. That was when the airline made a stop enroute to your chosen destination (the hidden city) and you'd get off at that point. Southwest used to run these types of flights all the time (kinda like a Greyhound bus of the sky). This is just the same practice except with a change of plane/flight number. I heard the term about 15 or so years ago when Southwest (and smaller carriers) moved toward the hub and spoke. Probably originated in Europe, where you still have lots of hidden city opportunities.
I've done it a two times on Delta over the course of 3 years, once going home, and once leaving home. The second time I got a less-than-nice letter telling me to knock it off.
It's not financially or environmentally ethical to pay less for A-B B-C than just for A-B.
Skip lagging is not only justifiable but it should also be the norm. In the end the passenger paid for a service, and if they choose to use it or not its their problem, but they already paid. Same as if you book a hotel and never show up but still paid, it's the customers problem
It is environmentally ethical because the seats would be empty otherwise.
Essentially what is happening is they are subsidizing the flights to lesser demand locations with the fares from the higher demand locations. If they priced them normally, many people would not be willing to pay that much for the lower demand destination, so the plane would run mostly empty.
If the airline cancels the route then that area becomes underserved. May be better for the environment then, but screws over those communities.
I can't even begin to think about the ethics of this because the word "overbooking" is still ringing in my ears, years after I learned about it.
Morally, airlines don't have a wing to fly with.
I recently kind of skiplagged. Flew from Melbourne to Seattle via Sydney and Vancouver. My original plan was to start my holiday in Vancouver but that was too expensive. Booked through to Seattle and saved 500 dollars, booked a hotel for a few days and a bus to Vancouver and still saved money.
If airlines weren't so greedy to over-price their flights. This wouldn't be happening. It doesn't make sense that a longer flight is cheaper than a shorter one where the aircraft actually lands for a stopover
Look at their financial results. It’s not a terribly lucrative industry but yes, they do have the audacity to make money, those greedy b******s.
True but you have to remember how hard this industry is. They make very little profits anyway.
@@xx4884xx they make a ton of profit
It's amazing how, for all the fabled greed and swimming in piles of money, airlines have a weird tendency of losing money and going bankrupt.
You're accusing them of overpricing their flights because a longer flight is CHEAPER than a shorter flight? Have you considered that they're underpricing the longer flight because fewer people are willing to pay the higher, more appropriate price, for that destination?
While not skipjacking another practice was of courier companies during the1980's.
Frequently the 10pm departure to New York would have 2 LD-3 containers stuffed with 35lb courier bags.
One company took advantage of a $20 fare to send a courier on that flight. Normally there would be as much as 12000lbs of courier bags for the one hour flight down the coast. The problem they had was frequently no body to make the flight. The carrier had a simpler solution, call up a name from the standby list and assign that person as the "courier". For the carrier this represented many hundreds of dollars in "excess baggage" fees.
The beginning of the end of On Board Couriers was PA103 in Lockerbie. My company had 3 containers of courier cargo on board. Checked in as baggage. My company spent 6 months with the authorities identifying exactly who the shippers and receivers were, and then having the authorities do background checks on them.
Thanks for explaining what happened to the old "warm body" courier system. I used to fly free by signing up to be a courier. Sure do miss it!
I once did this on a UA flight with an international component and checked luggage. I had to tell them about the checked luggage and pay a penalty to hav the bags rerouted to be able to pick up the bags. The airline staff seemed genuinely angry with me and acted like I did something morally repugnant, it seemed like quite an overreaction. I was worried about UA banning me but I have since flown with them many times and without issue.
Unbelivable! This is a real life version of the "one simple trick, airlines hate him" thing. 😅
I did that twice. Once Aruba-Amsterdam-Dusseldorf and came off in Amsterdam (KLM) I had no checked luggage with me and I didn't use my frequent flyer number.
Second time was Brussels-Amsterdam-Kuala Lumpur | Bangkok-Amsterdam-Brussels. The first Brussel leg was with plane, so I had to start my journey in BRU (I live in The Netherlands). On my way back to NL, I came off in Amsterdam and could get my checked bags without problems, because I booked AMS-BRU with Thalys train. I did that specifically becaise I knew I was getting off at Schiphol. Got all my miles.
Note: even if your first leg is with a train, you do need a stamp proving that you took the train to Amsterdam Schiphol. If not, you will not be checked-in and they will cancel your complete ticket,... or you have to pay a penalty. I saved €550,-
I've skip lagged before, and I'm about to do it again in about 2 weeks. The excuse that I used was that I came into contact with someone who has covid. 😁
It's true that it's a delicate balance, but the savings are significant if you're only traveling with carry on luggage.
Understandably, airlines would sue someone in order to discourage other people from doing it, but it's always going to be a PR nightmare for them. Also, I doubt they would risk alienating a loyal customer to their competition by canceling their elite status over a few hundred dollars. That would cost them a lot more in the long run considering how much a customer spends to achieve elite status.
Ultimately, airlines should hate it, but there's not much they can do about it unless it becomes a widely used strategy by the general public.
That's a great idea - "I didn't get on the plane because I wasn't feeling well".
We thought about skiplagging the exact route you mentioned YYZ->YVR->SEA. But found it still cheaper to fly all the way to Seattle and then take the ferry back to Vancouver. So we enjoyed a day in Seattle as an addition to the trip.
I guess I technically skiplagged once, but it wasn't voluntary.
It was a work trip to a Oshkosh (not an aviation related job, just a coincidence), during tornado season. We had a connection in Chicago to get to either Green Bay or Appleton, I forget which, but on arrival in Chicago the entire route was blocked with storms. So the flight got delayed, then cancelled. Since we were on a schedule, we were told to get a rental car and drive the rest of the way.
Job done, time to go home.
The bean counter that held the purse strings for the trip decided that the fee for returning the car to a different airport was unacceptable so we were instructed to take it back to Chicago and pick up our flight from there...
We got on the right flight, but it was a huge hassle, we basically had to fly standby for our own seats.
I live in the Seattle area and for years it's been a well-known trick that if you're flying to Eastern Canada you'll want to drive up to Vancouver and fly from there. It's only a 3-hour drive and it can save you several hundred dollars off the airfare. The same can be done when flying to the eastern US. You'll want to drive the 3-hour trip south to Portland, Oregon and leave from there. The flight can often be cheaper and for some reason frequently flies through Seattle to get where you're going.
'The Airline Passenger's Guerrilla Handbook' (1989) by George Albert Brown explains all sorts of similar tricks. I once converted a company-bought air ticket back and forth to Toronto, into one that merely stopped at Toronto and continued on to include a side trip to Bermuda. The price delta was less than $2. Unfortunately, something came up and I never did get to Bermuda (the Toronto-Bermuda legs were never used). But I was able to use the return trip (4th leg) without any issue. I think I merely had to explain that my plans changed. This was decades ago.
Yes. I bought that book as a teenager!
Once had to skip legging on an transatlantic flight due stomach problems, I did however inform the airline that I wanted medical aid, they (Iberia as Madrid partner of American and operation of the next leg) advised me of an English speaking doctor, took me from the flight list offloaded my luggage and (!!!) gave my a ( not time limited) voucher for a train to my last leg, since I were not going to make it for their last flight at this day. At the end of planed stay in Madrid I took the train to France, went to the airport and flew back with BA/AA as planned. Saved a few hundred bucks, could ride TGV/AVE train and staffed at a smaller airport without any hassle. Only disadvantage travelling through Heathrow…
Soooo….airlines are angry that THEIR fare systems are flawed.
As a retired economics professor it's always fascinating to me when social discourse deploys the word 'should' in conversations like this. A guy with two chainsaws *will* sell one of them for a lot more than it's worth in the hours and days after a hurricane. People will save money by skiplagging. Should has nothing to do with it, any more than it would make sense to say that solid water should sink in liquid water because the opposite is unfair to students trying to learn the rules.
That would be true if humans were robotically unable to see any benefits beyond monetary. Monetary incentives are but one consideration the sentient human being can make.
The laws of physics you compared the chainsaw scenario to are inevitable.
Human decisions are not mindless reactions in the way that something heavy sinks. We have judgment, empathy and morals, not just self interest.
@@brianarbenz7206 That was an impressively erudite and condescending reply, except for the small problem that the observable data reveals it to be false. A guy with two chainsaws *WILL* sell one of them for a lot more than he paid, in the hours and days after a hurricane. It's not that the words 'should' and 'shouldn't' should or shouldn't enter into it; it's that they DON'T. Observably, and objectively. Which has the effect of decoding your erudite and condescending reply down to, "Well yeah, the guy could sell the chainsaw for an exorbitant price, but he SHOULDN'T because he's got morals and ... um ... judgement, and stuff."
Far from the superiority that you'd so convinced yourself was yours before you replied, what you actually did is disqualify yourself form those very kinds of respect by answering in a way that was overtly non-responsive.
You're a child if you think that observable data is superseded by shared morals. Literally. That's *exactly* what children think, tough-guy.
Usually the air stewardess would suggest I claim that I’m ‘under the weather’ to finish the second lag. And most check-in clerk would understand and allow bag only checked to the stopover and not all the way to the destination.
A couple of years ago Australian airlines jacked up thier airfares between Perth and Melbourne nearly 100% for the AFL Grand Final. People worked out it was cheaper to book a flight from Perth to New Zealand with a stop over in Melbourne. They never did see New Zealand, but they did see the Grand Final
When I skiplagg, I check in at the desk of the flight I'm not going to take and explain I feel a fever and a sore throat coming on, and don't want to take the additional flight. Never had a problem.
Surely the simplistic way to solve this is to pitch fares at a sensible price for each leg. The more legs the higher the cost so no gain to skip lag.
Been a while but when I lived in Paris. I used to use this all the time.
Sometimes the price difference was insane!
Similarly, it's sometimes cheaper to book round-trip and then simply not take the return trip
My question is this: How is leaving you're PAID seat empty costing the airline ANY additional money?? After all they will save slightly on fuel and as an added bonus the other passengers sitting next to the empty seat will simply have more room, which anyone can appreciate.
Yes I have skip lagged on a return flight with a layover. The layover was in Dallas and the final destination was Austin. I lived in Waco at the time about equidistant from both airports so the drive was the same. The trip was arranged by the company so was working for at the time . It was a return flight from a company convention. I had my wife and in-laws pick me up in Dallas and we drove home from there. I never told my coworkers what I was doing.
If the fare is paid the airline still get the same amount of revenue, they may even save on fuel depending on the weight of the people doing this. Another comment mentions that airlines constantly over book, so they should wind their necks in.
So, an airline may penalize you for skipping the last leg of your flight, calling it a breach of contract ... but it's ok for them to overbook a flight and bump passengers? How is them deliberately selling a ticket not a contract, itself? And selling a ticket they intentionally won't be able to honor seems like a breach of contract too.
*My fellow travelers, please try not to inconvenience the airlines.* Their money and money is important to them. Please be as considerate to them, as they are to you.
Does anyone else notice that one way tickets are sometimes equal to round trip price?
If you want to go to A->B->C it's often cheaper to do A-B-A round trip with a B-C-B round trip squashed in the middle. For a total itinerary of ABCBA. Why? It's literally less money if you pay them to fly you 4 legs instead of 3
So get your act together, airlines.
Having recently booked a flight from the Canada to the US, West Coast to East Coast, the price variations were ridiculous and as always, increasing as I returned to a previous search.
If the ticket for the trip is paid in full, they have been compensated for what they sold. It’s up to me as a traveler to use it how I wish. They are manipulating prices to compete passengers can manipulate tickets for real market rates.
With the random number generator (yield management) used by Airlines, they found out at start of Covid that their fancy software would lower prices to way below cost because they were programmed to lower fares to fill empty seats. (but instead of a few empty seats per flight, this time it was all seats).
The ability of yield management to offer below cost fares means that if they wish to compere on YYZ-SEA, they will offer YYZ-YVR-SEA to price match competition if there is some spare capacity on each flight since not selling the ticket means 0 revenus for that seat so greater loss than selling ticket at very low price.
I’ve done this on Southwest (BOS to MCI via STL). STL was the destination, but a direct flight was $100 more.
If you pay for the ticket why does it mater if I finish the travel?
On international flight, inter-government agreements may apply. The airline might be fined by the (stopover) government for unauthorized de-planements. And, as stated in the video, there are airport fees.
Like many have said, the passenger paid the fare given, so it’s fair game. One thing to add is that if the flight is full, employee stand by will appreciate the empty seat given up lol
Him at the start: "Money is a finite resource"
Governments: "is that a challenge"
Would the term “skiplagging” also include the practice of buying a round trip ticket and only taking it one way? Or is that something different?
Good question. I have sometimes seen return fares cheaper than one way.
I've never skiplagged but I did once purchase a round trip ticket booked backwards and only used the 1st ticket. This was because the Round trip excursion fare was almost 1/2 off the One Way Ticket! (a rare event but it happens sometimes). Example: I wanted to travel only one way from Chicago to Los Angeles and I'm in Los Angeles. I bought a Round trip Chicago-Los Angeles-Chicago. When I arrived in Chicago by car, I then flew back using the Chicago Los Angeles outbound ticket and threw the return ticket away and still saved 45% over a 1way. I could also check luggage since I was actually flying that 1st leg.
Another useful hack is that business travellers are willing to pay more, therefore transatlantic return flights are more expensive when the stay duration is shorter at your destination. If you travel often on business, then you can book A -> B leaving on day W, B -> A returning on day Z, B -> A leaving on day X, and A -> B returning on day Y. The trick is that the chronological order is W-X-Y-Z, and you book W and Z with one airline, while X and Y is another return ticket booked with a different airline.
I'd never heard of an airline suing passengers for this? I am surprised they would waste their money and attorneys time for only hundreds of dollars in fare difference.
I've done it before but it was unintentional. I had scheduled a series of flights that was supposed to go through a particular city and the airlines changed the routes on me, and so I was left with a first leg of a multi-leg trip that I was unable to take because the changed route had sent me to the second city on the multi-stop flight, so I got on at that intermediate airport and continued the rest of the trip. Airlines really only have themselves to blame if they screw customers on their flights, though, so I felt no guilt about it whatsoever.
the international is tricky, because US-international does not allow deep discount on one way. For US domestic, one way deep discount is available. Years ago, I traveled IAD to Denver and Durango frequently. The IAD direct to DEN was usually expensive unless booked well in advance, while IAD-Dur was cheap booked even a few days before. So I think is possible for me to book IAD-Dur one way, skip the DEN-DUR portion. Summer afternoon in DEN frequently have thunderstorms and flight delays, or a short connection and make the excuse that I missed and did my work in DEN.
Presumably for the return trick, I would book DEN to some city that connects through IAD. Never tried this.
There was one year end, I was just short of 1K, booked IAD-ORD-MCO both ways because IAD-MCO round trip was not sufficient, though I only needed the connection for one direction of the trip. Not sure if this was cheaper than direct, but it was cheapest option to make 1k. On the return MCO-ORD was overbooked and their computer automatically rebooked me direct.
Atlanta is a business destination and a lot of flyers are flying on the company dime. Orlando is a tourist destination so people flying there are on vacation and do not have the same amount of money as a business traveler. I saw a flight from Sacramento to Atlanta for about $800.00 Sacramento to Orlando through Atlanta was about $500.00. And it was the same flight to Atlanta that cost $800.00
_We’re not leaving until All the seats are full kids._
*What do they call it when someone else uses second leg of the trip rather than going to waist?*
_Or do they have to go through screening check for same name on ticket?_
I do this every time I can! At least once or twice a year.... And been doing it for the past 10 years! Totally worth it, I have saved so much.
I ran a business. I know there are times you have to set things up cockeyed in order to turn a profit. But if a customer discovers the inequity, and the customer takes advantage, you don't go telling them they're the bad guy. Not if you care about your customer. Not if you care about repeat business.
Unless you're an airline, apparently!
seems to me if airlines wanna be mad about this they need to fix the not-uncommon failure mode for connecting flights (you don't make the connection or it's canceled due to weather ect)
and the overly complex ticket pricing.
this is just people seeing how the system works and using it the way it works then the bean counters getting mad because they found out real life is more complected then their excel spreadsheet said it was.
this would be something like booking a 3 day hotel deal, only using 2 and not expecting compensation for the day you didn't use, what does the hotel have to complain about?
or ordering a meal deal but not taking the fries, renting a car and returning it a day early, i could go on and on.
Look airline companies were bailed out after countless stock buybacks basically making sure their top got an extra pay day meanwhile their whole company had to be saved by taxpayers. They have very little room to complain. This is like hospitals saying people shouldn’t have the right to shop around multiple “quotes” while they charge 1000% over cost for simple things.
It's difficult for me to shed a tear on behalf of airlines. They feel cheated, but what passenger doesn't feel cheated having to pay an extra fee for a seat assignment or checked bag?
Before I retired, I was quite a frequent flyer - particularly in Australia. I for over 20 years, I had a Club Louge membership, with both British Airways and QUANTAS. Therefore usually flew Business or Club cass - sometimes Frst. It would have been very foolish to put any of these benefits at risk. I might add that Itravelled when possible, without checked in luggage, It is surprising how much you can fit into one of those portable ‘carryo on’ hand luggage which has been specifically designed for this purpose, and as lap-top computers (aka notebooks) became
Never 👎 heard of skip-lagging till today.
Started skip lagging in the 1990s. Got one-ways in both directions for a round trip that cost less than a round trip ticket. Given the number of round trip flights I’ve been bumped off, I have no qualms using skip lagging if available.
Back in the 90s I lived in Dallas and wanted to travel to Indianapolis. Booking a flight from Tulsa to Indianapolis with a Dallas layover (each way) was so much cheaper than Dallas to Indianapolis (same plane for that leg) that I saved a bunch of money flying one way to Tulsa then on the way home I had only carry on, and de-planed in Dallas. At that time I don't think it was called Skiplagging. It was called stickin it to the man.
Are you sure it’s not called skiplegging? Would make a little more sense
Good idea, but there is a very easy way to answer that question. ;-)
Ok but after your checked baggage has been unloaded from the second flight before departure where does it go?
I haven't done this but I have boought a round rrip when I only needed a one way because it was cheaper.
This is sort like how it's cheaper to buy a round trip ticket rather than one way. Do you get penalized for not taking the return trip?
I don't understand what the problem is. If the seat is already paid for, what difference does it make to them if it's empty or occupied?
If things were ethically priced to begin with this wouldn't be an issue.
When the airlines are barred from selling more tickets than they have seats is when anyone should worry about a paid for empty seat.
I skiplagged one time from Vancouver to Dallas with a connection to Austin, getting off at Dallas. It saved me around 500USD on the round trip, but when I got to the airport for the return trip they made me buy a new ticket for the flight at 800USD so I overall lost 300. Wouldn't recommend unless booking a 1 way
Maybe airlines should stop charging more for shorter flights.
Is this the same as booking a return flight but actually not intending to return that date because a return ticket was cheaper than a single?