Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Skiplagged sued by United and Orbitz

skiplagged.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 146 posts

Re: Skiplagged sued by United and Orbitz

#61

Post by sjwright »

hayksaakian wrote: post #5

This sounds absurd. This is the best analogy i've come up with: A Sandwich shop sells half sandwiches at 5$ and full sandwiches at 6$ You, and a friend would both like half a sandwich. Instead of ordering two separate halves. You order only 1 full sandwich and cut it in half yourself. Now the sandwich shop is suing you because you paid $6 for one sandwich, and only ate half of it. That's instead of paying 10$ for two…

Let me improve that analogy.

Subway update their pricing such that a footlong sells for $5 and a six inch sub costs $7. Looking at those prices, you purchase a footlong sandwich. Should Subway be allowed to demand $2 from you if they see you discarding half of the sandwich?

Re: Skiplagged sued by United and Orbitz

#62

Post by A1kmm »

hayksaakian wrote: post #39

to put this in laymans terms: imagine you want to go from city A to city B normally you would search for tickets from A-B however, during your search, you would NOT see tickets that go from A-B-C. why is that relevant? sometimes tickets from A-B-C are cheaper than A-B. so you would buy a ticket (A-B-C) and simply leave the airport of city B (not boarding the B-C flight). the website in question made it easier to find…

> This website is simply _enabling_ people who intend to > violate this (potential) term of their airline ticket > agreement.

Which might, in some jurisdictions, open the website operators to claims of tortious interference (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference) if they can prove that the site operator knew about the contractual term and incited people to breach it.

Hopefully a term requiring someone to take a flight is unenforceable (if such a term even exists) - so that might give them a defence even if such a term exists.

Re: Skiplagged sued by United and Orbitz

#63

Post by quesera »

hayksaakian wrote: post #39

to put this in laymans terms: imagine you want to go from city A to city B normally you would search for tickets from A-B however, during your search, you would NOT see tickets that go from A-B-C. why is that relevant? sometimes tickets from A-B-C are cheaper than A-B. so you would buy a ticket (A-B-C) and simply leave the airport of city B (not boarding the B-C flight). the website in question made it easier to find…

I think most people have, at some point, chosen between available flights based on layover city. I know I have. So there's a distinct utility offered, separate from any missed connections.

It's very hard for me to imagine a contract that includes "once you get on the plane, you must not miss your connecting flight".

Heck, I wish I could get the airlines to say "once you're on the plane, we will make sure your connecting flight doesn't leave without you", but of course that's impractical.

This is just silly.

Re: Skiplagged sued by United and Orbitz

#64

Post by tacticus »

beejiu wrote: post #54
rtpg wrote: post #22

Can someone explain the harm this causes the airlines? I get there's a bit of an opportunity cost because they'll have an empty seat, but apart from that? I feel there's something more here

The airport will have to pay airport tax at the airport the passenger leaves, which could be more than at the destination proper.

aren't landing fees charged for all pax landing including those who will transfer.

Re: Skiplagged sued by United and Orbitz

#65

Post by rsanheim »

bentcorner wrote: post #40

The definition of "hidden city ticketing" appears to be "book A -> B -> C, get off at B". Out of curiosity, is it all possible to book A -> B -> C, and travel the B -> C leg? Would the airline sell your seat if you didn't show up at A?

That is definitely not possible, your whole ticket will get cancelled as the airline assumes a no-show.

Re: Skiplagged sued by United and Orbitz

#66

Post by quesera »

A1kmm wrote: post #62
hayksaakian wrote: post #39

to put this in laymans terms: imagine you want to go from city A to city B normally you would search for tickets from A-B however, during your search, you would NOT see tickets that go from A-B-C. why is that relevant? sometimes tickets from A-B-C are cheaper than A-B. so you would buy a ticket (A-B-C) and simply leave the airport of city B (not boarding the B-C flight). the website in question made it easier to find…

> This website is simply _enabling_ people who intend to > violate this (potential) term of their airline ticket > agreement. Which might, in some jurisdictions, open the website operators to claims of tortious interference ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference ) if they can prove that the site operator knew about the contractual term and incited people to breach it. Hopefully a term requiring someone…

> if they can prove that the site operator knew about the contractual term and incited people to breach it.

Notably, the contract didn't yet exist at the time of involvement of the site operator.

At the point of ticket purchase / contractual agreement, the site operator is not involved, and in fact the operator has no knowledge of whether a contract was entered at all.

Re: Skiplagged sued by United and Orbitz

#67

Post by djloche »

A smart airline would flag few people that do this and put them in a high-touch queue where the airline confirms if they intend to stay on for the final leg of the flight. If no, the airline modifies the passenger's flight details and makes it an A-B flight, and the seat on the B-C flight is marked available for purchase (maybe at a discount last-minute type price). If Yes, nothing changes. This way the airline can still sell that ticket. Savvy customer is happy with high-touch customer service, airline makes more money.

Re: Skiplagged sued by United and Orbitz

#69

Post by leeoniya »

Pyxl101 wrote: post #44

> “Purchasing a ticket to a point beyond the actual destination and getting off the aircraft at the connecting point is unethical,” according to the letter by American, which isn’t party to the case. “It is tantamount to switching price tags to obtain a lower price on goods sold at department stores.” What in the world? How is that comparison anywhere near remotely justifiable? Absolutely ridiculous. > American Airli…

> "Purchasing a ticket to a point beyond the actual destination and getting off the aircraft at the connecting point is unethical"

Was that 'unethical' as in, "Price gouging and charging what the market will bear," or 'unethical' as in [1]? Someone must be confused.

[1] http://business.time.com/2012/06/26/orbitz-shows-higher-pric...

Re: Skiplagged sued by United and Orbitz

#70

Post by slapshot »

Pyxl101 wrote: post #44

> “Purchasing a ticket to a point beyond the actual destination and getting off the aircraft at the connecting point is unethical,” according to the letter by American, which isn’t party to the case. “It is tantamount to switching price tags to obtain a lower price on goods sold at department stores.” What in the world? How is that comparison anywhere near remotely justifiable? Absolutely ridiculous. > American Airli…

> Price each ticket based on what it costs and a fair margin

That sounds great in theory, but airlines are the textbook example of "what it costs" not making sense. An airplane costs almost the same to fly from New York to San Francisco whether it's completely empty or completely full. The margin cost of fuel for your 150 lbs of body and 50 lbs of luggage is pennies compared to the cost to operate the airplane generally (e.g., a 777-300ER costs about $320 million today, or a lease payment of about $45,000 per DAY [1]... plus depreciation of the engines, maintenance, inspections, flight crew, cabin crew, etc).

How do you divide that up? If you assume 100% capacity on every flight, the airlines will be even broker than they already are (airlines are hardly raking in money: American Airlines filed for bankruptcy in 2011, Delta and Northwest in 2005, US Airways in 2004, United in 2002, and US Airways again in 2002...). [2]

If you assume something in the middle, maybe 70%, then you end up with a silly situation where seats are flying empty even though the airline would be happy to sell then for 50% off and people would be willing to fill them for 50% off.

Then add the fact that first class passengers are willing to subsidize the rest of the cabin... and so are people who need flexible fares, etc.

Airline seats are a lot like software in that there isn't a good way to figure out "charge what it costs." On average, we know the airlines are charging slightly LESS than what it costs to operate an airline. But it's not like gasoline where you can figure out how much it costs to refine a gallon and then charge a small markup.

[1] http://www.myairlease.com/resources/fleetstatus [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_bankruptcies_in_the_Uni...

Post reply on HN