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

Jury awards American Airline $9.4M from website behind 'skiplagging' hack

courthousenews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 121 posts

Re: Jury awards American Airline $9.4M from website behind 'skiplagging' hack

#21

Post by animal_spirits »

diziet wrote: post #3
jmward01 wrote: post #2

Seems like this practice in general shows that a true free market doesn't exist in the airline industry. If it did exist then flights like these wouldn't be profitable to sell in the first place.

I could imagine situations where airlines need to get pilots/crew/planes to some location for the next flight and somehow recoup costs there, and are willing to cut prices on such multileg flights to take business away from their competitors... but I generally agree with your statement.

Yep, it is not just travelers going to destinations that compete for chairs on an airplane but also workers of the airline too. The larger airlines have to balance these priorities

Re: Jury awards American Airline $9.4M from website behind 'skiplagging' hack

#22

Post by onlypassingthru »

> Skiplagging is not illegal, but airlines view it as a policy violation that is grounds for termination of a traveler’s entire itinerary since the airline can't sell the empty seat in the onward flight.

'Can't' or 'aren't supposed to'? Airlines oversell flights ALL THE TIME. This just allows them to double sell the seat without having to ask anyone to volunteer for a free flight credit on a later flight. Seems like a win-win.

Re: Jury awards American Airline $9.4M from website behind 'skiplagging' hack

#23

Post by nneonneo »

librish wrote: post #4

I'm surprised that this common enough that it's worthwhile for airlines to fight it. It requires both: - Flight being meaningfully cheaper using hidden city and - Traveller is willing to deal with the restrictions (no carry-on, risk of route changing, no frequent flyer etc).

The former is more common than you might think: hub-and-spoke airlines compete on route pricing, but if an airline doesn’t offer a particular direct flight, then it has to offer an indirect one for a comparable price.

This is why you get these weird pricing patterns where the direct flight costs more than the indirect one. They’re deliberately trimming their margins on certain passengers to compete, hoping to make up the lost revenue with direct fliers (or fliers on more expensive routes).

The restrictions aren’t that onerous if you’re really trying to fly for cheap. Business travelers probably won’t do it, but there’s lots of folks who just fly for personal reasons (think: sports fans going to their team’s game, people visiting family, etc.) and who might be willing to put up with the slight risks for a cheaper fare.

Re: Jury awards American Airline $9.4M from website behind 'skiplagging' hack

#24

Post by mtlynch »

librish wrote: post #4

I'm surprised that this common enough that it's worthwhile for airlines to fight it. It requires both: - Flight being meaningfully cheaper using hidden city and - Traveller is willing to deal with the restrictions (no carry-on, risk of route changing, no frequent flyer etc).

>* the restrictions (no carry-on, ...*

You mean no checked baggage, right? Carry-on is fine.

Re: Jury awards American Airline $9.4M from website behind 'skiplagging' hack

#25

Post by radpanda »

bhouston wrote: post #8

Well, Skiplagged is still in business and this probably just drives more traffic to their website as this raises awareness. Apparently they have had more than $100M in ticket sales, if not much more.

Any idea what percentage of their sales are actually hidden city itineraries? Every time I’ve searched with them I’ve seen few or no hidden city results, but I guess it’s neat to be aware of the option if it does exist.

Re: Jury awards American Airline $9.4M from website behind 'skiplagging' hack

#26

Post by jmward01 »

diziet wrote: post #3
jmward01 wrote: post #2

Seems like this practice in general shows that a true free market doesn't exist in the airline industry. If it did exist then flights like these wouldn't be profitable to sell in the first place.

I could imagine situations where airlines need to get pilots/crew/planes to some location for the next flight and somehow recoup costs there, and are willing to cut prices on such multileg flights to take business away from their competitors... but I generally agree with your statement.

That doesn't explain why that would make the price cheaper to keep someone on the flight than letting them get off. It may be a meaningless difference, or even the same price, but cheaper to have the extra leg doesn't make sense if there is competition. That person has weight if nothing else and that costs money to haul.

Re: Jury awards American Airline $9.4M from website behind 'skiplagging' hack

#27

Post by SturgeonsLaw »

ejddhbrbrrnrn wrote: post #16

I am on the airlines side really. They set the fare from A to B. If you start have people skipping they can no longer offer the competitive fares. The solution could be fines for doing it as a general principle. They also may cause delays due to final calls, security and manifest checks etc.

I'm not sure that's the case, "offering competitive fares" implies that they are trying to charge less, however no business is going to sue for their right to charge less money. They want to charge more, and are using the legal system to help achieve that end.

Re: Jury awards American Airline $9.4M from website behind 'skiplagging' hack

#28

Post by 361994752 »

wongarsu wrote: post #7

> Skiplagging is not illegal, but airlines view it as a policy violation that is grounds for termination of a traveler’s entire itinerary since the airline can't sell the empty seat in the onward flight. The poor airline, unable to sell an empty seat because ... checks notes ... the seat is already sold to someone, and that person decided not to show up. Truly the horror. Just think of all the revenue the airline los…

Will this verdict stop Skiplagged from continuing its business in the future, either legally or financially? Or is it more like a one-time penalty they have to pay

Re: Jury awards American Airline $9.4M from website behind 'skiplagging' hack

#29

Post by Glyptodon »

ejddhbrbrrnrn wrote: post #16

I am on the airlines side really. They set the fare from A to B. If you start have people skipping they can no longer offer the competitive fares. The solution could be fines for doing it as a general principle. They also may cause delays due to final calls, security and manifest checks etc.

Shouldn't be the opposite? If a route goes ABC, they'd have to sell AB and BC separately instead of bundled? No more "skipping" and any trip that's not direct can freely be assembled from legs on any airline?

Re: Jury awards American Airline $9.4M from website behind 'skiplagging' hack

#30

Post by nneonneo »

radpanda wrote: post #20
librish wrote: post #4

I'm surprised that this common enough that it's worthwhile for airlines to fight it. It requires both: - Flight being meaningfully cheaper using hidden city and - Traveller is willing to deal with the restrictions (no carry-on, risk of route changing, no frequent flyer etc).

Agreed. I like the idea of being hostile to the airlines so I’ve used Skiplagged to search for flights before but I’ve never found a hidden city itinerary that I actually wanted to take. I’m guessing it probably makes sense with certain airports with high fees near concentrations of wealth? E.g. maybe London->NYC costs more than London(->NYC)->Albany because NYC airports have high fees and airlines presume wealthier…

I don’t even think it’s a “wealthier clientele” thing.

Some routes are literally subsidized - for example, the Essential Air Service program pays airlines to run flights to places that would otherwise be unprofitable to fly to, and due to the grants the airlines can offer the complete route for (relatively) cheap. So, for example, it might be expensive to fly New York to Chicago, but subsidized (and cheaper) to fly New York to Podunk via Chicago. But if lots of travelers catch wind of this, and pretend to go to Podunk only to get off at Chicago, then the air carrier doesn’t get their subsidy.

Post reply on HN