Fodor's Travel Talk Forums

Fodor's Travel Talk Forums (https://www.fodors.com/community/)
-   Air Travel (https://www.fodors.com/community/air-travel/)
-   -   What Happens if I Miss a Connection and Decide Not to Fly on? (https://www.fodors.com/community/air-travel/what-happens-if-i-miss-a-connection-and-decide-not-to-fly-on-543757/)

2tired2night Jul 12th, 2005 08:36 PM

What Happens if I Miss a Connection and Decide Not to Fly on?
 
I am trying to make plans to fly from the east coast to Los Angeles. The ITA software shows a great flight to San Francisco via a two hour LAX layover. What happens if I fly to Los Angeles and simply get off the plane there? No checked luggage, obviously. But would I have to let the airline know I wasn't traveling on because of some "problem"? Yes, before you say anything, I know airlines do not condone this practice. But they should realize that, if a person can save $100 off the cost of a flight by not even taking the last leg, somebody's going to try it. The question is, how much trouble does it cause?

rkkwan Jul 12th, 2005 09:07 PM

No problem if the leg you're not flying is the <b>very last</b> of your whole itinerary. If this is the outbound journey of a R/T ticket, then your return will be cancelled.

2tired2night Jul 12th, 2005 09:10 PM

Will I be on some sort of security list as a result of getting off the plane?

rkkwan Jul 12th, 2005 09:20 PM

No. Lots of people do it. Just keep quiet.

2tired2night Jul 12th, 2005 09:30 PM

right oh. thanks.

travelphile Jul 13th, 2005 08:17 AM

Can they really cancel your return trip b/c you chose not to take a flight you PAID for?? Is this standard on all airlines or do just some play dirty like that? (sorry if this seems naive, but I'm shocked that would be standard practice!)

BeachBoi Jul 13th, 2005 08:26 AM

travelphile...Standard Procedure...The rationale behind that is that if you miss ANY flight due to a No Show in your itinerary, then your intention to complete your journey as originally booked is then negated.In airline lingo, its cancelling the downline space.So if you are booked Atlanta to Dallas connecting to Las Vegas and returning same routing and you decide to get off at Dallas at the first of your trip, then the remainder is cancelled.Just one of those &quot;from day one&quot; airline procedures.

AAFrequentFlyer Jul 13th, 2005 08:58 AM

There is little more to that....

Let's say airline AAA has a fare of $200 from City A to city B.

Airline BBB does not have a direct flight between the 2 cities but can offer the service if you connect in city CCC.

Airline B will try to match Airline's A fare between the 2 cities (AAA-BBB), BUT that's where it becomes tricky.

Airline B has a monopoly on the City AAA to city CCC route so they charge $400 for a R/t on that route.

So, they need to write the restriction into their fare T&amp;C to assure themselves that you will not use the 3rd city to purchase the ticket but only fly to the connecting city. If it was allowed they could not compete against Airline A on the other route.

So, it works for both sides and it is a lot more complicated but it's not just a little invention of any one airline. If you want competition and deeply discounted fares then this restriction helps to maintain it.

AAFrequentFlyer Jul 13th, 2005 09:00 AM

Sorry, I messed up the airlines and the cities, but hopefully you'll get the idea.

Gardyloo Jul 13th, 2005 09:00 AM

This is called &quot;hidden city&quot; ticketing and United Airlines' definition below is the norm.

<i>Hidden city ticketing is the booking and ticket issuance of travel documents containing segments not intended for use. This is done in an attempt to manipulate the pricing structure. By using coupons out of order, the traveler violates the conditions of contract and voids the entire ticket.</i>

2tired2night Jul 13th, 2005 09:42 AM

Well, in my opinion it is ridiculous not to simply pay &quot;by the mile&quot; for trips. I can't see paying $100 more for a shorter trip. Maybe I'll break my ankle on the layover and be unable to continue on.

AAFrequentFlyer Jul 13th, 2005 09:51 AM

Then buy the unrestricted full fare ticket, just in case &quot;you do break your ankle&quot;.

You want a cheap fare but you also want to have total flexibility. It doesn't work that way. The deeply discounted economy fares barely pay the bills. They are offered for a limited number of seats. They also come with MANY restrictions.

If you do not want to be restricted to the rules of the unreal fare then dig deeper in your pocket and buy a fare that actually makes the airline some money, in which case you could do whatever you want.






AAFrequentFlyer Jul 13th, 2005 09:54 AM

One more thing...

If airfares were priced &quot;by the mile&quot;

majority of people would probably never fly as the average domestic fare would be ~$500-$1000 and international would be ~$2000-$3000. Is that what you want?

2tired2night Jul 13th, 2005 10:03 AM

Why do you assume that?

Obviously some flights would be more expensive, and some would be cheaper. But there would be some integrity and consistency about the pricing. If I can fly further (2 legs, more gas, more paperwork) for less money, NO WONDER airlines are all going bankrupt. Don't cite the airlines' labyrinthine method of monopolies and restrictions for setting fares, as that obviously hasn't made them in the least competitive in the marketplace.

AAFrequentFlyer Jul 13th, 2005 10:17 AM

Please do some research as to passenger per mile cost and come back to debate. You will be shocked.

The only reason the casual once a year flyer can visit every corner of the earth these days is because of the airlines complicated fare structure.

I flew Lufthansa to Europe in 1978 and the cheapest fare (when there were no complicated fare structures) was $400+. This was 1978. Oil was about $30 a barrel, airplanes were about 1/2 cheaper to buy/lease, employees were making about a 1/3 of today's wages.

See my point.

Gardyloo Jul 13th, 2005 10:29 AM

The time the plane is on the ground is not revenue-producing time for the airline. Shorter flights means more hours per day loading/offloading, changing crews, fueling up, doing preflights, taxiing, etc. etc. On a per-seat basis this makes short flights lots more expensive per clock hour than longer flights. Since they then fly short routes, the resultant cost per traveled mile is way, way higher than longer flights.

2tired2night Jul 13th, 2005 10:44 AM

Then what is the rationale of charging less for a long flight + very short flight than for a long flight alone?

And AAFF; &quot;The deeply discounted economy fares barely pay the bills.&quot;
Then they should stop charging those fares.


'I flew Lufthansa to Europe in 1978 and the cheapest fare (when there were no complicated fare structures) was $400+. This was 1978. Oil was about $30 a barrel, airplanes were about 1/2 cheaper to buy/lease, employees were making about a 1/3 of today's wages.

See my point. &quot; No, I don't! The point is that the price of a commodity is what the market will bear, and no more. If oil was half of its current cost, and airplanes cost half of their current cost, and wages were a third of todays' (when a ticket cost $400), then a ticket to Germany should cost, say, around $800 or $900. That's about what a ticket costs, isn't it?

Despite your protestations to the contrary, some airlines---notably Southwest and Virgin Air---are able to remain solvent, offer a <b>superior</b> product and offer lower prices than the behemoths that are on their way to extinction.


AAFrequentFlyer Jul 13th, 2005 11:23 AM

First - the Lufthansa fare was a late spring/early summer fare - about the same price this year, almost 30 years later.
Second - back then the government taxes and fees added up to ~$25. Today ~$150.

Go do the math.

You go ahead and wish for your &quot;per mile&quot; charge. I guarantee that if it happened, Greyhound would look loke a very attractive option for domestic travel and Europe would become a true fantasy for most.

Gardyloo Jul 13th, 2005 11:53 AM

<i>Then what is the rationale of charging less for a long flight + very short flight than for a long flight alone?</i>

Because the higher fare buckets on the nonstop can be sold off to people who can't afford the extra time.

2tired2night Jul 13th, 2005 01:01 PM

At the end of the day, the &quot;major&quot; airlines are all in financial difficulties, asking for government concessions, defaulting on pension agreements, cutting workers' salaries, and giving poorer customer service.

I'd say that is not a rousing endorsement of &quot;business as usual&quot; as the airlines are practicing it now.

And except for the time difference, the flight experience is beginning to bear a resemblance to a bus ride, anyway--except that busses are more spacious.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:54 AM.