I have frequently noted that ultimate destinations are less expensive than going direct to a given airline's hub.

for instance, air france to amsterdam is always less than air france to paris despite that all flights to schipol are routed thru charles de gaulle. this is often also the case when the ultimate destination is london.

i've noticed this with lufthansa and other carriers. other than the fine print, what's to prevent one from exiting in paris and subsequently boarding again at CDG for the return leg?

has anyone had any experience with actually trying this?

There is a perfectly good explanation why the pricing happens the way it does. But that's for another time.
Now to answer your question, If you had a ticket to Amsterdam through Paris on Air France or whatever other airline and decided to stop your journey in Paris, your return ticket is cancelled. No questions asked, no excuses, just cancelled. You would have to buy one-way ticket home at the last minute. Imagine how much that would cost you? I would not recommend this!!!
Have a great trip.

Hi subcon,

AAFF has it right. Especially since 9/11, a passenger who doesn't show up at the ticketed destination is viewed with suspicion.

I agree with AAFRequentFlyer completely. The practice is called "hidden city" ticketing and the only time you can do it without risking an expensive disaster is on the final leg of your round-trip flight. (Even then, the carrier may technically have the right to come after you for the fare differential, but if you simply missed the plane and found an alternative way home, what case could be made?) Best advice: don't do it.

Fares are heavily based on market considerations and only loosely tied to actual costs. That's why it can cost you twice as much or more to fly r/t from a regional airport to a hub as it might to continue on to Europe, even though that r/t overseas trip might include the same legs back and forth from the hub to your home airport. People complain about this, but lower fares overall have made air travel possible for many more people much more often compared to what the far fewer who could afford flying in the days before deregulation. The system has its quirks, but it works for consumers more often than not.

ira,
thanks for the support, but please don't confuse security issues with fare rules. Not finishing your trip has all to do with fare rules, not security. And in the above scenario, the airlines are very strict in enforcing the rules.

Hi AAFF,
Ok, I won't.

since this was more a rhetorical question as i'm not likely try this, it still begs the question of why the fare is less expensive.

perhaps aafrequentflyer can fill me in on the economic logic behind this if he/she has the time.

There has to be logic?

I will be glad to, but you have to remember this is only an example, as there are always exceptions to every rule.

I will use American Airlines and their major hub in Dallas. Since AA controls majority of the traffic to Dallas, it does not have much of a competition, meaning they will charge whatever the market will support, so let's say they charge $500 for a R/T from my home airport of Tampa. I as a customer don't have much of a choice, if I really have to be in Dallas, so I will pay.
Now, let's say Soutwest has a sale from Tampa to Los Angeles for $250 R/T. In order to compete, AA has to match the price, BUT, and here is where your question comes in, they don't have a direct flight to LAX, only with a connection in Dallas. So, they will fly me to LAX for $250 to compete with Southwest and it will be the exact same flight to Dallas that it would cost me $500 if that was my final destination. So you could see, why they get really ticked, if you try to bypass their fare structure by buying a ticket to LAX and only flying to DFW.
All airlines are in business to make money. Some markets they and they alone control(as in AA and the Caribbean, majority anyway), and they will charge as much as people are willing to pay, thus, hopefully, make most of their money. In markets where they have to compete heavily, they will go as low as it takes, just to keep their market share(in theory). That's where the hub system weird pricing comes in. Cheaper to fly on, then to actually fly to the hub.
Weird but true.

Substitute any airline and their hubs(as in Air France and CDG) and you will get the same picture.

aafrequentflyer

thank you for the reply. as you explain, it makes sense in a way. since schipol is the most heavily trafficed airport in europe (for connections), i can see the interest for air france in maintaining a presence.

but as you also say, wierd indeed.