Why aren't Airline tickets transferable?
 

I just read about this gripe on the other thread, and have always been curious about this. Sometimes, I wait to buy tickets because I'm not sure if my husband will be able to come with us. If he can't go, I'd like to be able to give the ticket to my mom.<BR><BR>Why can't you transfer them? I can see that it causes a little bit of paperwork, but go ahead and charge a nominal fee, like $25 or $50. Surely the cost of switching the name on the ticket and in the system can only be a fraction of that amount, and should be able to be completed in a matter of minutes. They could even but a deadline of a certain number of days prior to the flight to allow you to do this.<BR><BR>Why son't they allow this? Other than to force the purchase of a new ticket if your travel companion changes?

If every airline allowed people to transfer unused tickets to friends of theirs the airlines would be even more bankrupt than they are now.

Full Fare is transferable.

Why? Especially if they charged a processing fee (which they could actually MAKE money from). I wish someone could explain how allowing transfers would banrupt an airline? A ticket is a ticket. If it costs a few bucks to change the name, then let them make a profit from that. <BR><BR>It doesn't seem right that if someone gets sick, or has to work, or can't use their ticket, that it has to be wasted and if you want to travel with someone else in their place a new ticket needs to be purchased.

Yes, I understand that full fare is transferable. But who, other than last minute fliers or those on the company dime, is paying full fare? I don't know anyone who does.

I think it is obvious that if airlines allowed people to give away tickets this would cause selling which takes the industry right out of the hands of the airlines. They are on the brink of bankrupcy now not sure if they could handle further losses.<BR><BR>What I think is a bigger problem is when you don't get credit for trips you miss. I recently went to book a flight to New Zealand and had this problem. United Airlines told me if I cancelled I could only a 50% credit towards my next trip. They said this was a new policy for the route.

Nina, you pay full fare to be able to transfer or have it refunded.

Brad brings up a good point. People would just be scalping plane tickets. As for the bankrupt theories, airlines need revenue. If you buy a $200 ticket and eat it, they're up $200. If you pay $50 to transfer it and now someone fills that seat AND the plane is over booked, their revenue is -$150, relative to you eating the $200 and them being able to fill the seat. Thus, as long as they are able to fill that seat with another passenger who might have been bumped if you showed up, it makes financial sense for them to make the cheapest fares non-transferable.

OK, it never occured to me that people would sell the tickets. I was just thinking of giving them to someone else to travel with you.<BR><BR>Well, if they won't allow that, then they should allow you to pay a fee and give you credit for a future flight.<BR><BR>Maybe if some airline thought more about customer service they would actually gain a larger market share, and some loyalty. What a concept, be the first airline to actually think of the customer first and allow ticket transfers to family members or to be given credit for the flight to be used on another. <BR><BR>Improved customer service worked for JetBlue, maybe some of these other struggling airlines ought to give it a shot.

Ok, it's late in the day, I'm tired, and I'm not making the connection: Why would scalping tickets hurt the airlines? It doesn't hurt sports teams.<BR><BR>I mean, if someone paid $300 for a ticket and then sold it to someone else for X dollars, the airline still makes the $300. Now, if you're saying that the airlines count on paid no-shows to turn a profit, I guess I understand that. But that doesn't seem to be in the explanations so far.

Good point Scalp! Yeah, how about it? Why would the airlines care who uses the ticket so long as they get the money they charged for it???

ok once more, the reason they would care is because the business gets taken out of their hands. <BR><BR>When only they are selling tickets they get more control and more cash. Remember if you bought your ticket at discount prices maybe early, you later decide not to go well, we all know what happens to seats bought at the last minute, they sky rocket in price giving the airlines more money. Opening up tickets for transfer, scalping whatever you want to call it makes all of this possible.

scalping makes all of this impossible

I think I get it. So then the airlines are counting on last minute cancellations and no shows as big profit centers for them, correct?

they are counting on everything including those rediculous change fees, current jacked up fares, stop over charges etc.<BR><BR>Are they due, I am not an economist. I do worry about more damage that would take us to the days when only very wealthy people traveled.

It seems the airlines is the only industry where you can buy a ticket, and if for some unfortunate reason you can't use it, you can't get a refund, you can't resell it, you can't redeem it for a future ticket, or can't get credit. Wow. I can't think of a single other situation where the customer gets so royally screwed.

(I hope this discussion stays on the civil level. I'll try my best to keep it that way.)<BR><BR>The idea of "taking the business out of their hands" seems nebulous at best. It's already taken out of their hands when when wholesaling travel agents buy up blocks of tickets at a discount and then sell them to customers. You can call that what you want, but in my book it's scalping.<BR><BR>But I will buy x's explanation (which is what I first asked about) that airlines count on paid no-shows so that they can sell the seat twice.<BR><BR>Which leads me to a hypothetical question: Suppose I had a ticket for a Boston-Orlando flight that stopped in NY. And suppose I was visiting my Aunt Minnie in NY and decided that instead of driving back to Boston, I'll just stay in NY and pick up the flight at that leg. Do they have to give me the seat?<BR><BR>I think I know the answer, but all I've ever seen on this is that you can't get OFF at the interim stop, but nothing about getting ON there.

When you see airfares to Hawaii for over $1000 on a regular basis, no refund even of credit as mentioned above you gotta be a little worried. YUCK can you imagine if United goes belly up and American is the leader, no more competition, I mean real competition they way AA and UAL use to go at it. I miss those days of cheapo travel, kind of gives me a warm moment. Wasn't that much different than the Virgin/British Airways battle. We all benefited.

scalp if you have been watching the airlines as I have over the years you will notice that the wholesale travel agents are all but disappearing. <BR><BR>Orbitz is one of the clearest examples of this. Still even when they did allow for wholesalers they could pick and choose who they did business with. The larger argument though is still that this type of business has slowed considerably. So the message I got from this is that they want to hold the golden eggs.<BR><BR>P.S yes you can't get on unless you started the flight from the get go. Yes this is thier way of screwing you. I just don't know how much we can complain at the moment they seem to be in so much trouble.<BR>

I think anyone who says airline tickets are expensive shows a lack of perspective.<BR><BR>Compared to what? In the 1970s, I bought a house in the D.C. suburbs for $55K. I bet that house goes for at least $300K now -- a 600% increase. Gasoline in 1974: 65 cents/gallon. Today: $1.45 -- 115% increase. In 1974, I bought a round-trip ticket to Vegas for $350. Today, if I hunt around, I can find a ticket for the same price. <BR><BR>I disagree about price. I think air travel is a bargain (though the service rots).

Scalp, not only will they not let you fly the next leg, the will cancel the rest of your roundtrip ticket if you miss your flight. So Boston-NY-Orlando then Orlando-NY-Boston, the Ny-Orlando and the Orlando-NY-Boston part would be cancelled by the airline.

Scalp, remember, most technoligies actually decrease in cost disproportionately over the years. Look at cell phones, computers, etc. They are getting cheaper, or at least holding their price while housing, etc. increases.<BR><BR>I'm not complaining about the price, just about the lack of service. The above example of taking only a partial leg of a flight is a perfect example. They've got the customers by the kahoona's and they know it.

Nina, I was the one who brought this gripe to the other thread. Talk show host Bruce Williams, a consumer-advocate type, has long been behind a (still small) movement to force airlines to end their tyranny with regard to some of their selling practices. There's even a bill in Congress called the Consumer-Friendly Ticket Transfer Act.<BR><BR>You can go to his website and click on Airline Issues for more information. It's time for us consumers to rise up!

Forgot to add the URL:<BR><BR>http://www.brucewilliams.com/

Thanks Joan, I agree. It just so happens that because of his job, my husband has had to postpone or change flights, and I'd love to be able to give his ticket to my mom or sister. It seems wrong that I can't do this and basically have to end up eating the cost.

The airlines are now suffering for the poor way they've treated customers. They don't give anything until they are hurting and then cry for government bailouts.

yeah a simple idea if you don't want to think about how much some transportation industries are to maintain. Are you thinking the same about Amtrakk think they can't make a buck because of customer service? it is not that simple.<BR><BR>And you can't expect airline tickets to go down like cell phone charges. You are comparing technology to a service oriented industry. I just think if there was money to be made in the air you would see a lot more competition.

It started several years ago with the first round of increased security measures. Tickets became non-transferable and they asked all those questions and you had to have apicture ID.

It has nothing to do with security. If you transferred the ticket and reissued it with a different name for a fee, the person holding the ticket would still have to show ID and be the person whose name is on the ticket. That's just baloney. They just want to make it sound like a security issue.

Transferring airline tickets for a specific flight doesn't cost the airline anything at all. No more than giving your ticket to the theater or ballgame costs those entities. A seat can only be used once per event, not mutiple times. As long as the airline has been paid whatever they have charged for that seat, it shouldn't matter who flys with it. <BR><BR>Continulously transferring a ticket from flight to flight and person to person is an administravtive and accounting headeache for the airline, however. That's what they are trying to avoid, not a "same-flight" transfer, even though they don't allow either.<BR><BR>The airlines basically make tickets non-tranferrable for one reason - because they can. Baseball teams and symphony orchestras don't. As long as the seat is paid for, they don't care who is sitting in it. And neither shold the airlines.

well it's not a baseball game Dave. It is a different market all together.<BR><BR>Airlines can get more money by the demand they create with holding on to unused space. A theatre or ball ticket is not going to create (most situations) the same need and therefore demand. Maybe this happens because the rules would not be accepted in sports but the fact remains fans won't pay 1200 for every seat they can buy at the gate. <BR><BR>So yeah it does cost them to pass on this right.

To put it simpler:<BR><BR>The analogy of the airline seat vs. ballgame seat doesn't apply b/c the stadium does not charge more for a tix the closer to game time.<BR><BR>On a similar note, i went for quite some time w/o traveling by plane (just didn't have the need to) and have taken or plan on taking 4 RTs in the current 6 month period. I find it frustrating that the prices no longer change daily... they change hourly, and by a WIDE margin (and then often change back again!!) I've seen fares that are cheap, then go up in price, then go back down, all in a 24 hour period.<BR><BR>I'll take the security checks and the ID checking, but at least guarantee or honor a cheaper price for 48 hours after i book!!

1. The "technology is cheaper" argument just doesn't fly (pardon the pun). If it did, you'd be able to buy a new car for $2000 or take a round-the-world cruise for $1500. If you're going to classify airlines as an "emerging technology," I suggest you do a Google search on "Wright Brothers."<BR><BR>2. True, airplanes aren't football stadiums. But that's only because the airlines have made up their own rules. It's not as if they're laws of physics that can't be changed. Remember, Nina started by asking, "Why can't they make tickets transferable, other than to force the purchase of the new ticket?" I guess the answer is: There is no other reason, other than our willingness to accept it. And please don't hand me that line that it would be too hard on an already-suffering industry. They screwed up the industry themselves, despite getting dozens of law changes they wanted over the last 20 years. If the no-transferring rule is what's keeping them afloat, they're in bigger trouble than we thought.

Can you imagine? American comes out with a sale. Someone buys as many seats as they can and then tries to sell them on E-bay a week before the flight when all others would have to pay 10 times the price from the airline. Sounds unlikely, but crazier things have happened.

Tell you what, someone buys up a whole block of tickets, puts out all that cash, trys to sell them on 3-bay, risks the chance that they may not sell, (Hey, what are the chances that he bought the flights for the dates and destinations everybody wanted?), then goes through the hassle of collecting his money and transferring the tickets, then he deserves whatever miniscule profit he or she might make. People aren't going to pay that much over cost for a ticket they could've gotten by watching as closely as our sacalper here.<BR><BR>Seems like there are easier ways to make a buck.

SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF BANTER HERE<BR><BR>THE FACTS ARE PRETTY CLEAR AND WERE STATED EARLY ON

An extreme example of controlling supply: How about if the handful of terrorists on board the flight that went down in PA had bought every seat on the plane and threw 95 tickets in the trash so it was only them against the flight attendants?<BR><BR>Obviously extreme.

blah blah blah blah blah<BR>blah blah blah blah blah<BR>blah blah blah blah blah !!!!<BR>blah blah some more and blah<BR><BR>That is just how I feel about it!!!

Ditto x<BR>funny, now everybody let's all measure the space between our ears. It's ok if you just have air there.<BR>

Why is it that Southwest, THE ONLY AIRLINE TO POST PROFITS, can allow a traveler to cancel a reservation, even one at a reduced price, and NOT be penalized. The only "penalty" is that you only get a credit to be used within one year on another flight, and that can even be transferred between family members.<BR><BR>Why is it that the airline MOST FLEXIBLE posts profits, while others maintain they can't be flexible and make profits. Some other airlines will allow you to change the name of the passenger for a reasonable change fee. What is wrong with the major airlines business model if SW works?