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?