Originally Posted by
Dan Druff
Thanks for the explanation, and I understand it, but I'm afraid I don't agree that the airline is in the right.
I fully get your point -- that you're paying for the flight to the destination, and it's not calculated nor considered by the airline how they're getting you there. So if someone is going from Los Angeles to Baton Rogue, they're paying for that itinerary, and if it happens to stop in Houston, that isn't figured into the pricing. This means it's possible a flight to Houston could be more expensive, because they're independent of one another, even if the same plane is involved in one of the legs.
However, the problem is that this still fails the common sense test. It makes sense HOW and WHY it happens, but it doesn't make sense THAT it's happening.
The local Wendy's by me charges $1.79 for 6 chicken nuggets, and $3.99 for 10. This means you could buy 12 nuggets for $3.58, whereas 10 nuggets would be $3.99. Obviously one would be a fool to buy 10 nuggets at these prices, even if they only wanted 10. The smarter play would be to buy two 6-packs, and throw two away if you only want 10. You'd still save money!
No matter how much Wendy's could try to explain "why" this pricing scheme makes sense, it stiil fails the sanity check. Obviously it makes sense to the owner -- perhaps he realized that there were a lot of orders coming in for 10, and most people don't do the math, so he makes extra profit. However, he couldn't cry foul if people figured out to order two packs of 6, nor would it be ethical to sue websites which point this out (or even delivery services which direct people to the best deal).
Same thing here. For whatever reason -- probably demand -- airlines are pricing some flights requiring a connection cheaper than those which only utilize the first leg of that connecting flight. When it all comes down to it, people are paying NOT to fly a second leg. While the airlines can charge whatever they want, the customers can buy whatever they find to be the best deal, and travel agents can help the customer find the best publicly available deal.
You would have a better point if these were two different flights, albeit through the same airport. For example, let's say a flight to Baton Rouge connecting through Houston at 6am is cheaper than a direct flight to Houston landing at 4pm. Well, you could say the traveler is paying a premium for not flying in the super early morning, so it makes sense. But not if the flight to Houston is the exact same flight as the first leg as the one to Baton Rouge. Then it should be the same or cheaper to just fly to Houston.
It also shouldn't be the passgener or travel agent's concern whether this is good for the airline or other passengers. I don't worry about what's good for anyone except me and my family when I book a flight, and I'm sure you don't, either.
Do you really think Skiplagged should be sued for directing travelers to this info?