Airline sues skip-lagging passenger

[Giggle]

Fortune
Chris Morris
February 12, 2019

Bargain-hunting travelers beware of this potential trend: Germany’s largest airline is suing a passenger who skipped the last leg of a booked flight, a practice called “skip lagging.”

Lufthansa says the unnamed passenger violated its terms and conditions by not completing the entire trip. It’s seeking a bit less than $2,400 in damages.

The precedent has travel industry observers paying close attention.

Skip lagging is a money-saving method where passengers leave their flight at a layover instead of the final destination. For example, a traveler hoping to go to Dallas could book a cheaper flight to Seattle with a layover in the Texas hub.

Airlines aren’t fans of the practice as it can delay flights and ultimately result in higher fares for everyone.

In the Lufthansa case, the unnamed passenger was supposed to fly to Oslo from Seattle via Frankfurt in April 2016. However, they skipped a connecting flight and returned from Frankfurt to Berlin on a separate ticket. His total cost was 657 euros, or $743. The airline says he should have paid 2,769 euros, or $3,133. It’s seeking the difference plus interest.

http://fortune.com/2019/02/12/lufthansa ... ng-flight/

Why do the airlines think its OK to fudge fares in order to eek out the highest profits from certain flights, but seek to punish passengers who fudge flights to seek lower fares? If the passenger simply told Lufthansa they could not make the connection, would Lufthansa still have a problem with it? I suspect they would. Nobody likes double standards, do they?

[Udon Map]

Why do the airlines think its OK to fudge fares in order to eek out the highest profits from certain flights, but seek to punish passengers who fudge flights to seek lower fares? If the passenger simply told Lufthansa they could not make the connection, would Lufthansa still have a problem with it? I suspect they would. Nobody likes double standards, do they?

The airlines aren't fudging fares. The airlines charge what they charge, and we are free to buy or not. I'm familiar with this particular case; and Lufthansa lost not because of any fairness/unfairness issues, but rather because the method it used for calculating the fare it wanted to charge wasn't clear. That's a problem easily fixed. But the court pretty much affirmed Lufthansa's right to do this provided that it made the penalty calculation clear in the terms and conditions of the fare.

[Giggle]

Sure the airlines fudge fares. That's why nearly every passenger pays a different price for the exact same service. They charge high rates where they can get away with it (and still fill the plane) and low rates where they can't.

This passenger was merely paying a lower rate for a flight with a leg he intended not to use. (rather absurd to have lower fares for flights with more legs) If you pay for a taxi, train, or bus fare from point A to point C and choose to get off at point B, nobody makes a fuss. Only in the bizarre universe of air travel is the fare from A to C less than the fare from A to B.

Yesterday's Fortune article does not indicate the case is over. It it is, I'm glad Lufthansa lost.

[Udon Map]

Sure the airlines fudge fares. That's why nearly every passenger pays a different price for the exact same service. They charge high rates where they can get away with it (and still fill the plane) and low rates where they can't.

It's called demand pricing. Very common across numerous industries.

This passenger was merely paying a lower rate for a flight with a leg he intended not to use. (rather absurd to have lower fares for flights with more legs) If you pay for a taxi, train, or bus fare from point A to point C and choose to get off at point B, nobody makes a fuss. Only in the bizarre universe of air travel is the fare from A to C less than the fare from A to B.

Not exactly. He purchased a fare with specific requirements. He has to comply with them to be eligible for the fare.

Yesterday's Fortune article does not indicate the case is over. It it is, I'm glad Lufthansa lost.

It's not over; Lufthansa's appealing. However, as I pointed out above, Lufthansa didn't lose for the reason that you think they should have. And the lower court pretty much reaffirmed an airline's right to make and enforce rules like this.

[Giggle]

Cinema: Walk out half-way through a bad movie -- pay a surcharge.
Dining: Don't like your entree -- pay extra for leaving any of it on your plate.
Internet provider: Pay double if you don't reach your allotted amount D/L of time per month.
Maintenance/lawn care/babysitters: Pay a penalty for letting them go home an hour early.

It's absurd. What if the airline passenger had the shits, a splitting headache, or his plans changed during his layover? The airline is going to charge him EXTRA for the leg of the flight he DIDN'T use? Yep, completely absurd.

[Udon Map]

Cinema: Walk out half-way through a bad movie -- pay a surcharge.
Dining: Don't like your entree -- pay extra for leaving any of it on your plate.
Internet provider: Pay double if you don't reach your allotted amount D/L of time per month.
Maintenance/lawn care/babysitters: Pay a penalty for letting them go home an hour early.

It's absurd. What if the airline passenger had the shits, a splitting headache, or his plans changed during his layover? The airline is going to charge him EXTRA for the leg of the flight he DIDN'T use? Yep, completely absurd.

Your examples are inapposite. The terms and conditions of the fare require that you fly the whole itinerary. The rules are provided when you buy the ticket. Your movie ticket does't require you to stay for the whole movie. Ordering a meal in a restaurant doesn't require that you clean your plate. Get the idea?

[747man]

Cinema: Walk out half-way through a bad movie -- pay a surcharge.
Dining: Don't like your entree -- pay extra for leaving any of it on your plate.
Internet provider: Pay double if you don't reach your allotted amount D/L of time per month.
Maintenance/lawn care/babysitters: Pay a penalty for letting them go home an hour early.

It's absurd. What if the airline passenger had the shits, a splitting headache, or his plans changed during his layover? The airline is going to charge him EXTRA for the leg of the flight he DIDN'T use? Yep, completely absurd.

Your examples are inapposite. The terms and conditions of the fare require that you fly the whole itinerary. The rules are provided when you buy the ticket. Your movie ticket does't require you to stay for the whole movie. Ordering a meal in a restaurant doesn't require that you clean your plate. Get the idea?

But I'm SURE The cabin crew would be delighted IF he ---- All over the seats,Hey Paul ??

[bluejets]

I can never get a straight answer as to why it costs $100 more to travel from Brisbane to Bangkok return than it does from Sydney.
Same plane, same company, plane is full, but distance overall is an extra 1400Klm odd from Sydney in a straight line.

[747man]

I can never get a straight answer as to why it costs $100 more to travel from Brisbane to Bangkok return than it does from Sydney.
Same plane, same company, plane is full, but distance overall is an extra 1400Klm odd from Sydney in a straight line.

Much on the Same Lines Mate......Flying from London Heathrow to Bangkok 400.00 GBP,But Fly from Bangkok to London Heathrow "Over" 600.00 GBP......Same Airline.....The Mind BOGGLES !!

[Giggle]

Udon Map, because something may be legal doesn't mean it can't also be absurd.

[Udon Map]

Udon Map, because something may be legal doesn't mean it can't also be absurd.

Of course. But when you buy an airplane ticket, or a car, or pretty much anything, there are rules. How long you have to return merchandise, whether return gets you cash or just a store credit, etc. if you make the purchase after reading the rules, you're stuck with them.

[saint]

Udon Map, because something may be legal doesn't mean it can't also be absurd.

Of course. But when you buy an airplane ticket, or a car, or pretty much anything, there are rules. How long you have to return merchandise, whether return gets you cash or just a store credit, etc. if you make the purchase after reading the rules, you're stuck with them.

You do live in Thailand right ? Rules ah , interesting .