Hacker News Reader

If anything, wouldn't they be saving on the fuel costs of not transporting you?

Alternatively, the airline may be able to have another paying passenger fill the empty seat.

They are already overbooking the seats and have a list of standby passengers to fill it. They have already optimized this problem away, to the detriment of passengers in many cases!

Yep - a quite famous UK author was complaining on Twitter the other day about losing his seat as the plane was oversold. https://x.com/beathhigh/status/1694689915718512942

Is empty but is already paid. That's what I don't get here. I can buy two seats, one for me and one for my imaginary friend, and the airline won't get less money. But it seems that they dream about selling the same seat twice.

The problem is they don't price flights based on cost, they price flights based on a model showing the most popular routes and recoup costs on losing flights by jacking up the price of the more popular ones. Layover flights are less popular.

The issue of skiplagging is obviously the direct result of their pricing model. And I don't see a solution for them, direct flights will always be more popular than layovers, and so more in demand. They are stuck in the position of doing what they do, or dealing with demand they can't meet with by pricing based on fuel cost instead of demand.

So why don't they just simplify their pricing model? It's highly confusing.

> impose a penalty fee after so-many missed connections

Even that might be dicey in a lot of jurisdictions, both based on aviation tariffs, and consumer protection laws.

They could give a "partial refund" for "not missing" your connection or, in plain language, make people pay an amount up front any time they have to make a connection and keep it as forfeit if they skiplag. That's obvious enough the airlines would be doing it if this skiplag stuff really bothered them.

If I were to guess it’s the lost of potential revenue, that empty seat could very well mean another traveler from the middle stop to the final stop, which they could sell for more than the original layover traveler.

So let me tell you I won't make that flight and give me $10 back while you can resell it. The pricing scheme here is the problem, not the way it's being used. Unless they're being reimbursed by the destination cities for the number of people disembarking from each flight, there's nothing about the final leg that makes them money.

Well yes, but that is very much their problem. The "lost revenue" is the direct result of their own pricing structure.

Their circus, their monkeys.

They also save by not refunding an oversubscribed seat too. Win win win for airlines.

> The airlines can get all worked up about it, but there's no way they can stop it.

They might be able to greatly reduce it. If they wanted to discourage people booking A->B->C and then leaving at B they could start randomly picking an A->B->C flight and not selling A->B tickets for that particular flight, so that everyone onboard has booked A->B->C.

Then after everyone has boarded announce that the flight has been upgraded for free to direct A->C.

They can’t do that. It’s not a bus. There is a ticker for each flight and they buy spots at airports. Even if they can do it, it is a change of flight and would probably open them to other issues (like refunds).

I strongly doubt airlines can change flight plans after everyone has boarded.

While not quite like that, the airline could totally "upgrade" your specific ticket to A-->C, or A-->Z-->C, and then you have a problem.

Or even a later A-->B segment that still gets you to C on time, which may not work for you.

This isn't really unlikely because the airline knows your desired A-->B trip is really valuable (which is why you skiplagged in the first place!).

One reason airlines like selling flights with connections at a discount is because it gives them flexibility to get you to your "C" destination on time.

This is why I can't see myself buying skiplag tickets.