Comments by "John P" (@johnp139) on "Travelers turn to ‘skiplagging’ to save money on flights l GMA" video.

  1.  @TheElusiveReality  Wrong. If they overbook and you are involuntarily removed from the flight, then the airline is REQUIRED BY LAW to provide compensation at least to include food and hotel vouchers.
    6
  2. There’s competition and not price gouging. This actually demonstrates how prices are LOWER due to competition.
    6
  3.  @carlam4986  Your CONTRACT (read the contract of carriage that is attached to your ticket) with the airline is to get you from point A to point B, NOT to some place in between. If YOU CHANGE that, then they can change you not only for the higher fare but also a change fee. YOU BROKE THE CONTRACT!
    5
  4.  @queenefuah444  Servers only get $2.15 BECAUSE they get tipped!!! It’s NOT the other way around!
    3
  5. Because it’s the city pairs that are competitive and generate the revenue, not the distance.
    3
  6.  @StvBnsn  I’m teaching basic economics and civil law that everyone should already know.
    3
  7.  @stolennimbus  Irrelevant. Passengers pay for the market value for a city pair. HOW they get there is irrelevant.
    3
  8.  @bclr5964  They didn’t win, the case was filed in the wrong court.
    2
  9. That might be difficult to do, and it might even be illegal.
    2
  10. You are still breaking a contract which can result in civil penalties.
    2
  11.  @oleopathic  Non-use is different from ABuse. If you don’t use the ticket, no service is provided. If you buy a ticket to somewhere and then use the carrier to go someplace else, then you are getting service, but service that is less expensive than the service that you purchased, as well as breaking the contract of carriage and essentially stealing from the company by paying less than the actual cost for the city pair that you actually ended up using. It’s like switching the prices from more expensive spark plugs with less expensive ones (my brother got busted for doing this in the 1980’s).
    2
  12.  @SterlingSigurdsen  Because it results in better service and self-determination to properly reward (or not) for good service. The servers make much more than they would have if they were on a fixed wage and the restaurant can charge less for the meals.
    2
  13. Right, poor reporting.
    2
  14. It’s a sound business model to maximize getting people between city pairs in the most economic manner.
    2
  15. You can choose to not take your flight, but you are breaking your contract and the airline can recover damages associated with that.
    2
  16.  @chriskirk9708  The cost of the service is based on the city pairs, not the routing, but I understand how this can be confusing. It’s about supply and demand, and competition. Popular city pairs have a large demand, and by the laws of economics, they cost more. The physical means of transportation is mostly irrelevant.
    2
  17. The meals and luggage check was INCLUDED, not FREE!!! If they were free then you would be able to get the meal or send your luggage without buying a ticket on the flight.
    2
  18.  @SmokyOle  That’s how competition and capitalism work.
    2
  19. Seems more like the news was pointing out the risks of doing this.
    2
  20.  @M_SC  Not really. I usually use one way fares to be more flexible.
    2
  21.  @abaco30  It’s lost revenue. They sold the city pair, not the seats.
    2
  22.  @stolennimbus  learn basic business principles.
    2
  23.  @jamisonmunn9215  Because they are INTERSTATE COMPANIES!!!!
    2
  24. Supply and demand, basic economics. We live in a capitalist economic system, not a communist one.
    2
  25. This actually results in lower fares due to competition.
    2
  26.  @emmanuelferpozzi1768  Good point
    2
  27. Irrelevant. You are still breaking the contract with the carrier.
    1
  28. No, a contract is broken and the carrier can attempt to recover any damages.
    1
  29. Do you think that the business is a charity?
    1
  30. It’s basic competitive practice for city pairs.
    1
  31. It’s against policy to pay for one thing (a particular service) but then use another service that you DIDN’T pay for. That would be like buying a movie ticket for a less popular movie that has a lower price and then going to the more popular higher priced movie just because it is in the same building.
    1
  32. That’s not what the contract says.
    1
  33. The charges ARE FAIR!!! They are based on market value of the city pairs.
    1
  34. Wrong! Your part of “the bargain” is the contract attached to the ticket that you purchased to get you from point A to point B.
    1
  35. They can sue the passengers for breach of contract.
    1
  36. You would be heading the opposite direction from the people boarding.
    1
  37.  @rethinkcps2116  Stops are different, but also very rare.
    1
  38. The pricing is totally logical, otherwise it wouldn’t be done.
    1
  39. People must be compensated if they are involuntarily bumped from a flight. It’s basic economics, not robbery.
    1
  40.  @nitinbhakta4787  Irrelevant. There are laws/federal rules that govern compensating people who have been involuntarily removed from flights. There are civil laws (via contract of carriage) that cover the rights of the ticket holders. Two totally different things. Absolutely no relationship between the two. False equivalency.
    1
  41. Let me correct that for you: You buy a product but then decide to use a product that you did NOT BUY.
    1
  42. They are fair based on the city pair market and competition.
    1
  43.  @bclr5964  They can charge you for the cost of the flight (city pair) that you actually took, along with a change fee. Ultimately you would still need to end up at your original destination, but if you were traveling and got sick and couldn’t make it there, then your cost would have been for the new destination roundtrip.
    1
  44. They may tell you after the fact and you could be liable to pay the fare difference and a rebooking fee.
    1
  45. How are passengers being taken advantage of? It sounds like these passengers are taking advantage of the airlines by BREACHING the contract of carriage that they AGREED TO when purchasing their tickets!!!
    1
  46. It’s NOT LEGAL in the civil sense. It’s a breach of contract.
    1
  47. It’s not feasible in the US except for a few niche markets, and Brightline is doing that with minimal government funding.
    1
  48.  @sean2015  No. You are WRONG.
    1
  49.  @sean2015  Irrelevant and unfeasible. The US is NOTHING LIKE EUROPE!!! You can easily Google this.
    1
  50. If you break the contract, then they have a right to recuperate damages.
    1
  51. As long as you don’t use your credit cards for things that are prohibited in the terms of use.
    1
  52. No. It’s called lost revenue because someone broke the terms of their contract.
    1
  53. That would be hard to do at 35,000 feet. The fare that you paid for is for a specific city pair, so NO, you really didn’t pay for it.
    1
  54. False equivalency. Totally irrelevant. Read the contract of carriage.
    1
  55.  @dolamyte  True, but the same is true for software and website agreements. However, this practice can easily be backed up because of differing market values for various city pairs. By booking for a specific city pair, you are contractually obliged to pay for the price for that city pair. If you do otherwise, then you are essentially stealing from the air carrier.
    1
  56. From reading all of these comments, there are two things that most of the commenters are ignorant about: Basic economics and contract law.
    1
  57. Wrong! When you purchase a ticket, it is for transport from point A to point B for a specific price that is based on the market value for that city pair. You also agree to the contract of carriage when you purchase that ticket, and that SPECIFICALLY STATES that your ticket is for conveyance between the two said cities. If you decide to CHANGE your destination, not only are you in breach of contract, but you are also liable for the price difference and any change fees. It’s a legal binding agreement.
    1
  58. Yes. You can sue for almost anything. You probably wouldn’t win because they have all of the bases covered in their contract of carriage that you agreed to when you purchased the ticket.
    1
  59. There can be fines for certain events, and the airlines may have to pay people for cancellations/delays not due to weather or safety.
    1
  60. EXACTLY!!! While they easily CAN enforce this, they currently aren’t seeing enough instances of this to make enforcing it profitable.
    1
  61. Not if it is due to not having enough cabin room on a larger aircraft. Two different things. Gate checking is usually used for small aircraft that can’t accommodate the larger carry-on items, so they have dedicated space just for these items. Bags that are “checked at the gate” are usually larger aircraft where the airline knows that overhead space will most likely get filled. The larger bags are checked to the final destination since there is no dedicated space on larger aircraft for such bags.
    1
  62. I’ve traveled on hundreds of flights and only had my bag not arrive twice. Maybe you were flying on a shitty airline.
    1
  63. They can, but that might involve breaking a contract, which could result in civil actions.
    1
  64. Your FEELINGS are IRRELEVANT!!! The LAW is all that matters, and that includes CIVIL LAW!!!!!
    1
  65. They can charge you for the difference. You are basically stealing from them because the market value for your city pair is higher than for your booked city pair.
    1
  66. Because that’s not allowed in the contract that you accepted when you purchased the ticket.
    1
  67. By draconian you mean capitalist.
    1
  68. Learn how to write.
    1
  69. The costs are fair since they are based on city pairs and the competition with other airlines for these city pairs.
    1
  70. Except for the traffic, the idiot drivers, construction, inclement weather, accidents where you are stuck for an hour, extra days spent/hotel. But other than that…
    1
  71.  @mikedaleiden7725  When was the last time that you drove through Atlanta?
    1
  72. Their pricing system doesn’t need to be improved since it works fine for them. If you don’t like it then don’t fly.
    1
  73.  @speicaldark  Those customers are breaking the contract that they agreed to when they purchased their ticket.
    1
  74.  @speicaldark  Apparently YOU didn’t watch the video, but regardless, it is irrelevant when considering the legality of this practice.
    1
  75.  @sean2015  I said MIGHT because of the disruption to the flight as well as basic fraud.
    1
  76. They should charge you for the actual city pair that you traveled, along with a change fee.
    1
  77. It makes total sense. Supply and demand along with competition. Take a basic business/economics class.
    1
  78. You mean companies exist to make money? Go figure. I suppose you work for the fun of it, not to get paid.
    1
  79. They were identifying the risks.
    1
  80. That’s why it matters. They can legally charge you for the cost of the city pair flight that you actually took, along with a change fee.
    1
  81.  @0shadowgrace0  Then you can get sent to collections agencies which may ruin your credit rating.
    1
  82. They were just pointing out the risks.
    1
  83. Maybe you should watch it again. The two that they mentioned were the risk of being rerouted and not going to where you want to go and the risk of being banned by the airline. They also mentioned how you can’t check luggage and how your return flight might get cancelled. Again,try watching the video again.
    1
  84. ⁠ @peopleschoice9555  I don’t work for any airline, but I do understand the differences between emotional concerns and legal concerns. There is nothing predatory here, just basic economics. The airlines are selling conveyance between a city pair, and unscrupulous people are cheating and breaking their contracts for those services. I’m not saying that it is morally right or wrong, just saying that it is legally binding.
    1
  85. Lost revenue from people that break their contracts.
    1
  86. This practice doesn’t identify no shows until boarding is complete.
    1
  87. They are merely pointing out the risks. The risks can also increase in the near future without notice.
    1
  88. You are never forced to board, moron!!! But if you break the terms of your contract, then you can be liable for damages.
    1
  89. Wrong! Learn some basic business principles.
    1
  90.  @jennifermarie3158  There’s always the ignorant person that doesn’t understand how capitalism works. I suppose you are for a Communist form of economy.
    1
  91.  @andidede3653  Exactly!!! If you want to make more money then you can become a server.
    1
  92. It’s called capitalism.
    1
  93. What manipulation? The people doing this are the manipulators.
    1
  94. You can, but then you are breaking the contract and the airline can attempt to recover any damages AND they can prohibit you from flying with them in the future.
    1
  95. Many people do accumulate points on Southwest for many reasons. A list, free companion travel, more point-to-point flights, free drink coupons, no cost to check 2 bags, etc.
    1
  96. They ARE charging the “right price” based on market value for the city pair.
    1
  97. How is this relevant?
    1
  98. Most no-shows are business travelers that need to be more flexible.
    1
  99. That’s irrelevant.
    1
  100. ⁠​⁠ @UseURHead  The airlines oversell based upon data from previous flights. Passengers pay for passage from point A to point B. How are the two related? If anything you are advocating AGAINST passengers doing this since it skews the data.
    1
  101. No, it’s not. Read the contract
    1
  102.  @timward3116  I get your point about the “forced contract” that most people have to accept if they want to do anything (fly, use software, etc.), but the concept of market pricing for city pairs is a sound economic and business practice. By going to a different destination than you purchased, you are essentially stealing from the air carrier. No different from buying a movie ticket at a matinee price and then going into a DIFFERENT theater to see a different movie that costs more. You do NOT buy a ticket to get into a megaplex, you are buying a ticket to see a specific movie at a specific time. With airlines, you are purchasing passage from point A to point B based on market value for that city pair. If you instead get off at point C, and the market value for point A to point C is more expensive, then you are basically stealing from the air carrier.
    1
  103.  @timward3116  I TOTALLY get it!!! I was scheduled on a Southwest flight on Christmas Eve, but fortunately all worked out well. Not so much for my brother and his family, but they were reimbursed for all extra costs associated with them not being able to be transported to Fort Lauderdale for our cruise.
    1
  104.  @timward3116  Oh, and I had to be rebooked on Southwest from Burbank to Columbus, but then they put me LAST on the boarding list, which resulted in me being in the LAST SEAT which was obviously between TWO HUGE INDIVIDUALS!!! I know what you are saying.
    1
  105. Your example is irrelevant. The delay was not a deception nor did it violate the contract of carriage that you agreed to when you purchased the ticket.
    1
  106. Because you aren’t paying the market value for your city pair.
    1
  107. What scam? Use of basic economic principles?
    1
  108. Lost income.
    1
  109. Not really
    1
  110. Civil law, as in people agree to the contract of carriage when they purchase their tickets.
    1
  111. The CONTRACT between the carrier and the ticket purchaser is to get the person from point A to point B, not somewhere in between. If the passenger BREAKS THE CONTRACT, then the airline has the LEGAL RIGHT to compensation!!!
    1
  112. Two totally different things.
    1
  113.  @sean2015  Excuses are irrelevant, you still violated the terms of the contract.
    1
  114.  @sean2015  Irrelevant. Two totally separate things. You don’t need to fly.
    1
  115. Most are checked to the final destination, except for small aircraft where some carry-ons are checked from gate to gate.
    1
  116. How about the situation were you get rerouted through Chicago instead of DFW where you planed on getting off?
    1
  117. Charge you for the cost of the ticket for the city pair that you traveled, as well as a hefty change fee.
    1
  118. Not usually.
    1
  119. Because it takes at least 3 days by train.
    1
  120.  @knife-wieldingspidergod5059  I get it and I have done it. It’s just that MOST Americans don’t have enough annual leave to even cover the travel time much less spending some time at that destination.
    1
  121. The airlines should identify these people and change their routing on the day of the flight. A couple of times doing that and the people will maybe learn.
    1
  122.  @nwsportstilidie  it’s almost like they were pointing out the risks and potential consequences of breaking a contract.
    1
  123.  @sean2015  Southwest has 3 different variants of the 737, each of which carry different numbers of passengers.
    1
  124.  @sean2015  Google is your friend. Probably 40-50 difference between the three.
    1
  125.  @marcuswaterbury7371  What? Learn how to write.
    1
  126. Because people are paying less for the service than they should be paying. It’s basically theft.
    1
  127. File a case and hope that it gets to the Supreme Court.
    1
  128. There are CIVIL LAWS that can result in you being sued. That ticket is a BINDING CONTRACT. They can also ban you from flying with them.
    1
  129.  @misled1982  It IS in writing. Look up contract of carriage for any airline and you’ll find it. When purchasing a ticket, you are agreeing to the terms!!!
    1
  130. You buy a ticket for a specific city pair, so if you don’t go where your ticket says, then you are breaking the terms of the contract that you accepted when you purchased the ticket. And you ARE USING your ticket, but you are using it maliciously.
    1
  131. So is braking the contract that you have.
    1
  132.  @webapple1  First of all, it is CONTRACT! (Not to mention WHETHER) And YES, when you purchase the ticket you are AGREEING to the CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE!!!!
    1
  133. Usually, but not necessarily, especially with Southwest.
    1
  134. Take a basic class in economics.
    1
  135. By breaking the contract with the carrier? Maybe you should create a business that doesn’t generate revenue.
    1
  136. Didn’t they mention this?
    1
  137. They can charge you for the price difference along with a change fee, not to mention banning you from flying with them.
    1
  138. Because the cost for your actual destination is higher.
    1
  139.  @sunnyscott4876  I clearly understand the reason.
    1
  140. This practice actually results in LOWER FARES due to competition.
    1
  141. Irrelevant. Two totally different things. False equivalency.
    1
  142.  @stolennimbus  It’s not a product, it’s a SERVICE, and that SERVICE is to get you from point A to Point B. That is what you PURCHASE. Anything else is fraud.
    1
  143.  @HaimTabibi  Irrelevant
    1
  144. Laws may be different outside of the US.
    1
  145.  @soniccthehedgehog  A product is different from a service. This is basically theft.
    1
  146. It’s market value based on the city pair. Learn some basic economics.
    1
  147. Because it COULD HAVE been sold, so that is lost revenue.
    1
  148.  @bubba842  They lost money because that particular city pair costs more than the other!!! This is like buying a ticket for a movie that is offered at the last matinee price and the going into another movie that cost more. The price isn’t to get into the movie complex, it’s for the specific movie AND time!
    1
  149. Because pricing has very little to do with the number of different aircraft that you take, it is mostly due to supply and demand, and what the market is for each city pair. And if it made more financial sense, then that’s what they would be doing, so NO.
    1
  150. What? Explain
    1
  151. What do you mean? Prices are lower because of this.
    1
  152. It doesn’t work like that. These people are breaking their contracts.
    1
  153. Right, poor reporting. However they mention two risks: being rerouted through a different connection and being banned by the airline. Other possible risks that they didn’t mention include: being charged for the cost of the fare that you actually flew (plus a change fee) and being sued for breach of contract (you agree to the contract of carriage when you buy your ticket).
    1
  154. Airlines can’t make laws, and there is no need for one. They can merely begin to routinely charge the people who do this the cost of that city pair route, along with their change fee, which is typically like $100. They can also impose a penalty if it is added to their contract of carriage.
    1
  155. It’s basic economics and competition for city pairs.
    1
  156. You paid for a city pair that is DIFFERENT from the one that you booked. You are essentially stealing from the airline.
    1
  157. Maybe you should start a business that doesn’t make any profit or generate income for you.
    1
  158. Learn some basic economics. The “loophole” is basically theft because the passenger is paying for a destination that costs less than their true destination.
    1
  159. They do. As long as there are several airlines to choose from, you are getting the best rates.
    1
  160. No it doesn’t. It’s quite obvious.
    1
  161. Only you usually wouldn’t know until boarding has been completed.
    1
  162.  @amiedavis5257  When you check in for the originating flight, you are also checking into the connecting flights. The only time that they know that there is a no show is at the end of boarding.
    1
  163. They ARE PRICED FAIRLY!!!! The prices are for CITY PAIR MARKETS!!!!
    1
  164. Not necessarily.
    1
  165. Because the customer is breaking the contract.
    1
  166. Two different things. Gate checking is usually used for small aircraft that can’t accommodate the larger carry-on items, so they have dedicated space just for these items. Bags that are “checked at the gate” are usually larger aircraft where the airline knows that overhead space will most likely get filled. The larger bags are checked to the final destination since there is no dedicated space on larger aircraft for such bags.
    1
  167. In what ways? It seems like the customers want to screw the airlines rather than following the contract of carriage that they agreed to when purchasing the ticket.
    1