IAG pricing on London - Madrid

[davidjohnson6]

I realise that IAG now have a monopoly for non-stop flights on the Heathrow-Madrid route. I notice that one-way economy fares are available at a reasonable price from City airport, but from Heathrow, one way fares are all business-class only. What's odd, is that flying economy, there seems to be ample availability from Heathrow when picking a return trip.

I know that Easyjet + Ryanair also fly from Gatwick, Luton and Stansted to Madrid, but IAG have a monopoly at not just Heathrow, but also City as well. If LGW, LTN or STN are seen as being able to compete with City for point-to-point flights, then they are presumably also seen as capable of competing with Heathrow.

On that basis, why does BA seem to be exerting its pricing power only at Heathrow and not City as well ?

[Hotel Tango]

Best way to avoid paying high one-way fares is to purchase a return (with the return leg several weeks later at an off peak time) and not use the return. I've just had to do this and saved 400 Euros in the process. Once I've flown the 1st leg, and before NOT flying the return leg, I cancel the return online. No refund, but that's OK as it's just saved me 400 Euros. It's really time for the majors to charge more realistic one-way fares as do the LCCs.

[Tableview]

Interesting pricing policy. Short sighted too. Predatory is the word.

Not using a return leg, even if you cancel, does theoretically expose you to the risk of being charged the full one way fare as the fare rules invariably have a condition such as : "Full and sequential use of flight coupons."

You may get away with it a couple of times but if you do it regularly you will almost certainly find yourself being charged, or the agency you use being sent an an ADM, for which ultimately they will look to you for settlement. I know of cases where this has happened.

[Hotel Tango]

Tableview, I'm not going into further details but you are wrong.

[Tableview]

I'm not, so please justify that statement. By PM if you wish.

[Hotel Tango]

Done it dozens of time (over a period of 30 years) and never had a problem. Airlines do not have either the time nor the resources to go chasing relatively small amounts. The sequential part of the deal is more to do with breaking the sequence at the begining or somewhere along a multi-sector trip. This gives them the right to cancel the remaining sectors, which they most definitely do. I would conceed that if an extensive pattern of such activity was flagged, perhaps with a corporate travel Dept., that may give them the incentive to investigate. The fact is that millions of pax cancel or don't show up every day, most for valid reasons. It has happened to me several times for perfectly valid reasons leaving me with the choice of having either to fork out for a horrendously expensive one-way ticket or simply go for the option of purchasing a cheaper return. I pay for my fares out of my own pocket.

[Tableview]

Airlines do not have either the time nor the resources to go chasing relatively small amounts.
Wrong, I'm afraid. They have robotics which do precisely that and which look for patterns where revenue leaks can be prevented.

You may get away with it for a while, or indefinitely (I hope for your sake you do, I have no axe to grind with you) but I can assure you that individuals and agencies do get debited for exactly this.

Whether or not such a charge would stand up in a court of law if challenged I don't know, I believe there have been precedents in the US but I don't know the outcome.

In this case, the difference could be about £400. Airlines are looking for every possible opportunity to maximise revenue.

[Hotel Tango]

Ok, I believe you and conceed that there may be an element of risk. I've been lucky until now as I really haven't had a problem yet. Of course I'm certainly not doing this week in, week out. I can well believe that an obviously regular pattern could well flag up. I wasn't suggesting doing this on a regular basis either. As said, passengers miss flights for a variety of valid reasons and unless a definite pattern of intent is proven the airline would be wasting time and money pursuing the matter. In other words, on the very odd occasions that one is faced with forking out hundreds for a single, the "return" may be an option to consider. Not grinding any axe with you either btw ;)

[intortola]

Isn't this one of the reasons that airlines oversell flights as they know a lot pf passengers do not use the return part of the ticket. This is something i do myself, especially when in Europe. Recently needed a o/w DUS-CDG but saved quite a bit by booking a roundtrip.

[SeenItAll]

Tableview:

As noted, given that the airline does permit cancellations, in order for the airline to prevail in court it would need very clear evidence that you never intended to fly the return. This would be very expensive for them to amass as to an individual flyer (granted if an agency or corporate travel department did this, it might be easier for it to assemble adequately convincing statistical evidence).

But further, if you, as an individual flyer, canceled returns on a particular airline frequently, this also means that you do fly with that airline frequently (something airline robots definitely do track religiously). Thus, I would suppose the airline might be reticent to try to sue a passenger from which it already collects a lot of revenue just to have a go at trying to collect even more. My guess is that: (a) they would have a hard time prevailing in court; (b) the public relations effects would be awful; and (c) they can kiss off ever getting any more business from that passenger.

Therefore, if I was HT, I probably wouldn't lose too much sleep worrying about an airline solicitor knocking at my door. :)

[Tableview]

I would also not be unduly worried about it. The point is that I've worked with airlines on implementing revenue protection systems, I've seen the ADMs they send out, and a corporate agency I did some work for has been on the receiving end, but in their case it was systematic abuse for one business house account.

The illogicality of the airlines' pricing policies on this and other matters is another story, but that's how it is, not how it should be.

We've all done it (well, I know I have .......) but there is a risk, however minimal.

[Hotel Tango]

Therefore, if I was HT, I probably wouldn't lose too much sleep worrying about an airline solicitor knocking at my door.

;) I won't, since I had valid reasons for not using the returns on those occasions it happened (remember this is over a 30+ years of travel).

I would emphasise though that my original post was meant as a solution to consider for the odd occasion that one might be confronted with unexpected/unplanned one way single travel, and not to be adopted on a frequent basis. And yes, I'm a frequent flyer on the carrier concerned.

[ExXB]

The real problem of network airlines not having low ow fares comes from the uses those airlines have for ow fares. In the sharing of revenue from an interline tickets unaligned airlines try to slug each other for a large% of this fare. If they reduced their ows, they would reduce their interline revenue.

Internationally there is limited need for a ow product. Almost everyone returns. Emigrants, ships crews and students who are the exception qualify for their own fares usually.

[Tableview]

]Some interesting points here. To go back to the point about o/w differencex, some fare rules specifically state this :

IF A RETURN TICKET SHALL BE USED FOR ONE WAY TRAVEL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RETURN FARE AND THE APPLICABLE HIGHER Y/J/F-CLASS ONE WAY FARE HAS TO BE COLLECTED
How and if that is enforceable is another story, but theroetically, that's how it is.

ExXB : Internationally there is limited need for a ow product. Almost everyone returns. Emigrants, ships crews and students who are the exception qualify for their own fares usually.
It's a little more complex than that. When multi-sector fares are constructed, combinability rules have to be considered. This is why, for example, if you travelled AAA-BBB-AAA using the same carrier both ways, you would have more low fares available than if you travelled out and back on different carriers (excetion being if those carriers were in an alliance codeshare).

Taking this a step further, if you want a journey LON- MAD - BUE - SCL - MIA - LON and you 'mixed' carriers, you might find that the fare quote would give you the sum of one way fares on each sector, which would be rather like building a car from spare parts! If you chose carriers where the fares were combinable, you would perhaps get a half round trip fare LON -SCL and antoehr half round trip for SCL - LON, bearing in mind that a 1/2 RT is not the same as a one way. Then of course the question of pro-rates as mentioned comes into play, and where the fare is broken and how it is constructed materially impacts the value to each carrier of its coupons.

None of this answers the original question:
On that basis, why does BA seem to be exerting its pricing power only at Heathrow and not City as well ?
I don't know! Does anybody?

[WHBM]

Not using a return leg, even if you cancel, does theoretically expose you to the risk of being charged the full one way fare as the fare rules invariably have a condition such as : "Full and sequential use of flight coupons."

You may get away with it a couple of times but if you do it regularly you will almost certainly find yourself being charged.
Not so. The airline may have such a condition, and I suppose theoretically they could send you an invoice, but it is completely an unenforceable condition in law, for multiple legal reasons, which is why such a surcharge has never come to court. Among other things, it completely is foul of the Unfair Contract Terms Act.

One thing that would definitely arise in any such court case is that carriers incorporate the numbers who do not return (because round-trips are cheaper than one-ways) into their overbooking predictions, so effectively are selling the seat again and getting more revenue from the process.

A close parallel would be a restaurant with a fixed price menu, but also separate a la carte items. Waiter comes round at the end "you ordered from the fixed price, but I noticed you didn't eat your pudding, so now we're charging you for the items from the a la carte, which comes to more ....."

[Tableview]

The rules are there and are explicit. As I mentioned earlier I know of a case where a corporate travel agency was sent a series of ADMs by an airline for 'throw-away' tickting of this nature and they had no choice but to pay. The airlines have more leverage over an agency than an individual, as they can cancel the agency's accreditation and even ultimately its IATA/BSP/ARC membership.

There are parallels in other forms of transport too, ridiculous as they sound. There was the recent case of a man who bought a rail ticket from London to Newcastle and decided to get off at Durham (which is a few miles short of Newcastle). I know this got publicity as the rail company tried to charge him the fare difference and penalty - I don't know what the outcome was.

I also know of a case where an individual repeatedly used only the outbound portions of return tickets and the airline cancelled his FF membership and he forfeited the miles he'd earned.

Whether an airline has succesfully sued a passenger for a difference in these cases, I don't know.

[Hotel Tango]

I also know of a case where an individual repeatedly used only the outbound portions of return tickets and the airline cancelled his FF membership and he forfeited the miles he'd earned.

Would be interesting to know which carrier this was? Since apparently what they did was legal, there's no reason not to name them. I can then put them on my "no fly" list ;)

[Hipennine]

There's been similar things on Dover Calais ferries and Le Shuttle. Especially when the Channel tunnel first opened, it was way cheaper to buy 2 day returns (@ about £15 each) than a period return (@about £50), but they soon brought in the condition about using all sectors, and blocked UK computers buying tickets on the French site.

The rail ticket fiasco of Darlington vs Newcastle (actually it was Durham, where for some reason it's nearly always cheaper) is easily overcome now that they have auto-barriers, by buying a single ticket from Northallerton to Darlington, and the combined fare London-Durham plus Northallerton to Darlington is often less than London Darlington ! It works because in many instances, unlike air lines, 2 singles are usually cheaper than a return.

[WHBM]

The rules are there and are explicit.

No, no, Tableview, you cannot legally write your own rules as you please which override the law. That is a basic principle of UK (and much other) law.

You see many premises with "not responsible for articles" notices. Those are completely unenforceable, no matter how much the management may put up notices, and point to them if you have things stolen. The law says they are responsible and that is that.

[Tableview]

Would be interesting to know which carrier this was?
It was one of the US majors but I've forgotten which one so although I have a suspicion it would be unfair to name the wrong one.

WHBM : The question is, do those conditions override the law? Also, it might be permissible on one jurisdiction but not in another. This is similar (I accept not identical) to the Ryan Air €60 boarding pass debate. People agreed to the conditions and as unreasonable as they may be, they have been enforced. Apparently there was a court ruling in Spain but they seem to have ignored it and are still making the charge as the recent incident proves.

I have a friend who's a laywer and has been involved in the aviation business. I don't feel it's fair to phone him specifically to ask his view on this (he might charge me £300 an hour!), but I will bring it up in conversation next time I see him.

[ExXB]

Tableview: "It's a little more complex than that." I was referring to a passengers entire journey. Most passengers do not travel one-way. I agree once you bring fare construction and combinability into it the use of ow and 1/2 rt fares ads complexity.

WHBM. Complete and sequential use of coupons has gone to courts in the UK and in the EU numerous times. While some lower courts have ruled that these rules are unenforceable higher courts have always overturned them.

In simple terms the airlines have a price for just about every journey a passenger wishes to take. In this case they have one way prices for one way journeys and they have round trip prices for round trip journeys. While it may not be logical that the first is more expensive than the second it is not within the rights of the passenger to substitute the price for a service he is not using for the service he is.

I agree it is difficult to enforce these provisions, but airlines do take them seriously and will take action if they detect persistent and repeated abuse of their rules.

Have a look at LH's (and LX's) pricing model. One of the first questions you get (not exact wording) is "do you agree to 'complete and sequential use'? If so click here. Do you want the option not to be required to use ticket completely and sequentially? Click here. (if you chose the second option the pricing logic will select the most expensive option - the higher ow fare if applicable, higher intermediate fares, etc.)

This resulted from German Senior courts agreeing with LH that they have the right to require complete and sequential use, but their websites should give the passengers the option. Nobody ever choses the second option, but they are given the choice.

[davidjohnson6]

People - many thanks for the informative posts to my original question, but it's possible that general discussion of the often seen habit of buying a cheap return ticket and not using the 2nd sector is probably best discussed in a thread of its own.

Does anyone have any comments particularly relevant to the London-Madrid route, and IAG's pricing policy ? I'm particularly puzzled as to why there are cheap-ish one-way fares on LCY-MAD but the only one-way tickets for LHR-MAD are in business class, particularly given the existence of flights with Easyjet / Ryanair from Gatwick, Luton and Stansted. I can't figure out what kind of market segmentation IAG is trying to achieve by this policy.

[ExXB]

David, apologise for the thread drift.

I think the obvious answer is the right answer. i.e. Why do BA/IB charge what they do from LHR? A: Because they can.

If they were experiencing low yields / loads they would do something about it.